PDA

View Full Version : No more automatic appeals!!


OrangePower
07-27-2009, 10:14 AM
Was looking at the appeals info for the Norcal ESR ratings that just came out:

http://www.norcal.usta.com/NorCal/Global/Custom%20Pages/General/21545_Rating_Information_2009_Automatic_appeals.as px

Take note of the following line:

** NEW FOR 2010: Appeal is automatically denied for a player with 6 or more match dynamics.**

This is saying that if you have played 6 or more rated players across both Adult and Senior seasons, then you can't appeal if you get bumped up. A rated player is either computer rated, or a self-rated that has played enough matches to get a dynamic rating (3 matches, I think).

According to someone in the know, this is going to be implemented at the National level for 2010 and is not just for Norcal.

Anyone else have any additional info to confirm/deny this?

Assuming this is correct, it will severely limit the number of potential appeals... good thing or bad thing?

Cindysphinx
07-27-2009, 11:53 AM
I love it!! I think that is a great idea.

Nice find.

JavierLW
07-27-2009, 12:11 PM
Was looking at the appeals info for the Norcal ESR ratings that just came out:

http://www.norcal.usta.com/NorCal/Global/Custom%20Pages/General/21545_Rating_Information_2009_Automatic_appeals.as px

Take note of the following line:

** NEW FOR 2010: Appeal is automatically denied for a player with 6 or more match dynamics.**

This is saying that if you have played 6 or more rated players across both Adult and Senior seasons, then you can't appeal if you get bumped up. A rated player is either computer rated, or a self-rated that has played enough matches to get a dynamic rating (3 matches, I think).

According to someone in the know, this is going to be implemented at the National level for 2010 and is not just for Norcal.

Anyone else have any additional info to confirm/deny this?

Assuming this is correct, it will severely limit the number of potential appeals... good thing or bad thing?

This is awesome!!!

I think where they are right now have already helped a lot, at least in my league to make the levels a lot more fair.

Now they just need to work harder on the self rating system so you cant just go find some random ringer at the last minute to save your season.

stanfordtennis alum
07-27-2009, 01:08 PM
excellent idea, awesome...

BiGGieStuFF
07-27-2009, 02:25 PM
I'm not getting it. Even if you lose to these 6 players, you can't appeal?

BiGGieStuFF
07-27-2009, 02:30 PM
I read the link and it say a player that plays district, sectional or national cannot appeal? What if the player is a sub player that gets to play the meaningless matches in these playoffs? Yeah I'm still not getting the wording of the article.

OrangePower
07-27-2009, 03:14 PM
I'm not getting it. Even if you lose to these 6 players, you can't appeal?

Even if you lose, you can't appeal. Of course, if you lose all your matches, your chances of getting bumped up are pretty slim. Then again, you might very well get bumped down, and then you can't appeal up either. The theory as I understand it is that by virtue of playing at least 6 rated matches, the computer has enough info (statistically speaking) to establish an accurate rating for you that you should then not be allowed to overturn.

I read the link and it say a player that plays district, sectional or national cannot appeal? What if the player is a sub player that gets to play the meaningless matches in these playoffs? Yeah I'm still not getting the wording of the article.

Most of that page is from 2009. The parts about district, sectional etc is already part of the rule and being enforced. The part that is news for 2010 is that one line that they added that I quoted in my original post, thats talks about not being able to appeal if you have 6 or more matches under your belt.

OrangePower
07-27-2009, 03:20 PM
This is awesome!!!

I think where they are right now have already helped a lot, at least in my league to make the levels a lot more fair.

Now they just need to work harder on the self rating system so you cant just go find some random ringer at the last minute to save your season.

I would bet that within the next couple of years they will also tighten up the range that would trigger a DQ (make it easier to get DQ'd). Since there will be far fewer adjusted players, they won't have to worry about adjusted players getting DQ'd left right and center. So they will be able to be far stricter with self rated players and DQ them sooner rather than later if their results are better than expected. Just speculation on my part though.

BiGGieStuFF
07-27-2009, 03:21 PM
Even if you lose, you can't appeal. Of course, if you lose all your matches, your chances of getting bumped up are pretty slim. Then again, you might very well get bumped down, and then you can't appeal up either. The theory as I understand it is that by virtue of playing at least 6 rated matches, the computer has enough info (statistically speaking) to establish an accurate rating for you that you should then not be allowed to overturn.



Most of that page is from 2009. The parts about district, sectional etc is already part of the rule and being enforced. The part that is news for 2010 is that one line that they added that I quoted in my original post, thats talks about not being able to appeal if you have 6 or more matches under your belt.

It still doesn't make sense. If a player is within .05 of the lower level then they should be able to appeal regardless of how far their team advanced. What's the difference between one guy on a team that is within .05 and was on a team that didn't advance to sectionals and a guy who is within .05 and his team did advance to sectionals assuming that their record is the same.

OrangePower
07-27-2009, 03:27 PM
It still doesn't make sense. If a player is within .05 of the lower level then they should be able to appeal regardless of how far their team advanced. What's the difference between one guy on a team that is within .05 and was on a team that didn't advance to sectionals and a guy who is within .05 and his team did advance to sectionals assuming that their record is the same.

Maybe it doesn't make sense, but I think the reason this was done was to give more people an opportunity to make it to districts; so basically if you already made it to districts and got bumped then you would have to play at the higher level the next year, but if you didn't make it to districts then you would be able to appeal down and give it another shot.

Anyway, that was for 2009. It is no longer really relevant with the new 2010 rule, since both guys in the scenario you describe would not be able to appeal moving forwards (assuming they played 6 or more matches).

Cindysphinx
07-27-2009, 03:45 PM
I always figured the reason behind the benchmark player rule was that a benchmark player is someone who is (1) on a top team, and (2) regarded highly enough by the captain to be allowed to play a match in the playoffs.

That means a "B" player was probably a top player on a top team. It's a fair bet that such a person would dominate at a lower level and should not be allowed to appeal down.

That's my hunch, anyway.

JavierLW
07-27-2009, 04:01 PM
It still doesn't make sense. If a player is within .05 of the lower level then they should be able to appeal regardless of how far their team advanced. What's the difference between one guy on a team that is within .05 and was on a team that didn't advance to sectionals and a guy who is within .05 and his team did advance to sectionals assuming that their record is the same.

The reason it makes sense is because APPEALS are meant to address fluke issues anyway (medical issues, fluke statistics, etc.....)

Before auto-appeals though, Coordinators were giving Appeals away like hotcakes in some sections and not at all in others.

Someone from the national committee gave me one stat where even with just medical appeals almost 60% of them ended up a team that would make it to the playoffs and they would be back at their higher rating again.

The .05 barrier was meant to be such a SMALL increment that it would catch all of the fluke appeals automatically.

But because of the math involved, a HUGE percentage of players who were moved up won that appeal. It was pretty rare that you wouldnt. (in my state they had a 80% success rate)

So now they are tweaking it even more. First by not letting players who make it to the playoffs appeal. Which is fair because 50% of their rating is based on the playoffs which tends to be against better competition.

And now if they do what OrangePower says, they will just be addressing another fluke. (if you play too few matches anything weird can happen)

Nothing says they should give you that .05 at all!

It was dumb that they were moving X number of people up, and 80% of them were moving down. (especially in some areas where coordinators actually encouraged everyone to appeal, versus others where they had to pay to appeal)

OrangePower
07-27-2009, 05:23 PM
One of the things I'll enjoy most if appeals are sharply reduced... maybe we won't hear so many complaints about sandbagging (both real and imagined).

raiden031
08-11-2009, 05:44 PM
One of the things I'll enjoy most if appeals are sharply reduced... maybe we won't hear so many complaints about sandbagging (both real and imagined).

It won't make a difference. Most of the complaints are against self-rated players, not appealed players.

OrangePower
08-11-2009, 05:57 PM
It won't make a difference. Most of the complaints are against self-rated players, not appealed players.

I half agree...

Yes, many complaints are against self-rated players.

But I also see/hear many complaints about adjusted players who have appealed down, especially those that have a pattern of doing it year after year. They will no longer be able to do so.

Also people complain that some players manipulate their ratings, such that they don't get bumped up out of appeal range. This is now going to be much harder to do (margin of error is greatly reduced).

Regarding self-rated players, I have an easy solution - don't allow them to play beyond local league. Unfortunately there is somewhere between slim and zero chance that USTA would ever implement such an obvious solution...

hammer
08-11-2009, 11:42 PM
Yes, many complaints are against self-rated players.

But I also see/hear many complaints about adjusted players who have appealed down, especially those that have a pattern of doing it year after year. They will no longer be able to do so.



They could've fixed this part by only allowing one or two appeals during your "career". The third time that you get bumped up, you're stuck at your new level.

Great find, Orange! I heard about the new rule for 2010 from someone who was talking to one of the NorCal officials but couldn't find the actual announcement on the site (I was at work, so I didn't have a lot of time). Thanks.

Topaz
08-12-2009, 02:57 AM
I always figured the reason behind the benchmark player rule was that a benchmark player is someone who is (1) on a top team, and (2) regarded highly enough by the captain to be allowed to play a match in the playoffs.

That means a "B" player was probably a top player on a top team. It's a fair bet that such a person would dominate at a lower level and should not be allowed to appeal down.

That's my hunch, anyway.

No, 'B' simply means that you advanced to post season play. You can lose each one of those matches in post-season, but you'll still end up with a 'B'.

*******

No time to click on the article now...does it say anything regarding medical appeals?

OrangePower
08-12-2009, 08:12 AM
No time to click on the article now...does it say anything regarding medical appeals?

Does not mention medical appeals. So I assume that process is unchanged. I wonder if we're going to see an increase in the number of medical appeals now...

SJS
08-12-2009, 12:28 PM
Does not mention medical appeals. So I assume that process is unchanged. I wonder if we're going to see an increase in the number of medical appeals now...

Probably not. We were told this past year that fewer medical appeals would be granted. This is from our section website;


New USTA Medical

Appeal Procedures

The USTA Sections will not be granting many medical appeals because it is usually better to let the computer determine the NTRP Skill Level based on actual match play.

King Tut
08-13-2009, 07:11 AM
The concept for the appeals in the first place was that if you were in the lower 10% of your level (ie .05 in the range between 3.00 & 3.50) then if you felt that level was too much - you could round down instead of up.

I believe that the problem was that upon granting the appeal - they would "reset" the dynamic to the top of the level instead of just leaving it where it is and just allowing you to register for that lower level league.

It is so hard with the current computer system to ever get moved down - that should be addressed more than how to bump even more people up. The highest percentage of those who drop out of USTA are from those who get bumped - lose all their matches - do not get moved back - give up.

I also think that there should be something factored in for winning or losing a match. Like for every consective win and additional .01 is added to the dynamic - so if you have just won you 5th straight match - it would do it's current thing - then add .05 or likewise with losses.

People are more likely to "fudge" games than they are wins and losses.

Two time captain of a national championship team.

raiden031
08-13-2009, 07:19 AM
The concept for the appeals in the first place was that if you were in the lower 10% of your level (ie .05 in the range between 3.00 & 3.50) then if you felt that level was too much - you could round down instead of up.

I believe that the problem was that upon granting the appeal - they would "reset" the dynamic to the top of the level instead of just leaving it where it is and just allowing you to register for that lower level league.

It is so hard with the current computer system to ever get moved down - that should be addressed more than how to bump even more people up. The highest percentage of those who drop out of USTA are from those who get bumped - lose all their matches - do not get moved back - give up.

I also think that there should be something factored in for winning or losing a match. Like for every consective win and additional .01 is added to the dynamic - so if you have just won you 5th straight match - it would do it's current thing - then add .05 or likewise with losses.

People are more likely to "fudge" games than they are wins and losses.

Two time captain of a national championship team.

Honestly most people who get bumped up do belong at the next level up, so there's no real reason to allow the appeal back down. Its often painful in that you will lose alot the following year, but you just gotta get through it.

It doesn't make sense to add NTRP points for consecutive wins. I mean if you beat inferior opponents over and over, that should not cause your rating to skyrocket.

JavierLW
08-13-2009, 07:30 AM
Two time captain of a national championship team.

Thanks for being honest about where you are coming from.

I find it pretty frequent that successful players from successful teams that win almost every year, try to claim that at their local level players are rated too high, rather then that they are rated too low.

(or that when they finally do get moved up to the next level they cant stand it that they are not winning all the time, because they were only in it....to win it.....which is not really what USTA Tennis was all about....)

King Tut
08-13-2009, 08:13 AM
What I see is once players get moved up - they leave USTA. Yes a many of the "champions" belong at the next level and do move there and stay there. In a period of 10 years of being a captain - between a 3.0 and a 3.5 team - we went through over 200 different players - most won - got moved up - lost badly - never got moved down - quit. Only about 5 of 200+ were good enough to be a champion at the next level.

We all want competitive tennis - a smear is no fun for either person. But when you play two seasons of matches and are 0-10 and do not get moved back - come on - you are going to give up and sit out your time and re-enter as a self rate.

The point about win or loss as part of the ratings is that few want to beat someone 0-0 so after you are way ahead, you let up a bit. And if the finals score is 6-2, 6-2 instead of 6-0, 6-0 those players do not move much.

And we all play the game to win - not measure success by how many games we can win off someone who always beats us. Back when we had visual raters going around - they were guys who could as I say "win ugly" - they had poor form - looked bad - never got moved up and could win all the time.

To me if you can go 12-0 for a year - you need to be moved up and if you go 0-12 you need to be moved down. That is not happening enough - your win / loss record means nothing. I am always hearing complaints about so and so has not won or lost all year and did not get moved. Nobody can intuitively understand that and it causes distrust and frustration with the system.

King Tut
08-13-2009, 08:20 AM
Honestly most people who get bumped up do belong at the next level up ..... I mean if you beat inferior opponents over and over, that should not cause your rating to skyrocket.

If you are playing against what you consider "inferior" players - you are probably at the wrong level. And if you beat them over and over - yes you should get moved up to the next level pretty quickly.

But remember - it is also getting moved back down because you are losing all the time as well that is not addressed. Those are the ones who leave the game and lose interest. If you can not win one match all year - they need to allow you to go down one level. Certainly if you win too much at the lower lever - you will get moved back up which is fine also.

raiden031
08-13-2009, 09:40 AM
If you are playing against what you consider "inferior" players - you are probably at the wrong level. And if you beat them over and over - yes you should get moved up to the next level pretty quickly.

But remember - it is also getting moved back down because you are losing all the time as well that is not addressed. Those are the ones who leave the game and lose interest. If you can not win one match all year - they need to allow you to go down one level. Certainly if you win too much at the lower lever - you will get moved back up which is fine also.

From what I gather about NTRP ratings, one break of serve is equilalent to about a 0.07 differential. I would say that someone who is 0.25 above their opponent would win the match 9 out of 10 times. So yeah if you are at the top of the level, you will beat lower players over and over again.

I went 1-8 at 4.0 this year, but I know I can beat the top 3.5 players in the league. If I played back down at 3.5 I would destroy the lower level 3.5 players and only have competitive matches against the top-rated players. USTA's philosophy is that its better to be getting bageled than to bagel others. In other words USTA believes I should be a 4.0 where I get crushed, than a 3.5 where I am doing the crushing. Thats the way it goes. I wouldn't dream of appealing down, but will play whatever level USTA puts me at.

To be honest I'm quite surprised that the USTA algorithm was able to spot me as a 4.0, because I just barely performed well enough to be there, and its based on performance at 3.0 Nationals. If USTA can detect that I'm better than a 3.5 based on 3.0 level play, their system is working well. Because I knew that I was better than 3.5, but didn't think the system would detect it.

King Tut
08-13-2009, 10:27 AM
So how many years of 1-8 will you enjoy before you want for one season back down to have success - go to districts - etc - then get moved back up for another couple of years.

Moving back and forth in not the issue. My issue is that you could NEVER get moved back if you "top out" at say 3.55 and always play people who are 3.95 - by your calculations that is 5 breaks or about losing every time at 6-0, 6-2 and if the opponent is somewhat a sociable person they just might giver you those 2 or 3 games to keep it a bit friendly and you never move down and never win and eventually take up some other sport.

You got to have the hope of winning once in a while.

raiden031
08-13-2009, 10:37 AM
So how many years of 1-8 will you enjoy before you want for one season back down to have success - go to districts - etc - then get moved back up for another couple of years.

Moving back and forth in not the issue. My issue is that you could NEVER get moved back if you "top out" at say 3.55 and always play people who are 3.95 - by your calculations that is 5 breaks or about losing every time at 6-0, 6-2 and if the opponent is somewhat a sociable person they just might giver you those 2 or 3 games to keep it a bit friendly and you never move down and never win and eventually take up some other sport.

You got to have the hope of winning once in a while.

If you really don't belong then you will be moved down eventually. But of course if you are like me and do belong but are just bottom of the barrel, then you gotta work harder.

You can't really play USTA socially and expect competitive matches at the same time. Thats the ideal but it just doesn't work. USTA is too competitive to really allow social players to make it. If you want to play well at your level, you have to work on your game.

damazing
08-13-2009, 12:13 PM
So based on the algorithm, if your section contains mostly mid to high 4.0's you may have a lot of improvement to do before you can win 50% of your matches.

It would be interesting to see how many people are on either end of the rating - i.e. low 4.0 or high 4.0 per section. I guess I'm saying that some sections may be more competitive overall if more of the players are concentrated near each other within the 4.0 rating.

Since you had a 1-8 record, have you looked at the records for the people that beat you and were they all relatively competitive with each other?

JavierLW
08-13-2009, 12:14 PM
You got to have the hope of winning once in a while.

Maybe YOU have to have some hope of winning once in awhile.

But the rest of us are not relying on "hope". Rather then sitting back lazily expecting to get put in some level that's too easy for us for much of the year, we challenge ourselves to do better.

Just because you've given up doesnt mean that's the case for everyone...., and it especially doesnt mean that's the right thing to do for everyone.

Obviously when you get moved up you have to work harder for your success.

Maybe you dont like that and you dont want to work harder, but that's just too bad, it doesnt mean you have some right to stay where you were where you are clobbering the lower level players.

raiden031
08-13-2009, 01:02 PM
So based on the algorithm, if your section contains mostly mid to high 4.0's you may have a lot of improvement to do before you can win 50% of your matches.

It would be interesting to see how many people are on either end of the rating - i.e. low 4.0 or high 4.0 per section. I guess I'm saying that some sections may be more competitive overall if more of the players are concentrated near each other within the 4.0 rating.

Since you had a 1-8 record, have you looked at the records for the people that beat you and were they all relatively competitive with each other?

Here's what I noticed in my area and suspect its the same in most areas. Typically the rookies play doubles and the singles players are veterans and usually higher rated within the level. Most of the guys who beat me had strong records in singles. I've beaten a couple of 4.0 rookies outside of usta competition, but these guys don't play singles in usta league matches, but instead play only doubles.

I would suspect most regions have alot of low 4.0s since the average player in most regions is about a 3.5 anyways, but its just some areas might have more strong 4.0s, 4.5s, and 5.0s than others. But if all the low 4.0s play doubles, it doesn't really help out a low 4.0 who would prefer to play singles (like me).

goober
08-13-2009, 01:53 PM
Here's what I noticed in my area and suspect its the same in most areas. Typically the rookies play doubles and the singles players are veterans and usually higher rated within the level. Most of the guys who beat me had strong records in singles. I've beaten a couple of 4.0 rookies outside of usta competition, but these guys don't play singles in usta league matches, but instead play only doubles.
.
In my area-
I have noticed that the doubles teams typically at 4.0 are often the veterans and have been there for years and represent the captain and core members of the team. They are usually older players in the 35-50 year old range and have been playing USTA for a long time. They bring in singles players that are younger (20s and 30s). Usually the singles players, if they are good, will get bumped at the end of the year. Occasionally the singles player will play #3 dubs in a meaningless match or the older dubs players will play singles to *ahem* manage their ratings.

raiden031
08-13-2009, 06:36 PM
In my area-
I have noticed that the doubles teams typically at 4.0 are often the veterans and have been there for years and represent the captain and core members of the team. They are usually older players in the 35-50 year old range and have been playing USTA for a long time. They bring in singles players that are younger (20s and 30s). Usually the singles players, if they are good, will get bumped at the end of the year. Occasionally the singles player will play #3 dubs in a meaningless match or the older dubs players will play singles to *ahem* manage their ratings.

I guess you can say the young singles players are good in that they are transitioning from juniors, high school, or college into USTA. They aren't like normal computer-bumped rookies who have recently improved into a new level. The doubles players are often veterans as well, and guys who have lost a step and can no longer compete at singles.

But the older singles players are not usually recent-bump ups though, which is my main point.

OrangePower
08-13-2009, 09:35 PM
Maybe YOU have to have some hope of winning once in awhile.

But the rest of us are not relying on "hope". Rather then sitting back lazily expecting to get put in some level that's too easy for us for much of the year, we challenge ourselves to do better.

Just because you've given up doesnt mean that's the case for everyone...., and it especially doesnt mean that's the right thing to do for everyone.

Obviously when you get moved up you have to work harder for your success.

Maybe you dont like that and you dont want to work harder, but that's just too bad, it doesn't mean you have some right to stay where you were where you are clobbering the lower level players.

Well, I understand what you're saying, and you're right if looking at it from the perspective of a youngish player who still has room to improve.

But unfortunately, we are all going to hit a peak at one point or another, based on innate talent, time available to practice, age, and so on. It's not purely a matter of working hard / not being lazy.

From what I've seen, once players reach their peak, they can maintain that level for several years (sometimes even a decade or two), and then they begin to decline with advancing age.

Since the levels are arbitrary, for some people the peak will be right at the bottom of a level. At that point, they are too good to play in the next lower level, and too bad to be competitive at their own level. And they have no ability to improve further.

I may be in this category, and your comments are kinda harsh for someone like me. Let me explain:

I am in my 40's. I returned to tennis a few years ago after close to 20 years away from the game. I've improved a lot in the last few years, and this season went 14-2 playing 4.0 singles. I will probably get bumped up to 4.5. This will be great for my ego. But I will struggle to win any singles matches at the 4.5 level. At least around here, most 4.5 singles players are much younger and quite frankly much more talented that I am. I hope I can improve still, but realistically, I'm just not that talented, and I'm not getting any younger either. So there is a strong chance that this is as good as it gets for me, no matter how hard I work at improving.

Of course I hope to prove myself wrong :)

But I can definitely see what King Tut is saying. If I end up as a bottom-feeder 4.5 for the next 5 years, it will be hard to keep my spirits up. I might even have to start playing doubles (shudder!).

Raiden is in a different boat I think since he has much more upside. Javier, sounds like you are also relatively young and have room to improve. But eventually you too will reach a peak.

King Tut
08-14-2009, 06:01 AM
Since the levels are arbitrary, for some people the peak will be right at the bottom of a level. At that point, they are too good to play in the next lower level, and too bad to be competitive at their own level. And they have no ability to improve further.

I should have mentioned that I play in the 50+ leagues and now even the 60+ leagues. We do not even have singles - only doubles. And most everyone has reached their peak and are just hoping to hold on where we are. You get the bump and most likely will not ever get moved back because you are good enough to hang in there - but not good enough to ever win against the top of the level guys.

On a personal note, I take it Orange Power is a NorCal person. I have made many friends through nationals with the guys from St Mary's in 08 and Memorial Park - Albany near Oakland in 06. NorCal has their own great computer program - a bit different than TennisLink - but quite good.

OrangePower
08-14-2009, 09:14 AM
I should have mentioned that I play in the 50+ leagues and now even the 60+ leagues. We do not even have singles - only doubles. And most everyone has reached their peak and are just hoping to hold on where we are. You get the bump and most likely will not ever get moved back because you are good enough to hang in there - but not good enough to ever win against the top of the level guys.

On a personal note, I take it Orange Power is a NorCal person. I have made many friends through nationals with the guys from St Mary's in 08 and Memorial Park - Albany near Oakland in 06. NorCal has their own great computer program - a bit different than TennisLink - but quite good.

Yup I'm in Norcal. I live/play in the East Bay and so I know most of the St Mary and Memorial Park folks. Nice people all.