Any surprising bumps up or down?

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by NLBwell, Nov 26, 2012.

  1. NLBwell

    NLBwell Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,130
    Trying to see if the USTA is leaning toward bumping up people or bumping down people. Last couple years there was a big attempt to bump people up. Several years before that there was an effort to bump people down.
    One woman I know who played #1 singles on her 4.0 team and lost most of her matches, but won a few was bumped down. She was one of the best players on her team which consisted of all 4.0 players.
    That seemed quite a bit different than the last couple of years where a record like that might have gotten you bumped up.
    Also, the #2 singles player on our team was not bumped up despite being undefeated during the season. Last year the #2 singles player (different guy) was bumped up after being undefeated (though I was not, playing #1 singles and only losing a couple of matches)

    Is there is propensity toward bumping people down now?
     
    #1
  2. jk175d

    jk175d Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    661
    here's one surprising one and one inixplicable one.

    A guy on our 4.5 spring team only played singles, probably 9 or 10 matches, all blowouts. Almost no one took more than 1 or 2 games a set against him. he lost his last match of the season to a 22yr old self-rated ringer who was just a couple of years out from being #1 ranked junior in the state. Lost that one 3 and 6. Thought for sure he'd get bumped to 5.0 but he wasn't. The kid who beat him was though.

    Then a guy on our 9.0 mixed team who we brought on to play with our 5.0 girl, so he self rated at 4.0 the two of them went 2-1, one of those wins in the 3rd set breaker, the loss was a blowout. He didn't play spring so the computer only looked at those 3 matches. He was bumped up to 5.0! at the same time the girl was bumped down to 4.5, though she did lose a couple of other matches with a weaker 4.0. try to figure THAT one out :)
     
    #2
  3. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,070
    I can think of several 4.0 women who were bumped down to 3.5. All are older women who were really struggling.

    In general, I think there was a bit of a headwind and it was tough to move up past 4.0.
     
    #3
  4. Arsnlrob

    Arsnlrob Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    Messages:
    152
    2 guys on my team played together almost every match, 10 matches total. One guy goes 9-1 playing with nobody else. The other guy goes 9-3, playing 2 other matches with other partners and loses them both. Guess who got the bump? Yep the guy who LOST the extra 2 matches.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
    #4
  5. Mongolmike

    Mongolmike Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    Messages:
    967
    Location:
    Ohio
    Checked all the teams in our league ... 5 teams in our flight.

    From what I remember, all of the best singles players got bumped up, around 6 guys, including 2 guys that played mostly singles from one team that went to Nationals.

    Overall 8-9 guys who played mostly doubles got bumped up too.

    Again, because the one team went to Nationals they had 8 bump ups (?), which also probably affected other opponents chance to bump up.

    My team finished 2nd best and we split with the team that went to Nationals 3-2 and 2-3, we had 4 bump ups.

    The other 3 teams had: 1 bump up, 1 bump up, 2 bump up.

    So overall, I thought it was ok. The team that advanced so far rightly had numerous bumps, our 4 had very good records and expected a bump, the other teams bumps generally seemed appropriate. No complaints, tho there were some others from our facility who I thought would get a bump but didn't.
     
    #5
  6. floridatennisdude

    floridatennisdude Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,972
    We had a few 4.5's get bumped back to 5.0 after being bumped down last year. Some got put down to 4.0 from 4.5 that probably fit better there. No surprises in our league that I've found.
     
    #6
  7. JLyon

    JLyon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,346
    Location:
    AR
    Guy was 4.0 in 2011, played 2 matches at 4.5 lost both, went 3 and 3 at 8.0 MXD and bumped to 5.0?!?!?

    Player in Houston Area undefeated at 4.5 (5-0) and 3-0 at 5.0 = no bump but a 4.5 player he beat gets bumped WTF!!!!

    Myself 0-13 and counting for last 3 seasons, scores this season
    1,3; 3,4; 2,1; and 5-2 retire inj and still 5.0.
     
    #7
  8. athiker

    athiker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,656
    All bump ups here that I know of...3.5s to 4.0s. Several from a successful senior team, a few adult doubles players and a singles player that had a very good spring season.
     
    #8
  9. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,319
    Given they played the majority of their matches together, the key factor here would be where they started the year. The 9-1 guy must have been lower rated than the 9-3 guy, so when they won, because the algorithm effectively keeps the difference between their ratings the same, the 9-3 got "pushed" higher and would always be higher rated.

    Additionally, the losses may have been to really good players, or the 9-3 guys partner may have been lower rated so they were expected to lose and the losses didn't really hurt is rating.
     
    #9
  10. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,415
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    I thought it was odd that every singles match I lost last year was to a player who got the bump (one was DQed so I didn't officially lose that one) plus two of the players that I beat in singles (one of them 4 and 2) got bumped but I didn't.
     
    #10
  11. CrispyFritters

    CrispyFritters Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Sunny California
    Seeing very few bump ups or down in Norcal. Largely status quo, even for people with lopsided wins. It feels like the hurdle was higher this year to move a level in either direction.

    *Edit* Just ran the numbers for Norcal 4.5M.
    1918 total players in 2012. 30% bumped down to 4.0. 69% unchanged. 1% bumped up to 5.0
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
    #11
  12. Roforot

    Roforot Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,198
    Crispy, how the heck are you able to get that information? Are you a league coordinator? Is there a link on that wretched tennislink site?
     
    #12
  13. McLovin

    McLovin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,191
    That sounds vaguely familiar. I went 7-1 in singles on my 4.5 team, winning in straight sets in all 7 wins, the closest being a 6-4, 6-4 win at Districts. The guy I lost to, I lost in a 3rd set breaker, and in all honesty should have won that match (had a match point and he pulled out a stab volley winner).

    I checked and he's now a 5.0.

    To be clear, I am NOT a 5.0, but a solid 4.5, but there is no way the guy I lost to is a 5.0. In some ways I feel bad for him. I regularly hit against 5.0 college players, and the guy I lost to will be lucky to get 1 or 2 games.
     
    #13
  14. Arsnlrob

    Arsnlrob Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    Messages:
    152
    They were both new to USTA this year and playing in their rating levels. The 9-1 guy is a much stronger player, which is another reason this is surprising. He also did a designated tourney playing up a level, and went 2-1. For the other guy i guess the 2 extra losses somehow were enough to give him a slight edge in his dynamic rating.
     
    #14
  15. CrispyFritters

    CrispyFritters Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Sunny California
    No, not part of the USTA. I just nerded it up a little. The usta site has an advanced search feature, so you can search by rating and region instead of jut by name. I just pulled all the norcal 4.5s into an excel file and ran a pivot table.
     
    #15
  16. Mike Y

    Mike Y Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    182
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Nice, 1% of 4.5s got bumped to 5.0, and I played 3 of them in singles in league play. I guess there's some justification for my losses, lol.
     
    #16
  17. Angle Queen

    Angle Queen Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    838
    Location:
    On the deuce side, looking to come in
    :oops: I nerded up too. I'm a retired DA/DBA...but am just learning my way around Excel's pivot tables. Here are the results for the women in our metro area...and they mirror Crispy's. Lot of status quo...but more bump downs than what I seem to remember from the past.

    Of the 535 2011-3.0s, 59 (11%) moved up, 16 (3%) moved down.
    Of the 798 3.5s, 61 (~7%) moved up, 34 (4%) moved down.
    Of the 467 4.0s, 26 (~5.5%) moved up, 32 (~8%) moved down.
    Of the 142 4.5s, only 2 were moved up while 15 (10%+) were sent down.
    Of the 23 5.0s, none were moved up and 2 (including one of our club teaching pros) were sent down.

    Final breakdown looks like a darn near perfect bell curve and very little net change from (2011)

    2.0 - 2 (2)
    2.5 - 141 (154)
    3.0 - 523 (535)
    3.5 - 797 (798 )
    4.0 - 486 (467)
    4.5 - 153 (142)
    5.0 - 23 (23)
    5.5 - 3* (3)

    *None of those three women played any USTA "womens" in 2012...mostly...cause, as you can see, there's no one to play with. One of these lovely ladies is old enough for the new Adult+ categories and is the wife of a head pro (an accomplished 5.0 himself who, despite going to and competing well at Nationals...didn't get bumped.). LOL. As a couple, they remind me of the Agassi/Graf household.
     
    #17
  18. Angle Queen

    Angle Queen Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    838
    Location:
    On the deuce side, looking to come in
    Ha, that happened to me for two years. I called it -- "The Road to 4.0 Goes Thru Me". Somehow made the computer's decision palatable and explainable.
     
    #18
  19. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    I noticed yesterday in my section that a few people were bumped up from 3.0 to 3.5 benchmark. How does that happen (assuming I understand the term "benchmark" properly)?

    Thanks!
     
    #19
  20. Angle Queen

    Angle Queen Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    838
    Location:
    On the deuce side, looking to come in
    See schmke's description earlier in this thread. All it means is that they were a 3.0 whose team made it to playoffs (and they played some match, any match in the post-season). Just mentally separate the NTRP from the "Letter" after it. Except to the behind-the-scenes stats gurus, B...means little...except that a "Benchmark" (read: playoff player) cannot automatically appeal their rating the first year they receive it.
     
    #20
  21. CrispyFritters

    CrispyFritters Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Sunny California
    I agree with AQ. "B" is not better than "C." All it means is that you were chosen as a ruler to measure others against. You could have been a "weak player" and still be a ruler.
     
    #21
  22. woodrow1029

    woodrow1029 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,653
    Thank you. :)
     
    #22
  23. bobbything

    bobbything New User

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    My team lost 6 of our top 8 guys in 4.5. Our district has been making a push for some time now to bump people up.
     
    #23
  24. Angle Queen

    Angle Queen Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    838
    Location:
    On the deuce side, looking to come in
    If you think about, it does actually make some sense. The "ruler" needs a start and stop point. New to an NTRP and still B...probably sets the bottom of that level...in that they were good enough to be on a team to go to playoffs and had a personal record to back up that collective success. A "B" that remains at-level, is likely to be the high end of that level (setting the top of the lower level)...in that they played well enough to be on a team that went to playoffs but didn't have the personal record to push them to the next level.

    Not sure if I'm explaining that well but let's try with some names.

    Able, Baker, Charlie and his Dog all play on a 3.5 team. They make the playoffs, all of them play at least one match in the post-season. ALL of them will be "B" players next year, regardless of their NTRP.

    Able has a good season and wins in playoffs. He becomes a 4.0B.
    Baker has a so-so season and wins in playoffs. He stays a 3.5, albeit a 3.5B.
    Charlie has a so-so season and loses in playoffs. He's like Baker and stays a 3.5 but also with a B.
    Dog had an awful season and loses in playoffs. He drops down to 3.0...but with the B tag...3.0B.

    Now let's say Earl also played on this same 3.5 team but couldn't make the playoffs due to a prior obligation. He had a great season. It's very possible he'll also be bumped to 4.0...but he'd be a 4.0C.

    Now, is Earl better than Able. Maybe, maybe not. But from the computer's perspective, it's easier to evaluate Able since he played opponents outside his region and, ostensibly, would be a better benchmark....against which to judge future opponents at the follow year's ratings computation, even if it's at the bottom end.

    Clearly, however & from the computer's perspective, both Able and Earl are 4.0s. Baker and Charlie are 3.5s...probably at the upper end since they were good enough to play for a playoff-bound team (which is, after all, the sum of its parts).

    Dog needed to move down...but again, is probably the top of his now lower NTRP...since he'd most recently played a level up.

    Does that help any?
     
    #24
  25. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,070
    You need to change your sig line.
     
    #25
  26. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,319
    Good scenario and description AQ.

    The one thing I'd add is that I "think" that Able, Baker, Charlie, and Dog becoming Bs causes them to be used as benchmarks for 2012 instead or as well as 2013, i.e. the benchmark part of the year-end rating has players that played against ABCD being adjusted based on how they did in their matches against ABCD or any other benchmark they played. I don't do any benchmark calculations in my estimated ratings in large part because I haven't fully figured out how the USTA does it, so any confirmation of this one way or the other would be great.
     
    #26
  27. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,415
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    There's a local player who played 4 matches rated as a 4.5 in 2012, winning three of them
    6-4, 3-6, 1-0
    6-3, 6-2
    6-2, 6-2
    and losing one
    7-5, 6-2.

    His rating for 12/31/2012 is 4.0A so does that mean he was bumped down to 4.0 and has appealed the bump down?
     
    #27
  28. dizzlmcwizzl

    dizzlmcwizzl Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,176
    Location:
    DE
    NO ... think it means he was computer rated at 4.5 and appealed down to 4.0. If his appeal was denied it would still say 4.0 C or 4.0 B.

    From personal experience I know when an appeal is denied you do not get the A rating.
     
    #28
  29. RedWeb

    RedWeb Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    730
    2 Level Bump

    One player in our area got bumped from 3.5 to 4.5. Don't see that happen very often.
     
    #29
  30. Rjtennis

    Rjtennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,838
    My budy hadn't lost a match at 4.5 playing #1 singles in a long time and was bumped up to 5.0. He then proceeded to lose two 5.0 singles matches and was bumped right back down. He also plays USTA Tournaments and win the majority he enters at singles. I have a hard time understanding how he got bumped back down.
     
    #30
  31. Mike Y

    Mike Y Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    182
    Location:
    Bay Area
    I personally think that ratings should be more volatile. There are too many people that go 9-2 for 3 straight seasons without getting bumped up. If you win 80% of your matches in any one season, you should get bumped up. If you then go 2-8 at the higher level the next season, then you should get bumped back down. If you go 5-5, then that is your appropriate level. It just seems like there are too many people who just camp out at the higher end of their level for years, and then get all disappointed when they finally get bumped up, even though that should have happened years ago.
     
    #31
  32. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,319
    You are right that as constructed, the NTRP algorithm isn't terribly volatile and you generally have to really dominate at your level, happen to play very strong competition and win at your level, or play up in order to be bumped up.
     
    #32
  33. emilyhex

    emilyhex Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Messages:
    209
    About 1/3 of my 4.0 team (incl. me) got bumped up. But, I noticed a handful of other ladies in our league who also got bumped up, so at least in our part of the country, the competition was hot. All who got bumped deserved it, no surprises. There were some other good players who didn't get bumped, who must be right on the cusp.

    And yeah, we had an awesome team :)
     
    #33
  34. Taxvictim

    Taxvictim Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Messages:
    506
    Location:
    Wake County, NC
    In 2012, I only played mixed doubles and 6.5 combo doubles (but made it to the state finals in that one). They didn't review my standing at all. I still have the same computer rating with a 2011 date. Is that because they don't use mixed and combo doubles to re-rate?
     
    #34
  35. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,319
    Correct. The USTA bases your rating on your eligible gender specific matches only, eligible being only the leagues your section/district elects to use. So your mixed matches don't count and I don't know of any section that uses combo matches either.

    If you don't play 3 gender specific matches from eligible leagues, but play enough mixed matches, you can get a mixed-exclusive rating, but I believe when you have a gender specific rating from the prior year, that still carries over instead and seems to be what happened with you.
     
    #35
  36. Taxvictim

    Taxvictim Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Messages:
    506
    Location:
    Wake County, NC
    Thank you. I did notice that one of my teammates got a new 2012 "mixed exclusive" rating at the same level he was before.
     
    #36
  37. bobbything

    bobbything New User

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    I've said this for years but the USTA should go to a dynamic rating system. Where I live, there's a rating system called Tencap. They use it in a few other cities as well. It adjusts on the fly as you complete matches. It's kind of like a golf handicap. The lower the rating, the better the player. And they have divisions that encompass rating ranges. For instance...

    The Men's Blue Division is for players rated between 22-28; which is typically a 4.5 level. If a 28 rated player plays a 22 rated player and wins 6-4, 6-4, their rating will go up accordingly and the losing player's rating will go down accordingly. Vice versa, if the 22 rated player wins, but let's say it's in three sets, their rating could still go down (because the match was close).

    I've been playing Tencap for about 10 years and the system is far more accurate. And you can see exactly where you are relative to other players. This is one of the problems I see with the USTA's rating system. Nobody knows where they fall within their respective rating spectrum. I've been a 4.5 for years, but I have no idea where I am relative to other players.

    One of the concerns with the Tencap system is that they thought it would encourage sandbagging to keep a rating where it is. But I've honestly never seen that happen.
     
    #37
  38. Platocat

    Platocat New User

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Messages:
    18
    I was a 3.5 self rate that got DQ'ed by end of summer and received 4.0 D rating. I played on both 3.5 and 4.0 teams, neither of which made it to playoffs. Just saw that my rating is now 4.0 B.

    My 4.0 team this summer comprised of 8 3.5 women and 6 4.0 women. All the 4.0's were new bumps from previous year. Theses women have been playing together for years and dominated at 3.5, routinely going to states playoffs. They decided to move up as a team last year and not unexpectedly, lost a lot but we managed to end up in the middle of the pack by end of the season. I was surprised to see that all the 4.0s now got moved down to 3.5. I imagine that I'll have to look for a new 4.0 team next summer.
     
    #38
  39. Tmano

    Tmano Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    888
    does the tri-level leagues matter about getting bup up or down? Asking because I played 4 matches at 4.5 all won ( one of them defoulted) plus I won a 4.0 tourney in January and I still are the same 4.0.
    It does not really matter to me but I was just curious.
     
    #39
  40. goober

    goober Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,491
    Nobody knows their exact rating by design. Trust me, if you applied this to the USTA, people would abuse it. The vast majority wouldn't, but those hell bent on sectionals and nationals would. Want to make sure that all your self rate players are available for playoffs? This would make it incredibly easy to manage your scores so they are available. Worried that some on your team may get a bump for ESR or end of year? Now you know exactly what you need to do and how close you are to adjust your scores. No more guessing. A tencap system would work well for a local league where people are actually trying to move up levels, but not for USTA where people are trying to stay put at their level for playoffs.

    In USTA most people know where they stand in their rating level- upper, mid or lower just by how they do in their matches. That is good enough IMO.
     
    #40
  41. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,319
    You make some excellent points that I agree with. But what the USTA uses is a dynamic system that adjusts ratings with every match played, the USTA just chooses to update the public record once (or twice for sections with early start leagues) a year as well as just publicize the rating to the half point. So it is really the lack of transparency that is the issue.

    Regarding knowing where one stands, I'm sure the USTA would argue that as long as you are rated such that you are at a level where play is competitive, you don't need to know more details. I disagree which is why I do my estimated dynamic NTRP ratings. If you want to know where you are relative to your level, let me know!

    Regarding sandbagging, clearly we know that having a less transparent system with NTRP doesn't get rid of sandbagging, so I don't think that is an argument in the NTRPs favor.

    Of course, we can also debate the merits of the USTA's algorithm vs the Tencap one, but that is I believe a separate discussion.
     
    #41
  42. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,319
    Depending on the section/district you are in, tri-level may or may not be included in determining your NTRP level.

    And it isn't just winning or losing that influences your dynamic rating, but the full score (game differential) and who specifically you play and their dynamic rating when you play them. If you happened to win a lot of matches but against lower rated players or players playing up, your rating may not improve as much as you think it might.
     
    #42
  43. bobbything

    bobbything New User

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    Yeah, that would be great! How can you help?
     
    #43
  44. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,319
    #44
  45. NLBwell

    NLBwell Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,130
    Seems that at least in some sections, thre is a desire to bump people down, while in others it is pretty static. Maybe trying to even out the sections again like they did many years ago?
     
    #45

Share This Page