No bump up with 100% winning record?

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by robert, Nov 29, 2012.

  1. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,373
    I don't mind the idea of being more aggressive with bumping players that go to sectionals/nationals, my issue is with the locking them in. With the young guns that you are after, this probably works. But there are a host of others that aren't so young and may be peaking to get to nationals and if they simply get a bit older or don't play quite as much their play declines, but you have them locked in at a level up now. Is it really fair to have a 54 year old on a 40+ team that goes to nationals at 3.5 locked in at 4.0 for 3 years as his skills decline?

    Yes, you could vary the lock-in period based on the age division, but then you are just starting to add more and more exceptions and rules, and IMHO, a good system doesn't require a bunch of exceptions like this.

    Well, this is what the benchmark calculation is supposed to address, giving more weight (50% of your year-end rating) to those matches played against benchmark players. And since everyone in playoffs is benchmark, 50% of your rating comes from your post-season results.

    This benchmark calculation is also how the system today provides for being more aggressive with bump ups for those that play post-season play. But if you get to the post-season and don't do well, that factors in too and is part of the reason why some that go to nationals don't get bumped. Someone does lose there, and sometimes pretty bad.
     
    #51
  2. Jim A

    Jim A Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    816
    Good points Goober. I agree with most in some form or another. I like the self-rate ban on playoffs for 3.5 and up, too many self-rate's at 3.0 for it to be maintained to me.

    I would think that if you made it to Nationals, you can hang at the higher level. I'd be surprised if someone who was even an average player on such a team couldn't hold their own at the higher level, especially teaming with their current 'mates.
     
    #52
  3. TomT

    TomT Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    Fort Lauderdale, FL
    From what other posters have said, and from what I think I've learned about USTA from other threads here, I can guess that that's possible.

    As far as I'm aware, USTA has a much more complex rating algorithm than the league that I'm currently in, and therefore its ratings should, in the long term, be more precise indicators of relative playing strength.

    But that's so far the ONLY thing I like about USTA as opposed to the league I'm currently in. And even with a less complex rating algorithm, the ratings in my current flex league have so far proven to be pretty accurate predictors of results.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012
    #53
  4. Winning Ugly

    Winning Ugly New User

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    I agree 100% and that is EXACTLY my experience -- everyone I know the last 2 years who got bumped up (after the great "upgrade" a few years back) played up. Almost without fail, great records at level, without some results "up," did not do the trick. In my case, I had a slightly better "at level" record 3 years ago that I had this year (and I am accounting for opponents skills and eventual level) but stayed down. Difference this year? Playing up and delivering 60% "competitive" (at least 6 games) matches, with 20% wins. Same thing happened to my wife about 6 years ago when she quit playing at level and only played up.

    To me, that is the flaw in the current system. Even if you are at the top of your level, it is just too hard to deliver enough of the 1 & 1 wins required to get the computer to move you up.
     
    #54
  5. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,373
    But if a player can't dominate opponents at the lower end of their level, should they really be moved up?

    Of course, what makes it even more difficult is you may have to face players that are themselves playing up, and it isn't enough to win the match convincingly, say 1 and 1, but you have to beat them 0 and 0 or you risk hurting your rating.

    In essence, to get bumped up if you don't play up, you have to be fortunate to play stronger competition within your level plus have the killer instinct to win big and not take it easy even for a game when you play the weaker opponents.
     
    #55
  6. UCSF2012

    UCSF2012 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,922
    I've played sets where every game went to multiple deuces, but he took the set 6-1. This is just the way tennis is scored. Live with it.
     
    #56
  7. Momotennis

    Momotennis New User

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6
    I have been playing in USTA League for 2 and 1/2 seasons now in SoCal. The NTPR system seems to work pretty well in my area. Perhaps the current system works best when there is a larger pool of players, as I assume we have here in SoCal.

    I am 53. I had no tennis experience when I started hitting 2 and 1/2 years ago. I self rated at 3.0, because I was a pretty good athlete back in the day. I was fortunate to pick up the game quickly and played in a Nationals my first half season. I did not lose a match that first year until the Nationals. I was bumped to 3.5B.

    There was super tough competition in my first full season at 3.5, so I was just over .500, but I had some wins against strong players. I am sure my dynamic rating inproved throughout that year. I was probably inching close to 4.0 by season's end.

    This year my record was about 40 and 4. A couple losses were tie breaks to top players. I was in 2 Sectionals this year. And, I start next year at 4.0B.

    The players that moved up in my area all should have been bumped. The players that stayed down should have. The system seems to work very well in my area.

    Mike
     
    #57

Share This Page