PDA

View Full Version : USTA 2010 Ratings Bump - Playing Up a Level = More likely to be bumped


g4driver
11-30-2010, 08:56 AM
I think I broke the USTA Code for at least a portion this year's bumps.

In my area, 64 3.5 Men played both 3.5 and 4.0. 37 (57.8%) of the 64 were bumped, while 27 (42%) remained at 3.5. But it gets more interesting.

My theory is the the USTA awards more Dynamic Rating Points for playing up than winning (unless winning decisively) at your current level. Wins at current level (unless the margin of victory is dominate in the 1-1, 2-2 range, don't do much to a rating.

I looked at a few other players from our area, notably one player who played #1 Singles, went to the local playoffs and has a "B" rating. I also looked at guys who played both 3.5 and played up at 4.0. One guy played both 3.5 and 4.0 in the Adult and Senior Leagues.

The #1 Single's Player went 14-2, went to playoffs and now has a "B" Rating. The only loses were to two players who were bumped to 4.0. One of the losses was to a 3.5 "S" player who was DQ'd player, so his record actually went to 15-1. Only one of his wins went to three sets.

His matches that counted toward his year-end rating:
7 Wins: 0&5, 4&1, 1&4, 1&1, 3&4, 2-2, 3-6/6-3/6-4
1 Loss: 3&1 (to a player who was bumped)

Then he had one loss that doesn't affect his Dynamic Rating against a 3.5 "S" who was DQed). (4-6, 6-2, 6-1)

He was unbeaten in 7 matches this fall, all in straight sets. He didn't get bumped. :confused:

Why I think I'm right:
We had two guys from my Men's 3.5 Team bumped to 4.0. Neither were self-rated players. One guy is clearly dominate at 3.5 in Singles, and wins consistently when playing 4.0 Doubles, and beats 4.0 players in Singles Leagues as well. The other guy is a solid doubles players, and only played at 4.0 in the Spring. His record was 1-4, but all the matches were either 3 sets or 7-5, 6-4

The Singles's Player who went 14-2 DID NOT play both 3.5 and 4.0

Know compare this dominate Single's player who only played Men's 3.5, to a Senior 3.5 Man, who played both Adult and Senior 4.0 and Adult 3.5, and Senior 4.0

The Senior Guy's spring record was:

0-6 Spring Senior Adult 4.0s (Lost 3&2 twice, 3&1 twice, 1&1, and 5-4)
1-4 Spring Adult 4.0 (Lost 4&3, 5&4, 1-6/6-4/6-1, 6-4/3-6/7-6, Won 4&2)
2-0 Spring Adult 3.5 (Won 3-6/6-3/6-4, and 4&2)

3-10 Combined Record for matches that count toward his year-end rating. And yes, he was bumped to 4.0. :confused: If you add in his Fall 3.5 record of 0-5, he went 3-15 for the year. This doesn't make much sense to me mathematically, but hey, it's the USTA. :-?

To be bumped up, simply play up. If the matches are close, you're likely to be bumped. 57.8 % of the guys who played up in my area were bumped.

The best part: The guy who went 15-1 as a single's player and had a team record of 17-0, only lost one guy. Nice guys with a killer team. He played three matches and beat another guy who was bumped who played both 3.5 & 4.0.

atatu
11-30-2010, 09:01 AM
ITo be bumped up, simply play up.


No offense, but that's not exactly rocket science.

ian2
11-30-2010, 09:21 AM
No offense, but that's not exactly rocket science.

It's not, but it is a nice case study. And a convincing one. g4driver, thanks for putting this together!

On a related note: it looks like USTA had made a decision to (nearly) freeze the up-movement at all levels above 3.0 and tweaked the NTRP algorithm to achieve this goal. I'm compiling some stats for my area (Denver Metro) and will post the results shortly in a separate thread.

NoSkillzAndy
11-30-2010, 09:22 AM
No offense, but that's not exactly rocket science.

Yeah, well I think he's onto something. Obviously playing up will increase your chances of being bumped. But his point is that it's more dramatic than you think. For example, there is a certain league captain in Texas who should be a 3.5. However, after several years of being a 4.5 league captain and playing in on occasion to avoid defaults, he is now rated a 4.5 as of yesterday, despite having not won a match in years. He was 0-3 last year in 4.5 league, winning only 4 games over 3 matches, yet got bumped up from 4.0 to a 4.5. You do the math ;)

g4driver
11-30-2010, 09:22 AM
Two points:

First, the guy who went 15-1 at Men's 3.5 is clearly the better player, than the guy who has a yearly record of 3-15 (2-5 Record at Men's 3.5, 1-10 at Men's 4.0).

Second, the USTA is putting a lot of weight on playing up.

I've seen both players play and beat the guy who was bumped 6-2, 6-4. I don't think I could beat the guy who went 15-1. He beat down a friend 3&2, who I play against weekly. My friend and I split wins evenly. The single's player crushes the ball and is more consistent. I've watched this guy play twice this year, and he is very good. His record stands for itself.

The Senior guy who was bumped to 4.0 won 2 matches at 3.5, and lost 5 matches at the same level. So, his Men's 3.5 record is 2-5 this year. He won 28% of the time at 3.5, yet the USTA bumped him. :confused: Hardly a reason to be bumped IMO, and just more proof that there are many "4.0s" who can't beat "3.5"s.

My other point is, the USTA's system allows strong players to stay at the current level, but not playing up. So the next time people complain that guys are sandbagging, blame the USTA not the player. I don't think it's the player's fault when he dominates in wins, yet stays at his current level.

If the guy is up 5-1, he can pull up, and win 6-3 to avoid a spike in his Dynamic Rating. Do I think this happens? Yes, yes I do.

ohplease
11-30-2010, 09:25 AM
Absolutely correct. The quickest way to get bumped is to play and be competitive at a higher level (note: competitive doesn't necessarily mean actually winning matches).

This is why captains active discourage players they want to keep from playing up.

On the other hand, if you're an ambitious player looking to improve quickly, there's no better way to do it than to play up.

ian2
11-30-2010, 09:26 AM
My other point is, the USTA's system allows strong players to stay at the current level, but not playing up. So the next time people complain that guys are sandbagging, blame the USTA not the player. I don't think it's the player's fault when he dominates in wins, yet stays at his current level.

Ditto......

michael_1265
11-30-2010, 09:33 AM
My theory is the the USTA awards more Dynamic Rating Points for playing up than winning (unless winning decisively) at your current level. Wins at current level (unless the margin of victory is dominate in the 1-1, 2-2 range, don't do much to a rating........

...........To be bumped up, simply play up. [/B] If the matches are close, you're likely to be bumped. 57.8 % of the guys who played up in my area were bumped.........



I agree with you on this point.

At 3.0 (C) in the spring, I was 2-2 for doubles (playing at #1 mostly), 3-0 for singles. Two of my singles opponents were bumped to 3.5.

I was 0-2 in 3.5 doubles (one was 3.0/3.0 against 3.5/3.5), 0-1 in singles, but the singles match was competitive against a player who was just bumped to 4.0.

Total record: 3-5. I was bumped (and I'm happy about it)

One of my 3.0(S) players was 10-1, 5-1 in doubles, 5-0 in singles, and one of his opponents in singles was bumped to 3.5. He did not play up. He was not bumped. He played most of his doubles as #3.

Another of my 3.0(s) players was 7-2 overall, 4-1 singles, 2-1 doubles. Two of his losing singles opponents were bumped up, and the guy who beat him in singles was also. He did not play up. He was bumped. He played most of his doubles at #1

Finally, one 3.0 (S) player who played doubles was 2-3 in 3.0 and 0-1 in 3.5, playing most of his doubles at #1. He was bumped.

From this limited sample, I suspect three factors:
1. Playing against players who end up getting bumped.
2. Playing up
3. Playing singles. I suspect that the algorithm might drastically reduce the weight of doubles if singles results are available.

Looking at our results and the skills of the players involved, I'll have to say they got it right in our case. The guy who wasn't bumped could certainly have played at 3.5, but it's my opinion that he could use another season at 3.0. I just said something good about the USTA rating system. Sometimes I surprise myself.

gameboy
11-30-2010, 09:33 AM
I don't know why this is so complicated for people. The system is pretty transparent and simple.

If you beat a player, you get ranked higher than the player you beat AND if you are competitive with the player you lose to you get ranked near that player - rinse/repeat through the season and weigh it towards more common result - that is about it.

You have a much higher likelyhood that you will get bumped up if you play at a level up because you have a much higher likelyhood that your will beat a player at that higher level.

People who play at their own level and do not player level up won't be as likely because even if he/she beats everyone, it still may only indicate that that person is in the right level, albeit at the highest end of the scale.

It is a very very simple system. Some of the shortcomings are due to that simplicity.

g4driver
11-30-2010, 09:34 AM
Ian2 & NoSkillzAnday,

Thanks for reading, and not throwing rocks.

Do a drill down report in your area. You can see just how many players played up a level, then, look at the % who were bumped.

Atatu,

So what is your point? I made one. Do you have one?

g4driver
11-30-2010, 09:39 AM
I don't know why this is so complicated for people. The system is pretty transparent and simple.

It is a very very simple system. Some of the shortcomings are due to that simplicity.

Maybe the very, very simple system is very, very flawed.

A guy wins 28% of matches at 3.5, and 9% at 4.0 and is bumped. No that doesn't make any sense to me. Why is this so complicated for you not to see that?

NoSkillzAndy
11-30-2010, 09:41 AM
I don't know why this is so complicated for people. The system is pretty transparent and simple.

If you beat a player, you get ranked higher than the player you beat AND if you are competitive with the player you lose to you get ranked near that player - rinse/repeat through the season and weigh it towards more common result - that is about it.

You have a much higher likelyhood that you will get bumped up if you play at a level up because you have a much higher likelyhood that your will beat a player at that higher level.

People who play at their own level and do not player level up won't be as likely because even if he/she beats everyone, it still may only indicate that that person is in the right level, albeit at the highest end of the scale.

It is a very very simple system. Some of the shortcomings are due to that simplicity.

If it's so simple & transparent, please explain to me how a rated 4.0 playing 4.5 league and losing all three of his matches earns him a bump up. His scores were 1-6, 0-6; 0-6, 2-6; and 0-6, 1-6. None of those are even close to being competitive, and it's not like he had a good season last year that would have left him at the top of his rating, as he hasn't won a match in 9 years and 90% of his losses are blowouts. IMO this player demonstrates that there is a part of the formula that tends to bump up players who play up, even if they do poorly.

gameboy
11-30-2010, 09:47 AM
There are many ways. He could have beaten some in 4.0 league who got bumped to 4.5 and his results at 4.5 would do nothing to bring him back down.

If you send me is PM, I may be able to nail it down...

Nor'easter
11-30-2010, 09:47 AM
I agree with the OP that playing up does increase your chances of getting bumped up. But so does playing at your current level and winning most if not all of your matches. I played both 3.5 and 4.0 this season and was bumped up to a benchmark 4.0. My doubles partner and I went 12-0 at the 3.5 level including winning all 4 of our matches at districts without dropping a set. She and I were also competitive at the 4.0 level with a 6-3 record. We were both bumped up, but others on our team were not as lucky. We had two other 3.5 gals playing on our 4.0 team that also had a decent record, but were not bumped up. Difference is that they had their wins against other 3.5's playing up. As far as our 3.5 team goes we all went to districts but only three of us were bumped up to 4.0~our singles 1 and doubles 1 teams.

gameboy
11-30-2010, 09:48 AM
Maybe the very, very simple system is very, very flawed.

A guy wins 28% of matches at 3.5, and 9% at 4.0 and is bumped. No that doesn't make any sense to me. Why is this so complicated for you not to see that?

Because it is geared towards favoring his best results. Not his worst. That is not complicated.

Fedace
11-30-2010, 09:49 AM
There is a real effort by the USTA to even out the 4.0 level. there has been too much cheating by too many 4.5 guys playing down and self rating themselves as 4.0. top 20% of the USTA 4.0 guys are really 4.5's.
Sorry you 3.5 guys were affected by all this. but i have played against guys that had 90% winning record in 4.0 and claiming they are 4.0's. and i had some real close matches against those guys and i have been 4.5 for last 8 years. I would evaluate those guys as 4.5 NOT 4.0.

So USTA is doing the right thing here. It will all even out in the end. I Salute USTA for doing this. Thank you.

JLyon
11-30-2010, 10:02 AM
this is a tricky subject. I got the bump to 5.0 in 2010 due to playing 4.5 and 5.0. This year had a 4.5 play on my 5.0 team, he did not lose a 4.5, won 1 5.0 match and got stomped a few times at 5.0 and remained a 4.5. So USTA sometimes does not even know what their formula is. I went 1-5 with the win being a 4-4 retire injury. Split sets at Sectionals which probably did me in.

g4driver
11-30-2010, 10:07 AM
Because it is geared towards favoring his best results. Not his worst. That is not complicated.

Gameboy, please define "best results"

Are you saying is his "best" loss (15 of those)? or his "best" win (only three of those)?

His best win at 3.5 was 2 & 4, and the only win at 4.0 was 4 &2. His closest 4.0 Loss was 4-6, 6-3, 6-7.

I'm not getting your point, but I'm trying to understand it.

Fedace
11-30-2010, 10:09 AM
this is a tricky subject. I got the bump to 5.0 in 2010 due to playing 4.5 and 5.0. This year had a 4.5 play on my 5.0 team, he did not lose a 4.5, won 1 5.0 match and got stomped a few times at 5.0 and remained a 4.5. So USTA sometimes does not even know what their formula is. I went 1-5 with the win being a 4-4 retire injury. Split sets at Sectionals which probably did me in.

Playoff matches will put in danger of being bumped up. It has been this way for years.

g4driver
11-30-2010, 10:15 AM
There is a real effort by the USTA to even out the 4.0 level. there has been too much cheating by too many 4.5 guys playing down and self rating themselves as 4.0. top 20% of the USTA 4.0 guys are really 4.5's.

I hit with a 4.5 who wants to sandbag at 4.0 out of the fear of losing at 4.5. He will self-rate in January 2011 at 4.0 and do exactly what you said. It's sad he puts so much emphasis on winning. I prefer to put my emphasis on getting better, even if I get kicked in the teeth doing it. To each his own.

My record for the year was 11-4 at 3.5. I will play more tournaments next year and see how I do.

Fedace
11-30-2010, 10:19 AM
I hit with a 4.5 who wants to sandbag at 4.0 out of the fear of losing at 4.5. He will self-rate in January 2011 at 4.0 and do exactly what you said. It's sad he puts so much emphasis on winning. I prefer to put my emphasis on getting better, even if I get kicked in the teeth doing it. To each his own.

My record for the year was 11-4 at 3.5. I will play more tournaments next year and see how I do.

You should play few matches at 4.0 level too. Even if you put yourself in danger of being bumped up, you will have more Fun. If your record is that good at 3.5, you should do fine and have competitive matches in 4.0 level.

NoSkillzAndy
11-30-2010, 10:20 AM
There are many ways. He could have beaten some in 4.0 league who got bumped to 4.5 and his results at 4.5 would do nothing to bring him back down.

If you send me is PM, I may be able to nail it down...

Those are his only results for the entire year. No other leagues or tournament play. 0-3 in 4.5 league -> bumped up! He hasn't won a match in 4.0 or 4.5 since 2001, most of his losses were complete blowouts, and he's now rated a 4.5 :shock:

g4driver
11-30-2010, 10:25 AM
You should play few matches at 4.0 level too. Even if you put yourself in danger of being bumped up, you will have more Fun. If your record is that good at 3.5, you should do fine and have competitive matches in 4.0 level.

Thanks Fedace. I think I will. I want to compare the results for myself. ;)

And congrats on the National Championship!

Darkhors
11-30-2010, 10:58 AM
I looked at a few other players from our area, notably one player who played #1 Singles, went to the local playoffs and has a "B" rating. I also looked at guys who played both 3.5 and played up at 4.0. One guy played both 3.5 and 4.0 in the Adult and Senior Leagues.


If the player had the B rating before today, then he won't get bumped up because he's a benchmark.

I was given a 4.5B rating for this year and it wouldn't have mattered who I beat, I wasn't getting moved. I could have played 5.0 and won matches there, I still wouldn't have gotten bumped up. You're basically safe for one entire year.

As of today, I'm now a 4.5C rating. We had a group of 4.5's playing up in the 5.0 league this year and they made it to the first round of playoffs. None of them got bumped up to 5.0. As was stated before it really depends on the dynamic rating of the player you're up against. If they're playing up or have a low dynamic rating, then your chances of getting bumped are less than if you're playing someone (and win) who has a high end dynamic rating.

DH

wrxinsc
11-30-2010, 11:15 AM
two things to consider...and the thesis of the op is correct, but the reasons are more fundamental to the rating system and its algorithm and less insidious...

first - if you play up you are consistently playing more highly dynamically rated players than you (by definition - right?). even if you are simply competitive your dynamic rating will increase.

second - only playing at your level will require you to be more dominate against dynamically rated players who are likely on par with you in order to increase you d.r. thus you are less likely to see movement.

it really is all about the match up. your opponents rating and your score. while the exact nature of the algorithm is not public knowledge, USTA is clear about the fundamentals. score and opponent's dynamic rating.

year end ratings have some extra mojo mixed in for sure!

gameboy
11-30-2010, 11:18 AM
Those are his only results for the entire year. No other leagues or tournament play. 0-3 in 4.5 league -> bumped up! He hasn't won a match in 4.0 or 4.5 since 2001, most of his losses were complete blowouts, and he's now rated a 4.5 :shock:

Unless I can see his actual results, I can't really say. My guess is his losses were not as bad as you describe.

g4driver
11-30-2010, 11:29 AM
If the player had the B rating before today, then he won't get bumped up because he's a benchmark.DH

The 3.5 player in question who went 15-1 (updated record) was self-rated, with a "S" before the year end results came out.

This player lost two matches at 3.5 this spring. One to another "S" self-rated player and one to a "C" rated player. The winner of the two "S" rated guys was DQed after the match. Now both players are "B" rated.

One was DQed and bumped to 4.0, the other one stayed at 3.5 The match went three sets, and the player who "lost" now has a "Win", and his yearly record was 15-1.

athiker
11-30-2010, 11:34 AM
A few more data points:

3.5C bumped to 4.0:

Spring 3.5: 5-4 Doubles, 0-2 Singles (5-6)
Spring 4.0: 4-6 Doubles, 1-1 Singles (5-7)
Fall 7.5: 4-2

*One 3.5 singles loss opponent was DQ'd and bumped up. It was a bit of a surprise this guy did not get bumped up to 4.0 last year when several teammates did. Though his 3.5 record is only average this year he was competitive at 4.0 so that obviously got him the bump.

3.5C bumped to 4.0:

Spring 4.0: 4-1 Doubles
Fall 7.5: 2-3
Mixed 7.0: 5-1

*Had an injury last year or probably would've been bumped up along w/ the "great bump-up" last year.

3.5S bumped to 4.0:

Spring 3.5: 0-1 Doubles, 4-2 Singles (4-3)

*Bumped w/o playing 4.0. I assume the self-rating had some effect? He is a good singles player, legit 4.0, but only fair doubles player at 3.5. Did not play combo.

3.5C not bumped:
Spring 3.5: 1-1 Doubles, 4-2 Singles (5-3)
Fall 7.5: 2-3

*Did not play up and did not get bumped.

3.5C not bumped:

Spring 3.5: 6-3 Doubles
Spring 4.0: 3-3 Doubles
Senior 3.5: 1-3 Doubles
7.0 Mixed: 5-1

*Good 3.5 record, solid 4.0 record...so played up but still did not get bumped. Senior record came into play?...Obviously Mixed record did not come into play.

3.0C bumped to 3.5:

Spring 3.5: 2-4 Doubles
Fall 7.5: 0-6
3.5 Senior: 1-5
7.0 Mixed: 1-4

*This one is a bit shocking. He did have 2 more Mixed victories but they were both defaults so I did not include them in his record as thought not only did Mixed not count toward ratings but neither did defaults.

Delano
11-30-2010, 11:45 AM
Those are his only results for the entire year. No other leagues or tournament play. 0-3 in 4.5 league -> bumped up! He hasn't won a match in 4.0 or 4.5 since 2001, most of his losses were complete blowouts, and he's now rated a 4.5 :shock:

That sucks... doesn't seem fair.

For me, though, it may have been the opposite - I suspect that playing up a level pushed my rating down a bit. I went 4-1 in 4.0 (4-0 singles, 0-1 doubles), though two of my four singles wins were very close matches. At 4.5, I went 0-4, lost every match in straight sets, and only played two "competitive" sets (ie., decided by one break) out of the eight.

It's hard to know exactly what's going on since the details of the dynamic rating system are deliberately hidden... and like I said, my matches at 4.0 were pretty close, and I did have one loss, so that alone might have kept me at 4.0 even without the 4.5 blowouts.

All I can say is, damn, top 4.5s are seriously good players. I didn't even feel like I was hitting the ball all that badly. There's no safe shot against those guys, you hit short, it's over.

Cindysphinx
11-30-2010, 11:51 AM
I remain surprised that anyone is surprised that there are many weird results. How could there not be?

Me, I find it endlessly entertaining to find the single most bizarre result visible to the naked eye. I think I found it last night, when the single weakest player on a particular team was bumped up. Hee!!

Cindysphinx
11-30-2010, 12:02 PM
:: gasp ::

I figured it out!!!

If someone is a USTA captain, the algorithm is deliberately set to make it extremely difficult for that player to move up. The reason is obvious: So that teams can continue.

No, wait! Hear me out!

In our ladies 3.5 flight, there were 12 teams and 18 captains/co-captains. Only three were bumped (1 captain, 2 co-captains).

In the other 3.5 flight, there were 11 teams and 14 captains/co-captains. Just one co-captain was bumped to 4.0.

Anybody care to prove me wrong?

Fedace
11-30-2010, 12:08 PM
^^^maybe those captains suck bad. most captains are.

JoelDali
11-30-2010, 12:11 PM
I already wrote this on another thread...captains with 20+ players rarely get bumped.

Except me.

pennc94
11-30-2010, 12:15 PM
:: gasp ::

I figured it out!!!

If someone is a USTA captain, the algorithm is deliberately set to make it extremely difficult for that player to move up. The reason is obvious: So that teams can continue.

No, wait! Hear me out!

In our ladies 3.5 flight, there were 12 teams and 18 captains/co-captains. Only three were bumped (1 captain, 2 co-captains).

In the other 3.5 flight, there were 11 teams and 14 captains/co-captains. Just one co-captain was bumped to 4.0.

Anybody care to prove me wrong?

Difficult to prove wrong or right. I still think it has to do with who you play and beat.

In my experience, captains are just that - captains. These are people who tend to like to be captains rather than players. They would rather lead and assemble a team than play. I often find that captains are the weakest player on a given team. Not always true, but generally so.

atatu
11-30-2010, 12:58 PM
Ian2 & NoSkillzAnday,

Thanks for reading, and not throwing rocks.

Do a drill down report in your area. You can see just how many players played up a level, then, look at the % who were bumped.

Atatu,

So what is your point? I made one. Do you have one?

Sorry you took offense, but I already knew that if you play up a level it's more likely that you will get bumped up. Not exactly "rock throwing" in my book.

dlk
11-30-2010, 01:05 PM
I was a 3.0S, I played one league at 3.5 (with record of 1-3) & got bumped to 3.5C. 3.0 league record not much better. Just another example of "weird results." (Cindysphinx, 2010) I'm guessing that the competition I faced at 3.5 was high?

Vik
11-30-2010, 01:28 PM
"Broke the code" That's funny. As if.

On a related note: it looks like USTA had made a decision to (nearly) freeze the up-movement at all levels above 3.0 and tweaked the NTRP algorithm to achieve this goal. I'm compiling some stats for my area (Denver Metro) and will post the results shortly in a separate thread.

Couldn't be further from what happened in Texas. Still a whole lot of bumping up. 4.5 further diluted b/c few 4.5s were bumped to 5.0. USTA just wants 98% of the population to be 3.5/4.0/4.5.

g4driver
11-30-2010, 01:34 PM
atatu,

I'm not offended, but your post wasn't what Dale Carnegie would use IMO in your initial reply.

You know more about the USTA's algorithm than I do. I was just shocked that the USTA places more emphasis on playing up, than doing well at your current level.

The guys I played last night didn't get bumped and played us to 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, a much tougher match than the 6-2, 6-4 victory we had over the Senior guy, now a 4.0 He's going to need a lot of luck at 4.0, because he went 2-5 at 3.5 this year. Those five losses were in straight sets.

J_R_B
11-30-2010, 02:05 PM
I played (and lost) two 4.5 matches this past year, both against 4.5C players including one that I lost 6-3 7-5 against a guy who was undefeated in the regular season on a team that went to nationals. My record at 4.0 was 9-6, including 2 wins against guys who were bumped. I was NOT bumped.

ian2
11-30-2010, 03:09 PM
"Broke the code" That's funny. As if.

Couldn't be further from what happened in Texas. Still a whole lot of bumping up. 4.5 further diluted b/c few 4.5s were bumped to 5.0. USTA just wants 98% of the population to be 3.5/4.0/4.5.

You are right. Much more upward movement in Texas from 4.0 to 4.5 (men) than in Colorado. Around 15% for two TX areas I looked at, as opposed to 6% in CO. I was wrong to extrapolate CO stats nationwide. What does it mean though? 2.5 times as many "deserving" 4.0s in TX than in CO? Someone has an idea why there is so much variation between different locations? One would think the "rate" of movement would be fairly close for the same NTRP level, no?

kylebarendrick
11-30-2010, 03:45 PM
Keep in mind that they also adjust sections based on the results at Nationals. That could explain why some sections see bigger changes than others.

Jim A
11-30-2010, 04:29 PM
We complain all year about a lack of rhyme and/or reason and then look for it around the end of November each year.

More regions should be like Intermountain in my opinion, you can play @ one level. If you want to play 4.0 as a 3.5 and a team can fit you and be at level (75% at level) then so be it. If you want to play at level great.

Once you start playing up and not getting bageled, it is going to impact your dynamic rating. Lose 6-3, 6-3 playing up shows that you are competitive...

There are tons of people who we think *should* be moved up. I've seen someone the past 2 years who especially last year in the great bumpapalooza who somehow stayed at 3.5, while others moved past and on to the great 4.0 in the sky.

I think part of the non-movement in CO is exactly the lack of playing up that was noted earlier.

I don't think its a shock that if you play up and lose but its a normal score you may get bumped. Being competitive or at level doesn't mean winning, it means winning the # of games against another opponent that the USTA anticipates

dlk
11-30-2010, 04:32 PM
We complain all year about a lack of rhyme and/or reason and then look for it around the end of November each year.

More regions should be like Intermountain in my opinion, you can play @ one level. If you want to play 4.0 as a 3.5 and a team can fit you and be at level (75% at level) then so be it. If you want to play at level great.

Once you start playing up and not getting bageled, it is going to impact your dynamic rating. Lose 6-3, 6-3 playing up shows that you are competitive...

There are tons of people who we think *should* be moved up. I've seen someone the past 2 years who especially last year in the great bumpapalooza who somehow stayed at 3.5, while others moved past and on to the great 4.0 in the sky.

I think part of the non-movement in CO is exactly the lack of playing up that was noted earlier.

I don't think its a shock that if you play up and lose but its a normal score you may get bumped. Being competitive or at level doesn't mean winning, it means winning the # of games against another opponent that the USTA anticipates

This is a concise post that makes sense to me.

andfor
11-30-2010, 04:49 PM
........I don't think its a shock that if you play up and lose but its a normal score you may get bumped. Being competitive or at level doesn't mean winning, it means winning the # of games against another opponent that the USTA anticipates

FYI and I've been told by many with the USTA NTRP that 4 games is considered competitive. 6-2 6-2, 6-1 6-3, 6-4 6-0. Playing competitive matches against higher level competition in itself may not get you bumped, but it will not help either.

If you play up, expect to get bumped to that level unless you can't get more that 2 or 3 games per match.

damazing
11-30-2010, 05:17 PM
An observation I have from this years ratings adjustments in my area is that players who played on tri-level teams were more likely to get bumped up even with overall losing records.

There were a few players that had not only losing records but mostly bad losses but it looks like because they played tri-level they got bumped up.


Also, the bump ups in my area created larger 4.0 and 4.5s and we now have almost enough 5.0's to have a team

Level Totals Newly Bumped
2.5 4
3.0 59
3.5 247 27
4.0 263 43
4.5 120 31
5.0 7 5

g4driver
11-30-2010, 06:59 PM
http://www.tencaptennis.com/images/news/tennismagazine_aug2010.jpg

Dave Schobel, the USTA's director of competitive play, say's he's not familiar with Tencap and sees no need to modify the NTRP. "I would say [we're] satisfied with how it's working," he says.

Alan Schwartz, a former USTA president and the co-author of the origninal NTRP guidlines, said the NTRP could use a makeover. He likes Tencap's approach. "Certainly they have improved upon what we did, he says.

IMO, Mr Schobel comments show he's out of touch with reality, while a former USTA President and co-author of the original NTRP says the NTRP could use a makeover. The chasm between these two statements speaks volumes to me.

The USTA has a problem with 5.0s and 4.5s sandbagging at lower levels due to a limited number of players at this high of a skill level. The USTA's system is trying to correct the problem, but maybe Tencap has a better algorithm.

The USTA thinks a 49 year 4.0 and a 23 year 4.0 are equally match since the USTA algorithm makes no adjustment for age. Few 49 year olds can match the athleticism of someone half their age.

wrxinsc
12-01-2010, 04:08 AM
^ this is true

Cindysphinx
12-01-2010, 05:08 AM
The USTA thinks a 49 year 4.0 and a 23 year 4.0 are equally match since the USTA algorithm makes no adjustment for age. Few 49 year olds can match the athleticism of someone half their age.

I don't think the algorithm should adjust for age. I'm almost 50, but there are players decades younger I can beat because I have better strokes and movement. Why assume that the mere fact that someone is older means they will be slower around the court? Given the obesity levels in this country, perhaps the USTA algorithm should adjust for BMI instead. :)

J_R_B
12-01-2010, 05:35 AM
I don't think the algorithm should adjust for age. I'm almost 50, but there are players decades younger I can beat because I have better strokes and movement. Why assume that the mere fact that someone is older means they will be slower around the court? Given the obesity levels in this country, perhaps the USTA algorithm should adjust for BMI instead. :)

I agree. The reason the NTRP formula thinks that a 23yo 4.5 and a 49yo 4.5 are equally matched is because their actual match results are comparable. If that is true, then why wouldn't they be equally matched? If there is a relative fitness advantage for the younger player, there must also be some other relative advantage for the older player (consistency, match experience, emotional maturity, etc) that equalizes their results or else the results wouldn't be comparable and they wouldn't have the same rating.

g4driver
12-01-2010, 05:55 AM
I don't think the algorithm should adjust for age. I'm almost 50, but there are players decades younger I can beat because I have better strokes and movement. Why assume that the mere fact that someone is older means they will be slower around the court? Given the obesity levels in this country, perhaps the USTA algorithm should adjust for BMI instead. :)

I understand your point, but you don't control your age. Your parents were to blame. :)

Obesity is largely due to taking in too many calories, more so than genetics or lack of exercise. There are numerous studies than conclude this point. America is the most obese

I don't assume that older people are slower on the court as they get older. I know for a fact the average person will slow as they age. The evidence is clear when you look at age brackets of runners. Look at the times of 5K, 10K, and marathons. It is clear people in their 20s & 30s are faster as a group than people in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

In the tennis playing population, while you and I may be faster than someone half our ages, we are not the norm.

Islandtennis
12-01-2010, 06:32 AM
I understand your point, but you don't control your age. Your parents were to blame. :)

Obesity is largely due to taking in too many calories, more so than genetics or lack of exercise. There are numerous studies than conclude this point. America is the most obese

I don't assume that older people are slower on the court as they get older. I know for a fact the average person will slow as they age. The evidence is clear when you look at age brackets of runners. Look at the times of 5K, 10K, and marathons. It is clear people in their 20s & 30s are faster as a group than people in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

In the tennis playing population, while you and I may be faster than someone half our ages, we are not the norm.


We're not talking pure 40 time, we're talking tennis playing ability. The 4.0 sixty year old may be a former 5.5 college player and the 20 year old 4.0 may have been a 3.5 last year. With due respect, I know a 70+ year old down the street that could beat you like a drum G4. He is technically a 4.0 but would be competitive with almost any 4.0 in the area on a tennis court.

pennc94
12-01-2010, 07:06 AM
I don't think the algorithm should adjust for age. I'm almost 50, but there are players decades younger I can beat because I have better strokes and movement. Why assume that the mere fact that someone is older means they will be slower around the court? Given the obesity levels in this country, perhaps the USTA algorithm should adjust for BMI instead. :)

I think generally an older player with X.X rating would not be as good a player as a younger X.X rated player. There will be exceptions, but this is generally my experience. Of course it also depends on whether you are a doubles specialist or not. I know several older players who I could destroy at singles, but they hold their own in doubles. Problem is that older players play both senior and adult. They get bumped up due to senior play and then get outgunned in adult.

Not to open another can of worms, but there is also a difference in a male player with X.X rating and a female X.X rated player. Again, there will be exceptions, but this is generally my experience.

Tencap does address both age and sex, so it appears to be a bit more specific than NTRP. I guess if tencap added another element for doubles versus singles play, then we might have it all.

SweetH2O
12-01-2010, 07:15 AM
I guess if tencap added another element for doubles versus singles play, then we might have it all.

The Tencap league around here gives you two ratings, one for doubles and one for singles. I assume it's the same for all Tencap leagues.

SweetH2O
12-01-2010, 07:19 AM
And other than maybe handicapping your rating when first self-rating, I don't know that your age affect your rating in Tencap either. It seems like your Tencap rating is purely results oriented like NTRP.

g4driver
12-01-2010, 07:22 AM
We're not talking pure 40 time, we're talking tennis playing ability. The 4.0 sixty year old may be a former 5.5 college player and the 20 year old 4.0 may have been a 3.5 last year. With due respect, I know a 70+ year old down the street that could beat you like a drum G4. He is technically a 4.0 but would be competitive with almost any 4.0 in the area on a tennis court.

I get your point. There are very good players in their 70s who can and will beat 20 year olds due to ability.

But there is no respect from you to me in your statement to me. It's shallow to make the comment that you know a 70+ year old that could beat me like a drum, considering you know very little about me. You've never seen me play 3.5s, 4.0s, or 4.5s. You don't have a clue about me, and yet you make a comment with absolute assertion.

I think the USTA NRTP model is dated. The co-author of the NTRP, and former USTA President thinks so too.

I guess Google should have never started since Yahoo was the absolute king of search engines. How could there every be anything better than Yahoo? :-?

g4driver
12-01-2010, 07:25 AM
And other than maybe handicapping your rating when first self-rating, I don't know that your age affect your rating in Tencap either. It seems like your Tencap rating is purely results oriented like NTRP.

http://my.tencaptennis.com/help/video.aspx?size=medium&video=Tencap_Ratings_Explained

SlapShot
12-01-2010, 07:31 AM
I'm an unusual exception to the "play up, get bumped" rule from what I've found.

I played 4.0 for 4 seasons as a 3.5, with a winning record overall, and multiple 3 set losses. Finally was bumped to 4.0 during the 2009 ESR time. At that time, I started playing up to 4.5 (while still playing 4.0) with competitive results (a couple of 3 setters, one won and one lost, and a few 6-3, 6-4 losses), and I'm still a 4.0. I don't mind that at all, but I do intend to continue playing up, and if my results warrant a bump at some point, then so be it.

I think there is something else that factors in....or I'm just climbing a big NTRP hill.

g4driver
12-01-2010, 07:32 AM
I guess if tencap added another element for doubles versus singles play, then we might have it all.

Tencap does give different ratings for singles and doubles.

SweetH2O
12-01-2010, 07:42 AM
I'm not sure if you are trying to prove me wrong or agreeing.

In the video they say they take age and gender into account but then talk the rest of the time about how ratings are calculated based on results. The NTRP/Tencap equivalency chart shows gender differences but nothing for age. They do show that they ask for your age during when first self-rating like I said. The rest is smoke and mirrors math by the computer behind the scenes.

g4driver
12-01-2010, 07:57 AM
I'm not sure if you are trying to prove me wrong or agreeing.

In the video they say they take age and gender into account but then talk the rest of the time about how ratings are calculated based on results. The NTRP/Tencap equivalency chart shows gender differences but nothing for age. They do show that they ask for your age during when first self-rating like I said. The rest is smoke and mirrors math by the computer behind the scenes.

I'm simply providing a link to explain how the system works. :)

Often, people don't have an agenda other that to try to get more information or provide it. ;) That was my intent. Provide information.

TenCap provides more information about their algorithm than the USTA provides about theirs. I think TenCap's algorithm makes more sense from what I can see. The co-author of the NTRP agrees. I may well be wrong, but when the co-author of the NTRP system thinks TenCap is a better system, well, you be the judge of that statement.

Yahoo was unseated as the most popular search engine due to the algorithm they created to provide more accurate results.

Time will tell if Tencap does the same the USTA's NTRP system.

SweetH2O
12-01-2010, 08:03 AM
Thanks for the info, g4driver. Nice edit, btw... :wink:

g4driver
12-01-2010, 08:11 AM
The edit was just to remove my comment that age is initially factored in. I just thought the link is self-explanatory.

No worries at all.

g4driver
12-01-2010, 08:23 AM
FYI and I've been told by many with the USTA NTRP that 4 games is considered competitive. 6-2 6-2, 6-1 6-3, 6-4 6-0.


So if this is true, a 3.5 who loses 2&2 to a 4.0 gets a Dynamic Rating bump.

Yet if the same 3.5 player beats another 3.5 by the same score 2&2, there is little movement on either of 3.5's Dynamic Ratings since the match was "competitive"

Is this what your are saying?

That explains why a 3.5 player can go 2-5 at the 3.5 level, and 1-9 at 4.0 and get bumped up.

If what you are writing is true, the 3.5 doesn't get any Dynamic Ratings movement if his 3.5 matches are "competitive", yet he gets a bump by getting 4 games off a 4.0.

Islandtennis
12-01-2010, 08:25 AM
I get your point. There are very good players in their 70s who can and will beat 20 year olds due to ability.

But there is no respect from you to me in your statement to me. It's shallow to make the comment that you know a 70+ year old that could beat me like a drum, considering you know very little about me. You've never seen me play 3.5s, 4.0s, or 4.5s. You don't have a clue about me, and yet you make a comment with absolute assertion.
:-?

I didn't mean to disrespect you. I was just going off how you had described yourself in the past as a player and the type of record you had. The point was that while age can have an effect on the physical abilities, the NTRP takes into account actual match scores of tennis matches played and that there is not a direct linear correlation between age and ability. The NTRP is not perfect, but adding age to the algorithm is an unneeded variable that would make it worse. The USTA wants (and needs) competitive matches, not age divisions.

I agree that there are more 4.5's in their 30's and 40's than in their 60's, but a guy who is 65 and plays competitively with a 35 year old 4.0 should be a 4.0 not rated down to 3.5 just because he is 65.

g4driver
12-01-2010, 08:51 AM
Islandtennis, Thanks for the post.

So should "3.5" player, be able to get scores like 2 & 3 against 4.5s on a regular basis?

And if the USTA wants (and needs) competitive matches, and not age divisions, why does the USTA have Adult, Senior and Super Senior Divisions? Why not just let the let the 25 year's play in Adult, Senior and Super Senior Divisions? Why does the USTA only allow 59 year olds to play in all three divisions, yet the 25 year old can only play Adult?

I played 4.0 competitively for ten years. I'm playing better now than I was in 1999. My local league didn't count 6 of my Fall Wins this year, nor any of my flex league wins. Math isn't emotional or subjective, but algorithms are programs with assigned values. Google in the opinion of most created the best algorithm to provide better search results. Since the USTA doesn't reveal much about their algorithm, we are left to speculate.

I think if your are playing the same level, same gender USTA match anytime during the year, the match should be factored into your NTRP, but local leagues don't always do this. Pick any date to start that you want then use 365 (Nov 1, through Oct 31st) or a 331 day period (Jan 1 through Nov 29) and count the matches within that period. Use the KISS Principle. Keep everyone on the same page. If you play a USTA match, count it.

I played 12 USTA matches against 3.5 men this year that didn't count and only eight matches that did count. The USTA useed 40% of my 20 USTA matches in my year-end rating. 100% of those matches were in Feb and Mar, after two back surgeries and nearly a ten year break. By March 2010, I had been on the court eight months at this point. 60% of my matches (Aug-Nov) did NOT factor into my NTRP, yet this is the USTA and local leagues policy.

I stand my assertion that the USTA's model is partially broken in parts of the country. I see TenCap gaining ground, but do I see the USTA changing their algorithm. No, not I don't.

g4driver
12-01-2010, 08:58 AM
I agree that there are more 4.5's in their 30's and 40's than in their 60's, but a guy who is 65 and plays competitively with a 35 year old 4.0 should be a 4.0 not rated down to 3.5 just because he is 65.

We agree on this and I don't advocate moving anyone anywhere based on age.

If anything, I think TenCap's algorithm would give older player's a better "handicap" than a younger player. The younger player is expected to be faster than the older player. It doesn't make sense to provide the younger player with a slight "bonus" due to age, but rather to give to a slight "bonus" to an older player to account for speed and to even out the starting point.

I will be happy to email them and ask the question though. I'm curious, but I suspect the older you are the "bigger" the age bonus you would get.

OrangePower
12-01-2010, 05:05 PM
A rating should be purely an indicator of expected result, so that two people with the same rating should be competitive with one another. Age should not be a factor.

But there definitely should be a different rating for singles and doubles. Some people have a skill set that lends itself better to one or the other, whether because of age or various other factors.

g4driver
12-01-2010, 06:57 PM
A rating should be purely an indicator of expected result, so that two people with the same rating should be competitive with one another. Age should not be a factor.

I agree with you completely. But does the current USTA do what you just stated?

And wouldn't you love to know the USTA's definition of "competitive"? Since it is a such a nebulous term. :confused:

What is the point of having a rating if you can't compare two people with the same rating? The USTA NTRP system doesn't accomplish that across the board.

Look at Tencap's system. It gives ratings for both singles and doubles. The introductory rating asks for age, but the Tencap rating is update after ever eight matches, and age is factored out quickly. Matches with a spread of 10 or more are not factored in. I've asked my friends to try it. It will be interested to see what the results are every 3 months.

baseliner68
12-01-2010, 07:29 PM
I have an opinion both ways on this but am wanting to know what others think and would greatly appreciate knowing what others think.

....A friend of mine who is my regular hitting partner (besides my husband) and a teammate for years got bumped to 5.0 this year. She has played tennis most all of her life and is a very skilled player. The thing that gets me is she has played 4.5 tennis for years and has gone to sectionals many times but she is now 60y/o and has had numerous injuries so can only play doubles and like many even then is wrapped up all over. I'm 20 years younger than her and we drill each week but I always play to only one side (we do crosscourt drills, down the line and point play but only crosscourt.) We both like doing drills and fine-tuning things in our game as opposed to many who only want to play only all the time.


So....I don't know quite what to think. On one hand, yes, she is a very skilled player but USTA should have put her at the 5.0 level of play when she was younger and more mobile but they crammed everyone together and are just now spreading them out. Something just doesn't seem fair about just as you turn into a supersenior player you're put at the 5.0 level. There aren't enough local 5.0 women to form a team unless some of us played up so she is definitely in a tight spot.

I know many players get better as they get older but for those who were really great players in their younger years, age doesn't improve their playing ability.

Like I said....I definitely see both ways on this one but would very much appreciate some other opinions. Thanks in advance!!

max8176
12-01-2010, 10:29 PM
I have a friend who had a 5-1 record in 7.0 mixed. She got bump up from 3.0s to 4.0c which is totally crazy. Her wins in 7.0 mixed are not total blow-out as most matches are competitive (eg. 6-4, 7-5, 6-3). Another thing is her partner did not get bump up and he had a good record in adult league as well. I dont know but this is a bit strange.

gameboy
12-02-2010, 08:55 AM
max, if she has 4.0(C), she did not get the bump from mixed, she got bumped because of her women's league play, otherwise should would be 4.0(M). No strangeness there.

As to senior tournaments. You have to remember that many senior players are quite competitive in their level playing doubles, but not nearly as competitive playing singles due to their mobility. The senior tournaments there to given them a chance to play against people of (presumed) similar mobility.

Nellie
12-02-2010, 09:08 AM
I see a lot of funny results in mixed - for example, I have seen occasions where the computer takes an unbalanced team (such as a 4.0/5.0 pair playing 9.0 doubles) that wins every match and moved both players to 4.5 (m).

max8176
12-02-2010, 10:25 AM
max, if she has 4.0(C), she did not get the bump from mixed, she got bumped because of her women's league play, otherwise should would be 4.0(M). No strangeness there.

As to senior tournaments. You have to remember that many senior players are quite competitive in their level playing doubles, but not nearly as competitive playing singles due to their mobility. The senior tournaments there to given them a chance to play against people of (presumed) similar mobility.

My bad, she does have a 4.0m rating since she only played mixed. She is now depressed because she is not really a 4.0. She is more like a low 3.5.

OrangePower
12-02-2010, 10:45 AM
I agree with you completely. But does the current USTA do what you just stated?

And wouldn't you love to know the USTA's definition of "competitive"? Since it is a such a nebulous term. :confused:

What is the point of having a rating if you can't compare two people with the same rating? The USTA NTRP system doesn't accomplish that across the board.

Look at Tencap's system. It gives ratings for both singles and doubles. The introductory rating asks for age, but the Tencap rating is update after ever eight matches, and age is factored out quickly. Matches with a spread of 10 or more are not factored in. I've asked my friends to try it. It will be interested to see what the results are every 3 months.

I believe that yes, the USTA algorithm does provide a reasonably accurate indicator of overall match play level - assuming that a player plays only singles, or only doubles, and we are comparing against a player that specializes in same.

So the real breakdown is in the failure to distinguish between singles and doubles. And this failure to differenciate is in general more noticable with older players, who tend to be more competitive at doubles than at singles because of declining athleticism.

And with respect to competitive, I've seen mention somewhere (don't remember exactly where) that 2 & 2 or better is generally considered competitive.

OrangePower
12-02-2010, 10:49 AM
I have an opinion both ways on this but am wanting to know what others think and would greatly appreciate knowing what others think.

....A friend of mine who is my regular hitting partner (besides my husband) and a teammate for years got bumped to 5.0 this year. She has played tennis most all of her life and is a very skilled player. The thing that gets me is she has played 4.5 tennis for years and has gone to sectionals many times but she is now 60y/o and has had numerous injuries so can only play doubles and like many even then is wrapped up all over. I'm 20 years younger than her and we drill each week but I always play to only one side (we do crosscourt drills, down the line and point play but only crosscourt.) We both like doing drills and fine-tuning things in our game as opposed to many who only want to play only all the time.


So....I don't know quite what to think. On one hand, yes, she is a very skilled player but USTA should have put her at the 5.0 level of play when she was younger and more mobile but they crammed everyone together and are just now spreading them out. Something just doesn't seem fair about just as you turn into a supersenior player you're put at the 5.0 level. There aren't enough local 5.0 women to form a team unless some of us played up so she is definitely in a tight spot.

I know many players get better as they get older but for those who were really great players in their younger years, age doesn't improve their playing ability.

Like I said....I definitely see both ways on this one but would very much appreciate some other opinions. Thanks in advance!!

You said it yourself in the bolded part. Remember, there is nothing magical that separates the levels. They are just arbitrary divisions across a player population that statistically range in skills following a normal-distribution. The USTA decided to change where the boundary points are between the levels so that people are more spread out and not bunched as tightly into 3.5 and 4.0 in the middle... and that's all there is to it.

4.5 is the new 4.0; 5.0 is the new 4.5 :) (well, not quite that drastic, but you get the point....)

g4driver
12-02-2010, 11:24 AM
And with respect to competitive, I've seen mention somewhere (don't remember exactly where) that 2 & 2 or better is generally considered competitive.


Thanks OrangePower.

You and another guy on here have the same guess. 4 games is "competitive". This explains why a senior Doubles only player can go 2-5 at 3.5, and 1-9 at 4.0 and get bumped to 4.0 :?

If what you write it true (4 game = competitive), since the senior 3.5 Doubles player won 4 games in all of his 3.5 matches, his NRTP isn't affected either up or down, since the USTA's algorithm got the "expected results". But since he and his partner won 4 games against other men in a 4.0 Division, 9 out the 10 times he played at 4.0, his Dynamic Rating would be bumped up.

Hence my original point: Play up and move up. The "missing link" was what the USTA considered "competitive".

And due to the same logic, the 3.5 Single's player who went 15-1 but only beat one opponent by giving up less than 4 games, doesn't move up since he produced "expected results" with wins of 0&5, 4&1, 1&4, 3&4, 2&2, and a 3 set win, and only one loss to a guy who was bumped.

Since the 3.5 Singles player didn't win outside of the "expected result range", his stayed at 3.5

When I play a 4.5 and get beat 2&2, I don't feel competitive, but then again, the USTA and I disagree on what "competitive" is. That's ok I guess, since Bill Clinton had issues with the word "is". :-?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

OrangePower
12-02-2010, 03:10 PM
^^^^^ kind of, except the way you've put it is an over-simplification.

Having a 'competitive' match within level does not mean your dynamic rating won't go up or down a bit, just that it's not going to swing wildly. On the other hand, having a 'competitive' match at a higher level is going to cause a larger swing upwards. But anyway, the end result is along the lines you described - if you have a losing record at your own level but the matches are 'competitive', you will take a bit of a rating hit, but if you also had 'competitive' losses at a higher level, you will have an upwards adjustment that is larger than the hit you took for losing at your own level.

Even this is a simplification since the actual outcomes depend on the exact ratings of the opponents, but in general the above would be what I'd expect.

g4driver
12-02-2010, 03:56 PM
OrangePower,


Thanks again for all the info. I should not have written "his NRTP isn't affected either up or down", as I realize your Dynamic Rating will be updated after each match. That was my carelessness.

Your explanation is more accurate and informative. I just didn't realize the USTA considers winning 4 games a set "competitive".


More questions:

1) How do USTA tournaments get mixed into your NTRP? I'm playing a level 4 Tournament this weekend, but it doesn't have any singles events

2) What is the difference between a Tournament Levels? Is 1 the largest draw, and 4 the smallest?

I'm going to try to find some larger Singles tournaments in early next year, playing Single's 3.5 or 4.0, and Double's 4.0.

OrangePower
12-02-2010, 04:29 PM
OrangePower,


Thanks again for all the info. I should not have written "his NRTP isn't affected either up or down", as I realize your Dynamic Rating will be updated after each match. That was my carelessness.

Your explanation is more accurate and informative. I just didn't realize the USTA considers winning 4 games a set "competitive".


More questions:

1) How do USTA tournaments get mixed into your NTRP? I'm playing a level 4 Tournament this weekend, but it doesn't have any singles events

2) What is the difference between a Tournament Levels? Is 1 the largest draw, and 4 the smallest?

I'm going to try to find some larger Singles tournaments in early next year, playing Single's 3.5 or 4.0, and Double's 4.0.

Don't know anything about how tournaments factor in - I just play league. But I've seen others post that the treatment of tournaments varies based on section, so keep that in mind if you search the forum for answers.

J_R_B
12-02-2010, 09:01 PM
OrangePower,


Thanks again for all the info. I should not have written "his NRTP isn't affected either up or down", as I realize your Dynamic Rating will be updated after each match. That was my carelessness.

Your explanation is more accurate and informative. I just didn't realize the USTA considers winning 4 games a set "competitive".


More questions:

1) How do USTA tournaments get mixed into your NTRP? I'm playing a level 4 Tournament this weekend, but it doesn't have any singles events

2) What is the difference between a Tournament Levels? Is 1 the largest draw, and 4 the smallest?

I'm going to try to find some larger Singles tournaments in early next year, playing Single's 3.5 or 4.0, and Double's 4.0.

Winning 4 games a set IS competitive.

Individual sections can choose to include tournament matches in the NTRP rating or not. I know Middle States does not.

g4driver
12-03-2010, 05:02 AM
Winning 4 games a set IS competitive.

Individual sections can choose to include tournament matches in the NTRP rating or not. I know Middle States does not.

Thanks J_R_B. The more I learn about the USTA's NTRP system, the less I like their math.

My points:

1) The USTA in sections counts less than 50% of same gender same level matches toward an NTRP rating. In my case this year, 40% of my matches against same gender, same level men were used in my NTRP. I don't think I'm alone.

2) The USTA considers winning 4 games per match competitive (This is unsubstantiated by the USTA, but quite a few people making this assertion)

I made a mistake in my earlier post. OrangePower and others have stated winning 2&2 is considering competitive (4 games a match). I made a mistake of writing "4 games per set". I would agree 4 games a set is competitive, but I don't feel competitive when I only manage 4 games per match.

Does anyone feeling competitive in a match when the win only 4 games per match? :confused:

I'm playing a USTA Tournament this weekend, and know our local league President, so I will ask him some questions and see if he has more answers or if there is a why to bring up certain issues within our local league.

The guy is opened minded, and is easy to talk to, so I think that is the best place to start.

wrxinsc
12-03-2010, 05:15 AM
^ 6-2, 6-2 is not considered a competitive match btw so i disagree with orange's original statement. that match obviously results in a 12 to 4 consideration. not a blow out but not competitive. we don't know the actual numbers, but from what i remember in the presentation we were were given by one of the usta ratings gurus a competitive match range (so called) is 14-12'ish to 12-7'ish for example. keep in mind the score of the match is just one of the two main components - your opponent's dynamic rating is the other.

i understand why people say things like - i don't like the math - but the basic premise of the system actually does make sense from a purely mathematical standpoint. that's probably why people don't like it. :)

g4driver
12-03-2010, 07:06 AM
i understand why people say things like - i don't like the math - but the basic premise of the system actually does make sense from a purely mathematical standpoint. that's probably why people don't like it. :)

wrxinsc,

Your in SC like me. The math doesn't make sense to me, but I based that on three things:

1) not seeing the USTA algorithms.

2) a lack of consistency by the USTA into what counts towards an NTRP (all matches at the same level, same gender don't count)

3) the USTA's decision to have one rating for both single's and double's when players might do well, in both or only one format due to various skill sets

My background is an undergrad in finance, with enough math to have a minor. My master's was in Logistics. I've taken a lot of math, stats and spent years as a cost analyst. Not financial analyst, but someone who used & wrote algorithms to derieve projected costs from multi-million dollar contracts.

I would love to see the USTA algorithm, but can't. ;) I would love for the USTA to break out NTRPs for singles and doubles but they don't. And, I would love for the USTA to count all matches against same level, same gender but they don't.

The system has flaws. It could be better with just a little effort. To start,

How hard would it be for the USTA to simply count every match you played against every equally rated player of the same gender? If your a 4.0, and play a 4.0 match, count it.

wrxinsc
12-03-2010, 08:40 AM
Your questions are all good ones and if could be satisfied would likely result in a 'better' rating system.

1. They will never let us see the enough details to allow some math smarties to figure out the algorithm, so I agree it is impossible to evaluate the actual methodology...
2. They only count league play that all sections have playoffs for. The benchmark is an important part of the formula. For instance I think they should institute the singles flex league like we have in SC everywhere and have a national playoff. But they can't count our results in SC but not everywhere else.
3. I totally agree with you here. I am a singles player who has aged and plays doubles and singles now - so totally get what you are saying here

Possibly your concerns are more people oriented than the math. A wise man once told me. "all human interaction is mathematics and politics".

IMO your valid suggestions/concerns fall into the politics side of things...

JavierLW
12-03-2010, 09:09 AM
The math is flawed. If we take it as a given that we completely dont know how they generate the numbers for the match results, just based on the other information that we do know for sure there is a big flaw in it:

Look at sometime how they average the current DNTRP. It's a rolling average of your last 4 results (including last year's year end rating if that falls within the last 4 numbers).

But they dont average match results, they average previous averages that are averages of previous averages, etc....

It's hard to explain unless you're willing to look at it and you have a math background and follow the numbers, but basically they are double and ntuple dipping into the same numbers over and over and over again.

For example they average anywhere from 2 to 4 numbers, and it takes 7 matches before last year's year end rating doesnt exist in some form in every single number that is being averaged.

This makes for a severely slow system that results in the following phenomenon and I believe when they designed this system they more or less did that on purpose because they were afraid of having mass bumpups back then.

This causes the following issues:

1) Players actually move slowly. Especially if they DONT play up, they almost have to play #1 singles or #1 Doubles to ever move up a level.

2) Players that get moved up, very seldom move down. If you get moved up to 4.0 for example whatever math got you there is going to hold you there for a long time unless something significant happens.

(and unlike when you want to go the other way, you cant play down to rectify that)

3) Self rated players have a WAY better chance of getting moved up, then computer rated players. This is because they do not have a year end rating from last year weighing them down. But a Computer rated player who has improved his game drastically may not get moved up.
And this cant be exactly normal because those two player could of had the same results, but one will get moved up easily and the other wont.

4) The auto-appeal rule was flawed. They made a .05 margin of error, probably thinking that it was so small that most people would not win their appeal. If you look at the actual numbers, a HUGE majority of everyone who appealed won their appeal. This is because the system moves so slowly that most people if they happen to get moved, it's actually rare that they'll get moved much beyond just barely getting moved.....

5) The year end ratings even affect your rating years from now if you dont play a ton of matches. Ive seen entire teams go to Nationals for 3.5 and EVERYONE gets rated to 4.0 except for 3 people. And then you look at it and they had a 3.0 rating 2 or 3 years prior. There is no way for this system to accommodate that they could of vastly improved their game in 2 or 3 years where they belong at 4.0 now....

So the math itself works. But the USTA's use of it is flawed. As well as their continuing poking and altering of it with things like the auto-appeal system and throwing out 6-0, 6-0 scores (which I did not believe but I saw an example this year that proved it, in 2006 I know it wasnt there).

They clearly do not understand how the math affects their results, which is why they constantly argued about what to do change, and eventually they just had to massively move everyone up to get what they want. (which is something they wanted to avoid 8 years ago).

And a lot of this opinion was something I checked out with a friend of mine that has a Master's degree in Math and he works at NASA. Double dipping into the same figures to create a average is frowned upon because it's known that it create averages that fall way too narrowly.

g4driver
12-03-2010, 09:18 AM
Thanks for your comments.

Why does the search for something better and more accurate in your opinion have anything to do with politics?

I don't work for or get anything from Tencap Tennis, but I'm adamant competition foster better ideas and products. From what I can tell, their system make much more sense. Then again, Tencap is also willing to explain their process in detail, something the USTA doesn't do with their NTRP.

You can manipulate almost anything, and understanding the process probably makes cheating even more likely. Score one for the USTA NTRP for that. I find it very sad that some golfers only turn in official scores when they have bad round, and never when they have a great round. :-?

g4driver
12-03-2010, 09:29 AM
+JaviewLW

Back to stringing, then going to work on my serve. ;)

JavierLW
12-03-2010, 09:37 AM
Thanks for your comments.

Why does the search for something better and more accurate in your opinion have anything to do with politics?

I don't work for or get anything from Tencap Tennis, but I'm adamant competition foster better ideas and products. From what I can tell, their system make much more sense. Then again, Tencap is also willing to explain their process in detail, something the USTA doesn't do with their NTRP.

You can manipulate almost anything, and understanding the process probably makes cheating even more likely. Score one for the USTA NTRP for that. I find it very sad that some golfers only turn in official scores when they have bad round, and never when they have a great round. :-?

Im not against finding something better, I just dont like Tencap.

It's anyone's opinion obviously, but I dont agree with the camp that says that there are not enough levels or that too many people are at one level.

They are skill levels, it makes sense to me that you'd have a lot more people at the bottom then on the top.

I just think the USTA's formula for moving people is flawed because it moves people too slowly and in a inconsistent manner. But the old NTRP chart itself is not the blame for that. (whether that's desirable to someone or not is a whole different argument)

ian2
12-03-2010, 09:51 AM
to JavierLW: great summary! Your example with self-rated vs. computer-rated is especially telling. A couple of comments:

1) Playing #1 court (if that's what you meant) has nothing to do ratings. At least that is what USTA is telling us... one of the rare examples when they are willing to indulge us with the details.

2) As g4driver thread argues (convincingly in my opinion; I argued the same point in the "Post most absurd ratings" thread), playing up is weighted disproportionally higher than playing at-level. What you wrote implied this phenomenon; I'm just saying that it's a very prominent factor in the system break-down.

J_R_B
12-03-2010, 10:25 AM
to JavierLW: great summary! Your example with self-rated vs. computer-rated is especially telling. A couple of comments:

1) Playing #1 court (if that's what you meant) has nothing to do ratings. At least that is what USTA is telling us... one of the rare examples when they are willing to indulge us with the details.

2) As g4driver thread argues (convincingly in my opinion; I argued the same point in the "Post most absurd ratings" thread), playing up is weighted disproportionally higher than playing at-level. What you wrote implied this phenomenon; I'm just saying that it's a very prominent factor in the system break-down.

The court number has no direct affect on the rating, but *most* teams around here play straight lineups, not stacked, so playing on court 1 will generally mean opponents with higher DNTRP and hence a greater likelihood of moving up vs a player with the same results on lower courts.

g4driver
12-03-2010, 10:33 AM
JavierLW,

I liked your post. I don't have a Ph.D in math, but I do have a friend who does.

My question was to wrxinsc. He made the comments that he thought my statement "IMO your valid suggestions/concerns fall into the politics side of things... "

I haven't used Tencap's system, as I haven't played anyone else who uses it. I'm trying to get my friends to join, then enter their scores against people they play. The more players who use it, the more accurate the system will be. If you consistently play the same small group of players, the data will be compromised. One of the best features of TenCap IMO is the ability for someone like me who travels for a living to find player's of similiar skill level in places like San Diego, Fort Lauderdale, Austin, and other cities where I travel.

ian2
12-03-2010, 10:39 AM
The court number has no direct affect on the rating, but *most* teams around here play straight lineups, not stacked, so playing on court 1 will generally mean opponents with higher DNTRP and hence a greater likelihood of moving up vs a player with the same results on lower courts.
What constitutes *most* and what constitutes "around here"? OK, just kidding... More to the point, when these "straight lineups" take place, it would mean a higher probability that the players involved are close in their "starting" DNTRP. Unless the match is a complete blow-out, there is very little DNTRP movement for all involved. The end result might in fact be the opposite of the one you are implying...

g4driver
12-03-2010, 10:41 AM
The court number has no direct affect on the rating, but *most* teams around here play straight lineups, not stacked, so playing on court 1 will generally mean opponents with higher DNTRP and hence a greater likelihood of moving up vs a player with the same results on lower courts.


What is "stacking"? (I'm asking facetiously.)

After all, according to the USTA a 3.5 is a 3.5 is a 3.5 right, just like a 4.0 is a 4.0 is a 4.0?

JavierLW
12-03-2010, 11:48 AM
to JavierLW: great summary! Your example with self-rated vs. computer-rated is especially telling. A couple of comments:

1) Playing #1 court (if that's what you meant) has nothing to do ratings. At least that is what USTA is telling us... one of the rare examples when they are willing to indulge us with the details.

2) As g4driver thread argues (convincingly in my opinion; I argued the same point in the "Post most absurd ratings" thread), playing up is weighted disproportionally higher than playing at-level. What you wrote implied this phenomenon; I'm just saying that it's a very prominent factor in the system break-down.

1) Yes I implied that #1 of anything is the stronger players. The point is that if you play the highest rated players and do very well you could get moved up without playing up, but I generalized that you'll find that at #1 Singles and #1 Doubles for the most part.

2) I believe that if people play up and they lose but have respectable scores they should still get moved up. For a system based on skill, that makes sense to me. So I dont think there is anything wrong with that.

But what I think both of us will agree on is that because the inherent slowness involved with the numbers people playing AT level but succeeding do not have as much of a chance to move up.

(it's just a matter of which part of that someone chooses to disagree with)

JavierLW
12-03-2010, 11:58 AM
[/I]I haven't used Tencap's system, as I haven't played anyone else who uses it. I'm trying to get my friends to join, then enter their scores against people they play. The more players who use it, the more accurate the system will be. If you consistently play the same small group of players, the data will be compromised. One of the best features of TenCap IMO is the ability for someone like me who travels for a living to find player's of similiar skill level in places like San Diego, Fort Lauderdale, Austin, and other cities where I travel.

Right but you could apply the same idea with the NTRP system. They are just numbers.

If they wanted they could of applyed the same system and logic with NTRP ratings instead and they'd probably get more people involved and more accurate results because more people are going to know what you are talking about.

But they wanted to make a novel idea obviously and most people are not into math so changing the numbers themselves is probably a bigger marketing tool for them

JavierLW
12-03-2010, 12:01 PM
What constitutes *most* and what constitutes "around here"? OK, just kidding... More to the point, when these "straight lineups" take place, it would mean a higher probability that the players involved are close in their "starting" DNTRP. Unless the match is a complete blow-out, there is very little DNTRP movement for all involved. The end result might in fact be the opposite of the one you are implying...

My point was that you rarely move out of your own level aside from extreme circumstances.

You have to play the highest rated players (wherever they are) and you either have to clobber them, or have a close score with other people that are likely going to end up getting moved up.

That doesnt happen very often, maybe just to a handful of people who played another handful of people in any given league with hundreds of players.

As far as whether it's at #1 or not, that depends. Im used to our league where we count every single individual match, so the motivation is if you have your best player you want him to go up against their best player so you can get as many wins as possible. (there is no stacking unless you are the underdog or you suspect the other team is stacking and you want to straighten it out)

JavierLW
12-03-2010, 12:55 PM
Here is a quote from my math friend who works at NASA.

I believe that it is an explanation that shows a direct link between what g4driver observes and the subject of this thread to how the USTA calculates these rolling averages. (which is published information that we DO know about...)

----

It is also not really statistically sound to double dip into your data (more like n-tuple dipping). You will then be overly biased in the narrowness of the spread (or variability) in the ratings of individuals that have more years of playing.

----

He's actually talking about whether you have a Year end Rating involved or not, but it works for people who play up as well.

You are either narrowly averaging off of a bunch of bigger numbers or you are not. If you are not even looking at the bigger numbers, in this system it is not as likely that you will increase high enough to get to them....

cknobman
12-03-2010, 01:12 PM
Does anyone feeling competitive in a match when the win only 4 games per match? :confused:




I have played several matches where I lost 2,2 and 2,3 that went more than 2 hours and feel they were very competitive. Many, many of those games went to multiple dueces and I had several break points but I just suck at break point conversions and never could pull off wins in most of those duece games.

Scores dont mean everything.

Also the USTA uses a dynamic rating so two 4.0's that are playing and one is 3.98 while the other is a 3.51. If the player that is 3.98 wins 2,2 then the player that is 3.51 will still likely get a small bump in their dynamic rating because they managed to take games off someone who is ratined significantly higher than they are.

g4driver
12-03-2010, 01:43 PM
I have played several matches where I lost 2,2 and 2,3 that went more than 2 hours and feel they were very competitive. Many, many of those games went to multiple dueces and I had several break points but I just suck at break point conversions and never could pull off wins in most of those duece games.


I've had a 4.5 friend at 0-40 in singles so many times I've lost count. While I can break him, he breaks me more often. So he beats me 2-2, 0-0, 1-3, in matches.

Often we will hit and work on specific parts of our game. After we work on specific drill or two for an hour, we normally play games to 11 (server serves 11 points) win by 2. We always play five 11 games.

In these 11 games, I can get to 11-9, 13-11, 11-7, 11-8 and will beat him 15-13, 11-9 one out of five games. The best I've ever done is win two out of five games, and yes, I have lost all five multiple times. I don't feel competitive against him, but he continues to ask me to hit with him so I do. He's making me better and has raised my game, whether my NTRP reflects it or not.

JavierLW
12-03-2010, 01:47 PM
I've had a 4.5 friend at 0-40 in singles so many times I've lost count. While I can break him, he breaks me more often. So he beats me 2-2, 0-0, 1-3, in matches.

Often we will hit and work on specific parts of our game. After we work on specific drill or two for an hour, we normally play games to 11 (server serves 11 points) win by 2. We always play five 11 games.

In these 11 games, I can get to 11-9, 13-11, 11-7, 11-8 and will beat him 15-13, 11-9 one out of five games. The best I've ever done is win two out of five games, and yes, I have lost all five multiple times. I don't feel competitive against him, but he continues to ask me to hit with him so I do. He's making me better and has raised my game, whether my NTRP reflects it or not.

Right but the point is that in reality the game score is not really an indicator of how competitive the match was in terms of skill.

I watch a lot of amateur matches and if I just heard about the score that really tells me nothing about what is going on in the match.

But for rating purposes games are the smallest thing we have to go on which is why they are used in a skill based system. (unless you want to start counting points or even better whether you were ever ahead in those points or not)

wrxinsc
12-03-2010, 01:53 PM
JavierLW,

I liked your post. I don't have a Ph.D in math, but I do have a friend who does.

My question was to wrxinsc. He made the comments that he thought my statement "IMO your valid suggestions/concerns fall into the politics side of things... "

I haven't used Tencap's system, as I haven't played anyone else who uses it. I'm trying to get my friends to join, then enter their scores against people they play. The more players who use it, the more accurate the system will be. If you consistently play the same small group of players, the data will be compromised. One of the best features of TenCap IMO is the ability for someone like me who travels for a living to find player's of similiar skill level in places like San Diego, Fort Lauderdale, Austin, and other cities where I travel.

sorry, i did not mean to imply that you were being political as an individual. Just that your list of concerns and suggestions were of the political sort. In the larger meaning of that word. Very good discussion though, I learn alot about tennis players - in a good way - reading through these sorts of things.

Just think if amateur soccer players, softball players, basketball players and the like had such a system to complain about...I am sure NTRP will continue to get better, my own opinions aside.

JavierLW's commentary about the deep repetitive interaction of the data is new to me and an interesting point. I'll check into that.

baseliner68
12-03-2010, 06:01 PM
I have to catch up on all the posts but just some things I've noticed and agree with are that first, the USTA needs to take singles and doubles into account. I've always been the singles player on every team I've played on. I enjoy singles so that's fine. I also like that I'm at least somewhat in control of what happens a bit more. I know of many players who play all their matches with the same partner and will win but the computer doesn't know which of the two players is better and in each case one of the players was far better and carried their partner. When ratings came out the computer slipped up and the weaker player got bumped.
As far as mixed, I know one girl who played D1 college and her husband only started playing after they got married. She began as a self-rated 4.5 and he put himself as a 3.5 however that was definitely pushing it for him. They wanted to play together however. The first two years of play they both only played mixed as that was all they had time for. Within that two year time period she went from a 4.5 to a 3.5 and he went from a 3.5 to a 4.5. You can imagine the mess this caused for other teams when they both started playing during the main season.
Another extreme situation was when a friend of mine just got bumped to 4.0 one year then the next year when ratings came out she was a 4.5. She had lost most all of her matches she'd played at 4.5 ...if not all of them. She was simply playing 4.5 to play with her friends at that level but learned her lesson. She played a former top national college player who had somehow slipped in as a 4.5 during her 20s. My friend played her in singles and somehow got 2 games total. Her husband is a local pro and well respected across the nation even as a tennis player. He went straight to the local office and asked them how his wife had been bumped to a 4.5. They told him because of that one match. Long story short she is now a 4.0 after year of having to play at 4.5.
That makes me wonder.......last year there were many players bumped to 4.5 who didn't and don't belong there. Most didn't win a match and were lucky to get any games even. How did they not get back down to a 4.0 level?

I know this has been hashed out every which way and we all have our stories but I have to add one last story that's the most shocking. If ANYONE can tell me how this happened I would love to know!
A girl played D1 tennis and had a decent record. She was also the top state and sectional junior player and had a high national junior ranking. After a year at the D1 school she was homesick and came back to play for a local D3 college.
Upon graduation she self rated as a 3.0 for a tournament which she and her then boyfriend-now husband of course won. A couple years later she got bumped to a 3.5. She was 25y/o at the time. A team filed a grievance and she did get moved to 4.0 but she is actually a high 4.5/low 5.0. They said they couldn't move her higher than a 4.0 because she claimed she had to have a C-section when she had her child. (now how many women have those each year???) It took her finally getting DQd. Her captain at the time thought she was protected but due to her having gotten bumped from 3.5 to 4.0 she no longer was.
The whole kicker of it all was that her D3 coach is on the state's grievance committee and everyone found out later he was protecting her. He has done this same thing for 3 other players I know of. How do they get by with things like this??
Why do they have the chart even where it states that if a player either played or committed to playing D1 tennis and are under 30y/o they are an automatic 5.0? They make the rules to look legit but then just do what they want.
Well, there's my 2 cents and then some. It's a mess for sure. I guess I may play another season of league but am so grateful for age group tournaments. Much more enjoyable. For whatever reason the state I live in doesn't take tournaments or national rankings into account when it comes to ratings either. Go figure that one out....
Thanks also for the post about the TenCap......I'm going to go look into just what all that's about right now.

dafox
12-20-2010, 02:03 PM
Below is a summary of the NorCal USTA bump ups by level:

Level # Up Down No change
2.5 886 669 217 0
3 3288 1214 2062 12
3.5 8107 1361 6688 58
4 7201 570 6477 154
4.5 2051 110 1833 108
5 309 11 271 27
5.5 57 2 31 24
6 1 0 0 1

http://www.norcal.usta.com/Leagues-Pages/Ratings-Pages/Ratings-General/

Jim A
12-20-2010, 05:31 PM
I was trying to stay out of it all and emulate Brett Favre

A big part of this that people are overlooking when it comes to your DNTRP/etc is what happens when you have a result the system doesn't expect.

If you are getting closer to the range where you would be bumped and suffer a loss that is unexpected or out of range it would drive the rating down more than originally predicted.

I think this is actually why Ian2 wasn't bumped, there was a league + tournament loss that dropped his DNTRP to a level where by the end of the season still left him a touch short from the magic line. In our District they don't add in tournament ratings until the end of the season