PDA

View Full Version : DOT Ratings 7 December 2007. V 4.0


Wuornos
12-07-2007, 03:38 AM
I can't help but think there is some confusion surrounding the DOT Ratings and which methodology is now being used etc. This is my fault as I should have use d a better system in labelling the threads.

In breif though the wor of the past couple of months has been abandoned and I have reverted to version v 2.3. Because of the early nomenclature I have assigned this v 4.0 to make it clear to those reading that this is the current preferred methodology.

The methodology description can be found at: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=165420.

To clarify the current outputs, below is a list of all singles players of the open era with peak ratings exceeding 2600 DOT.

Men

1 Roger Federer 2841
2 Rod Laver 2806
3 Ivan Lendl 2786
4 Björn Borg 2771
5 Mats Wilander 2764
6 Pete Sampras 2762
7 John McEnroe 2738
8 Ken Rosewall 2736
9 Jim Courier 2734
10 Boris Becker 2726
11 Stefan Edberg 2716
12 Rafael Nadal 2711
13 John Newcombe 2710
14 Jimmy Connors 2706
15 Andre Agassi 2694
16 Stan Smith 2690
17 Arthur Ashe 2687
18 Guillermo Vilas 2680
19 Tony Roche 2673
20 Ilie Năstase 2672
21 Pat Cash 2665
22 Jan Kodeš 2664
23 Vitas Gerulaitis 2655
24 Andy Roddick 2651
25 Lleyton Hewitt 2649
26 Novak Đoković 2647
27 Michael Chang 2645
28 Patrick Rafter 2643
29 Michael Stich 2641
30 Juan Carlos Ferrero 2640
31 Miloslav Mečíř 2636
32 Nikolay Davydenko 2630
33 Todd Martin 2629
34 Marat Safin 2628
35 Sergi Bruguera 2628
36 Manuel Orantes 2626
37 Tom Okker 2626
38 Yevgeny Kafelnikov 2625
39 Johan Kriek 2622
40 Andrés Gimeno 2620
41 Petr Korda 2620
42 Henri Leconte 2620
43 Roscoe Tanner 2618
44 Goran Ivanišević 2617
45 David Nalbandian 2616
46 Gustavo Kuerten 2616
47 Carlos Moyà 2616
48 Richard Krajicek 2614
49 Yannick Noah 2614
50 Thomas Muster 2612
51 Marcos Baghdatis 2612
52 Kevin Curren 2609
53 Fernando González 2604
54 Alex Metreveli 2603
55 Thomas Johansson 2602
56 Roger Taylor 2601



Women

1 Margaret Smith Court 2880
2 Steffi Graf 2880
3 Martina Navratilova 2878
4 Monica Seles 2837
5 Chris Evert 2823
6 Serena Williams 2797
7 Billie Jean King 2781
8 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 2769
9 Martina Hingis 2762
10 Evonne Goolagong 2752
11 Venus Williams 2750
12 Justine Henin 2749
13 Hana Mandlíková 2747
14 Lindsay Davenport 2731
15 Gabriela Sabatini 2721
16 Jennifer Capriati 2713
17 Ann Jones 2705
18 Amélie Mauresmo 2701
19 Maria Sharapova 2696
20 Kim Clijsters 2689
21 Helena Suková 2683
22 Rosemary Casals 2681
23 Conchita Martínez 2678
24 Mary Joe Fernández 2674
25 Mary Pierce 2674
26 Andrea Jaeger 2673
27 Jana Novotná 2673
28 Tracy Austin 2668
29 Nancy Richey 2664
30 Virginia Wade 2661
31 Zina Garrison 2659
32 Iva Majoli 2646
33 Claudia Kohde-Kilsch 2645
34 Olga Morozova 2643
35 Kerry Reid 2643
36 Pam Shriver 2639
37 Karen Krantzcke 2636
38 Françoise Durr 2633
39 Svetlana Kuznetsova 2631
40 Anastasia Myskina 2630
41 Kathy Jordan 2629
42 Helga Niessen Masthoff 2624
43 Wendy Turnbull 2623
44 Winnie Shaw 2621
45 Sue Barker 2620
46 Kimiko Date 2618
47 Mima Jaušovec 2617
48 Judy Tegart 2615
49 Jo Durie 2614
50 Helen Gourlay 2613
51 Manuela Maleeva 2610
52 Yelena Dementieva 2609
53 Betty Stöve 2609
54 Renáta Tomanová 2609
55 Virginia Ruzici 2608
56 Amanda Coetzer 2608
57 Carling Bassett-Seguso 2607
58 Catarina Lindqvist 2607
59 Julie Heldman 2607
60 Lori McNeil 2603
61 Ana Ivanović 2602
62 Dianne Fromholtz 2600

Where rating appears the same but ranks are different, this because ratings are rounded to the nearest whole number.

I am still trying to find time to finish off my article that shows how how long players would have been number 1 in the DOT Rankings and how this compares with both the peak DOT Rating and the official rankings.

Take care all.

Tim

Wuornos
12-07-2007, 08:14 AM
The following is an analysis of DOT Rankings with Official Rankings and DOT Ratings

DOT Ratings are a more sophisticated methodology of comparing the performance of player within the top 50 tennis playing population. The basis of the formulae used are Dominance x Opposition Strength x Tournament Status. I do not intend to go into greater depth here regarding the methodology as a description can be found in thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=165420.

First let us quickly look at those players achieving the accolade of #1 player within each the of the official rankings and the DOT Rankings

The following 23 players have held the official #1 position in the tennis rankings since the inception of the rankings in 1973. They are ordered by the date in which they first achieved the rank.

1 Ilie Năstase
2 John Newcombe
3 Jimmy Connors
4 Björn Borg
5 John McEnroe
6 Ivan Lendl
7 Mats Wilander
8 Stefan Edberg
9 Boris Becker
10 Jim Courier
11 Pete Sampras
12 Andre Agassi
13 Thomas Muster
14 Marcelo Ríos
15 Carlos Moyà
16 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
17 Patrick Rafter
18 Marat Safin
19 Gustavo Kuerten
20 Lleyton Hewitt
21 Juan Carlos Ferrero
22 Andy Roddick
23 Roger Federer

The following 18 players have held the #1 position in the DOT Rankings since the start of the Open Era. Again they are ordered by the date in which they first achieved the Rank. Only 15 of these players have been #1 on the DOT Rankings since the inception of the official ranking list. Those being ranked #1 on the DOT and appearing only before the inception of the official rankings were Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall and Stan Smith.

1 Ken Rosewall
2 Rod Laver
3 John Newcombe
4 Stan Smith
5 Ilie Năstase
6 Jimmy Connors
7 Guillermo Vilas
8 Björn Borg
9 John McEnroe
10 Ivan Lendl
11 Mats Wilander
12 Boris Becker
13 Stefan Edberg
14 Jim Courier
15 Pete Sampras
16 Andre Agassi
17 Lleyton Hewitt
18 Roger Federer

I will now go on to look at the duration that each #1 player held the accolade for both DOT and official rankings and compare this with the DOT Rating. Again I will work in chronological order.

First let me deal with those players who achieved the #1 position in DOT before the inception of the of the official rankings.

1. Ken Rosewall achieved DOT #1 after the first major of the open era when he won the French Open of 1968. It is debateable whether he actual was the best player at that time as DOT was running off limited data. What is not debateable is that he was a definite #1 player during the opn era. On DOT he held the #1 position for a period of 7 majors, although these were not consecutive. His peak DOT Rating was 2736.

2. Immediately following Ken Rosewall’s initial achievement of the #1 rank, the position was rested from him by Rod Laver. Despite Rod being in the twilight of his career he held the position for 10 majors and achieved a peak DOT Rating of 2806. Laver’s reign at DOT Ranking #1 was obviously limited by his age as his duration at the top places him as the 7th longest of the open era, while his DOT Ratings makes him the second best player of the open era, behind only Federer.

3. John Newcombe was the only player who was DOT Ranking #1 both before and after the inception of the official rankings. Within the DOT Rankings he held the #1 position for 7 majors although not consecutively. 3 of these were before the inception of the official rankings and 4 afterwards. While John Newcombe held the the official #1 position for 8 weeks, this is almost certainly understating his achievements. His peak DOT Rating was 2710, well within the area we would expect for a genuine #1 player and multiple major winner. I cannot agree with the duration of Ilie Năstase holding the top position for 40 weeks compared with the short time John Newcombe held the position. The DOT Rankings acknowledge Ilie Năstase as the #1 for the first major of the official rankings, but then put John Newcombe as the best player in the world for the next 3 consecutive majors.

4. Stan Smith followed John Newcombe’s initial reign as the DOT rankings #1 prior to the inception of the official rankings. He only held the position for 1 major following the Wimbledon Championships of 1972. I think this is fair reflection for a player who won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at a DOT Rating of 2690.

5. Now we move into the period of the official rankings. The first player to be awarded the #1 slot was Ilie Năstase. He reigned for 40 weeks on the official rankings but only 1 major in the DOT Rankings. He won 2 majors in the open era and while DOT is happy to acknowledge him as it’s #1 player for a short period it cannot award the accolade for longer given the dominance of other players at that time. Ilie Năstase’s peak DOT Rating was 2672.

6. After the brief reign of John Newcombe in the official rankings comes Jimmy Connors. Jimmy is an anomaly within DOT. He was never rated as high as some of the other greats and yet is held in very high regard by the tennis community. In the official rankings Jimmy reigned supreme for a none consecutive total of 268 weeks in the #1 position. Despite his lowish DOT Rating of 2706, 14th place of the open era, DOT actually agrees with his long duration at #1. He was the best player in the world for a period of 16 majors, capitalising on poor standards when he first arrived on the scene and then again slumps in form by John McEnroe in the early 1980s. His 16 major DOT Reign at #1 makes him 4th= in the list of #1 longevity in DOT. Of course this equates to approximately 4 year at the top or 208 weeks. Not identical to the official rankings, but close enough to show that his low DOT Rating is not inconsistent with his achievements of 8 majors and long time reign in the official rankings. Jimmy maybe the first player in this analysis to show the DOT Ratings while disagreeing with the general consensus of the Tennis Community are consistent with the official rankings and results but he is not the last.

7. Guillermo Vilas is an extreme rarity in this analysis. With 23 players making it to the official #1 position but only 15 doing the same for DOT over the same period, he is the only player acknowledged by DOT as #1 but not by the official methodology. Guillermo Vilas reigned for 2 majors at #1 in the DOT Rankings and achieved a DOT Rating peak of 2680. He won 4 majors in the open era. I feel that he has a more legitimate claim to the #1 spot than many people who held the position on the official rankings.

8. It would be difficult for any ranking system not to put Björn Borg at the top of its rankings at some point. The DOT Ratings show him to have peak of 2771 making him the 4th strongest player of the open era. His career was short and he retired while at the top of his game when facing the first serious challenge of his career from John McEnroe. Despite this DOT Rankings have him as the #1 ranked player for a period 17 majors, i.e. just over 4 years. Marginally longer than Jimmy Connors but far more concentrated and consecutive. The official rankings show Björn Borg’s reign at #1 lasting for a total of 109 weeks, i.e. just over 2 years. I am surprised by this as it seems much to short. Looking at the official rankings Björn Borg spent much of his career as #2 to Jimmy Connors. DOT actually calculates the reverse to be the case. This is an example of where DOT does differ markedly from the official rankings, but to be honest I trust DOT more than the official figures.

Wuornos
12-07-2007, 08:14 AM
9. Björn Borg was eventually unseated by another great of the game, John McEnroe. John McEnroe has a DOT Rating of 2738 making him the 7th strongest player of the open era. He reigned as the official #1 for a total of 170 weeks or just over 3 years winning 7 majors. This puts him 5th on the list of official #1 longevity. The DOT Rankings see him as reigning for 9 majors or just over 2 years. 8th on the list of DOT Ranking #1 longevity. Different but not massively so. Both systems see him as dominant for several years as the strongest player in the world following the reign of Björn Borg.

10. I must confess here to not understanding many fans opinions regarding Ivan Lendl. I can only think his value as a top player is somewhat devalued by a simplistic approach of his major count being lower than he deserves. He won 8 majors but made 19 major finals, the highest of any player. He reigned at #1 for a period of 270 weeks making him 2nd on the list of official #1 longevity. DOT rates him with a peak rating of 2786, 3rd on the open era list with only Laver and Federer ahead of him. His reign at the top of the DOT Rankings was for 20 majors or 5 years or 260 weeks. Putting him 2nd on #1 longevity on the DOT Ratings too. DOT ratings seem 100% consistent here with the official rankings.

11. Mats Wilander figures high in the DOT Rating with a score of 2764. However, he was not massively dominant apart from a short period and won only 7 majors When he was at his best though he was not only dominant but was competing against players like Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg, Pat Cash and Boris Becker. DOT calculates to win 7 majors in a period of such quality was exceptional hence his 5th place on the list of highest DOT Ratings. On the DOT Rankings though the quality of opposition faced is not taken into account and consequently, while he did make it to the #1 position, he only held the rank for 1 major. This short period is comparable with the official rankings where he reigned for a total of 20 weeks. Again we can see here evidence that the DOT Ratings and Rankings are consistent with the official rankings.

12. Next in the official rankings came Stefan Edberg. He put together 6 majors, one less than Wilander and achieved a DOT Rating of 2716. 48 points short of Wilander. Despite these facts, accounting for the opposition faced etc both DOT Rankings and the official rankings show him as reigning at the top of each list for longer than Wilander. In fact the actual figures are 72 weeks and 3 majors respectively.

13. Boris Becker is one of the few anomalies between the official rankings and the DOT Ratings and Rankings. The official rankings show him as #1 for a period of only 12 weeks. However, despite his DOT Rating being lower than Wilander’s, the DOT Rankings show him as being #1 for a period of 4 majors. Having said this there is so little to pick between Edberg and Becker at this time, it come as little surprise that DOT arrives at a different conclusion to the official rankings.

14. For me Jim Courier is another Lendl. His major count is down on what would ordinarily be expected of a player who achieves a 2734 DOT Rating, but in both the official rankings and DOT Rankings he reigns longer than both Becker and Wilander. In the DOT Rankings he holds the #1 position for 5 majors, while in the official rankings he is present at # 1 for 58 weeks.

15. Pete Sampras is I believe further proof that the DOT Ratings are correct. Many people believe Sampras to be the possible GOAT but his DOT Rating of 2762 is only enough to make him 6th on the list of men’s singles players of the open era. Having said that the DOT Rankings show him as the # 1 player for a period of 26 majors or over 6 years. The official rankings show him as reining for 286 weeks. We can see that allowing for the consistency between the DOT Ranking and the official ranking and the low peak DOT Rating, that the competition was not particularly outstanding at this time. Hence ‘Pistol Pete’ has an outstanding record against competition that was mediocre compared with other periods at the top of the men’s game. By and large he faced good players but not at the time they were good. I consider the low DOT Rating coupled with the correlation between the high DOT Ranking and the official ranking another good example of how DOT analysis brings achievements into focus,

16. Andre Agassi is very similar results and data wise and Jimmy Connors. They both won 8 majors, spread over a long period of time. They both lost 7 major finals spread over a long period of time. Both reigned at the top of the game for longish perods in times of reduced talent and played second fiddle to greater players at other times in their career. Agassi achieved a DOT Rating of 2694. Despite never breaking the 2700 point barrier he was #1 on the official rankings for a period of 101 weeks, much of this coming when Sampras’ career was all but over. DOT Rankings show him reigning for 13 majors, again a long period given his limited DOT Rating and again indicative of the opposition he faced.

17. I will now amalgamate the next few players as to me it is bizarre that many of them were regarded as #1s by the official rankings.

Thomas Muster Majors won = 1 Official reign as #1 = 6 weeks DOT Rating = 2612. Best DOT Ranking = #4 for period of 1 Major.

Marcelo Ríos Majors won = 0 Official reign as #1 = 6 weeks DOT Rating = 2593. Best DOT Ranking = #7 for period of 1 Major.

Carlos Moyà Majors won = 1 Official reign as #1 = 2 weeks DOT Rating = 2616. Best DOT Ranking = #3 for period of 1 Major.

Yevgeny Kafelnikov Majors won = 2 Official reign as #1 = 6 weeks DOT Rating = 2625. Best DOT Ranking = #3 for period of 5 Majors.

Patrick Rafter Majors won = 2 Official reign as #1 = 1 week DOT Rating = 2643. Best DOT Ranking = #2 for period of 5 Majors.

Marat Safin Majors won = 2 Official reign as #1 = 9 weeks DOT Rating = 2628. Best DOT Ranking = #3 for period of 3 Majors.

Gustavo Kuerten Majors won = 3 Official reign as #1 = 43 weeks DOT Rating = 2616. Best DOT Ranking = #4 for period of 4 Majors.

Juan Carlos Ferrero Majors won = 1 Official reign as #1 = 8 weeks DOT Rating = 2640. Best DOT Ranking = #2 for period of 2 Majors.

Andy Roddick Majors won = 1 Official reign as #1 = 13 weeks DOT Rating = 2651. Best DOT Ranking = #2 for period of 3 Majors.

I’m not going to comment on these other than to say, and I know I’ve said this before and people disagreed with me, but it appears looking at the data as if the official rankings took on greater volatility.

18. Lleyton Hewitt is the player with the lowest DOT Rating to have achieved #1 DOT Ranking. He has won 2 majors in his career and has a peak DOT of 2649. He was top of the official rankings for a remarkable 80 weeks, but topped the DOT Rankings for just 1 major.

19 Roger Federer is the DOT Rating Goat. He is currently peaking at 2841, 35 points ahead of Laver. DOT calculates his opposition to be on a par with Sampras’ opposition and yet he is far more dominant. He has been at the top of the official rankings for over 200 weeks, almost 4 years, and has topped the DOT Rankings for 16 majors.

20 In conclusion the above should show how player standard does not have a direct correlation on the number of majors won or reign at #1 on the official rankings. It also shows for the majority of players how the DOT Rating is consistent with the achievements of that player by showing the good correlation between DOT Rankings and the official rankings.

Take care all

Tim

Nickognito
12-07-2007, 08:30 AM
So, majors #1 DOT

1)sampras 26
2)lendl 20
3)borg17
4)connors and federer 16
6)agassi 13
7)laver 10
8 )mcenroe 9
9)rosewall and newcombe 7
11)courier 5
12)wilander and edberg 3
14)vilas 2
15)smith, nastase and hewitt 1

right?

c.

Wuornos
12-07-2007, 08:52 AM
So, majors #1 DOT

1)sampras 26
2)lendl 20
3)borg17
4)connors and federer 16
6)agassi 13
7)laver 10
8 )mcenroe 9
9)rosewall and newcombe 7
11)courier 5
12)wilander and edberg 3
14)vilas 2
15)smith, nastase and hewitt 1

right?

c.

Yes that's how long each player would have been at #1 based on DOT except you need to put Becker in with 4 and Wilander would have only reigned for 1 major.

The correlation between these and the official ranking reigns at number 1 can be seen as a justification between the differences in achievement and standards of play.

Essentailly what it is saying is that if Sampras was playing tennis according to his DOT Rating (which is lower than most people think he deserves), we would expect him to have reigned at #1 for a period of six and a half years, based on the DOT ratings achieved by other players at that time.

However, the reign at #1 for DOT cannot be seen as any more reliable an indicator of standard than the official #1 position. I only really produced it to show that the DOT Ratings calculated are consistent, allowing for a bit of deviation to do with luck, with the official rankings calculated.

Hope this makes sense.

Regards

Tim

rogerfederer26
12-07-2007, 10:26 PM
We are all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Wuornos
12-08-2007, 02:59 AM
We are all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Oh dear I'm sorry you feel like that. Am I wasting my time with all this? :(

Tim

Steve132
12-08-2007, 08:50 PM
Oh dear I'm sorry you feel like that. Am I wasting my time with all this? :(

Tim


No, you're not. Please continue to post. I find your contributions to this forum extremely valuable.

Wuornos
12-09-2007, 03:33 AM
No, you're not. Please continue to post. I find your contributions to this forum extremely valuable.

Thanks Steve.

It's nice to know that what I am doing is appreciated by a few. If I though otherwise I would stop.

Thanks again

Tim

World Beater
12-09-2007, 07:56 PM
Thanks Steve.

It's nice to know that what I am doing is appreciated by a few. If I though otherwise I would stop.

Thanks again

Tim

you should consider educating the masses at ****************.com

Many, many people would appreciate your analysis.

Well done. Very analytical and thought provoking stuff...keep it up

World Beater
12-09-2007, 07:56 PM
you should consider educating the masses at ****************.com

Many, many people would appreciate your analysis.

Well done. Very analytical and thought provoking stuff...keep it up

its mens$# tennis$%forums$% . com

remove the characters and fill the blanks

CyBorg
12-09-2007, 09:03 PM
I'm not surprised Connors is a bit low in the ratings, considering the kind of tournaments that he played in the mid-70s - he avoided the clay season entirely and skipped much of the WCT competition in favour of other events. Essentially what we know best about Jimmy from that time period is from the majors. Outside of that no statistical system can provide us with a satisfying conclusion.

Excellent thread.