Starts with arguing against caps, argues for caps.
Problems with how the USTA Rates Players and Possible Solutions
- Thread starter Moon Shooter
- Start date
Starts with arguing against caps, argues for caps.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
Yes the position of the cap is important. If your cap is .05 higher than the average of what some teams put on the court that is very different than if the cap is .75 higher than the average of what any team can put on the court.
Someone .75 higher than the average player on the court should know he really doesn't belong. But someone that is only .05 higher than the average of what a team plays would not necessarily feel he doesn't belong. This matters when it comes to legitimacy.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
I said:
"I just find it absurd that players would intentionally throw games to gain some slight increase to win a trophy. But I am not surprised that some players would do that if they felt they had to or they could no longer play competitive tennis at all."
And DCNJ's reply to that quote was:
I don't think everyone thinks exactly the same way I do. People can decide for themselves whether what I said is similar to their own thinking. It is is my view that most of the tennis players I have run into would generally agree with what I said.
Do you think being able to play in a league at all is more important to most USTA players than winning a level trophy for most adult tennis players? Ian expressed that view in his interview with Heather.
Should it be? If it should be then maybe USTA should stop hyping sectionals and nationals so much. Maybe they should find other things to hype such as the ability to get an objective rating. USTA seems to want to control behavior by hiding information on ratings but then they hype the stuff that leads to the worst behavior instead of what promotes more rational behavior.
Yes. In my area there are no men's 4.0 leagues so if someone was to get bumped out of 3.5 they would no longer be able to play USTA men's tennis at all.
"I just find it absurd that players would intentionally throw games to gain some slight increase to win a trophy. But I am not surprised that some players would do that if they felt they had to or they could no longer play competitive tennis at all."
And DCNJ's reply to that quote was:
I don't think everyone thinks exactly the same way I do. People can decide for themselves whether what I said is similar to their own thinking. It is is my view that most of the tennis players I have run into would generally agree with what I said.
Do you think being able to play in a league at all is more important to most USTA players than winning a level trophy for most adult tennis players? Ian expressed that view in his interview with Heather.
Should it be? If it should be then maybe USTA should stop hyping sectionals and nationals so much. Maybe they should find other things to hype such as the ability to get an objective rating. USTA seems to want to control behavior by hiding information on ratings but then they hype the stuff that leads to the worst behavior instead of what promotes more rational behavior.
Yes. In my area there are no men's 4.0 leagues so if someone was to get bumped out of 3.5 they would no longer be able to play USTA men's tennis at all.
Yes, but the point is that you'll have to put an arbitrary cap in place, and then you can use the same argument that you've used against caps in here--what's the difference between someone being 0.75 and 0.70 above the average, or between 0.70 and 0.65, or between ...
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
The important difference is how much above the average player on a team are they. In the current system you might be .05 above the average player on a team yet can't play against them. A .05 difference means you are have a bit over 53% chance of winning. In other words you are pretty much dead even with the average player on that team. In my system you wouldn't be capped out unless you were much higher than the average rating of any team. If you are .75 above you have a bit over a 96% chance of winning against the average player on any team. So yes it is easy to see why the cap in my system is much more reasonable.
This analysis is based on schmke's figures:
So you adjust your argument based on what you want your final result to be. OK. As I said before, pretty intellectually dishonest, especially after it's been pointed out to you to continue to make such arguments, but go ahead. Argue that there's not much difference between a 3.49 and a 3.51 player and so why allow one but not another, but then argue the exact opposite (wherever you put the cap you're talking about in your post above, there will be someone 0.01 above and 0.01 below that you can make THAT EXACT SAME ARGUMENT.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
I put the italics in my response in order to emphasize the point. Try to focus on the words in italics. Then you will see why the cap in my proposal is more reasonable.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
Whether intended or not, thanks for the inspiration.
Sometimes this thread makes me feel like a guy that got punched in the nuts a thousand times in ten seconds. Sort of a mix between your clip and this:
Wow..back to "if you disagree with me you obviously must not have read or understood what I said".
Hint: nobody is 'the average player'. The thing you say is the important difference is something I disagree with.
A cap is a cap. Nothing about what 'the average' on the other team is has any effect on a cap being a cap.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
The issue has never been about caps per se. It has always been about whether a cap is arbitrary. If your goal is to use the rating system to create matches between players that are somewhat equivalent in strength, then setting the cap to prevent a player that is the same skill level as many team averages seems unreasonable. The current caps directly frustrate the goal.
If however the cap is well outside of the average strength of the teams in that level it is a very reasonable cap. It does indeed promote the goal of having people of equivalent strength play each other.
Whether this difference is important to you depends on whether you think it is worthwhile to have the league set up to have people of similar strength play each other. If you don't care about that then you will be fine with having people excluded from playing other people that are by and large the exact same strength as they are.
Some people may have the goal of giving their own densely populated tennis areas a big advantage versus the rest of the country. Such a person would not care about whether the matches are competitive but really only care that it will help them win in the post season play. They would not like the changes I propose at all. They will be glad these caps are positioned such that it is impossible to build a competitive team in most of the country. So yes whether this is an important difference depends on what goals you are looking to pursue.
Whether an average player exists is irrelevant. USTA still uses ratings to determine strength and we can use them to determine a average strength of the players on the team.
The issue was that you used some "logic" to argue against something, but then that same "logic" can be used for what you're proposing, but now you're saying your logic doesn't apply because reasons. What that really means is the "logic" wasn't correct. It's the same argument. It can't hold water in one case and be wrong in another.
And the problems with not having a cap and using your 'proposal' have been explained. Unfortunately, you think that the most common reply is that you haven't played or captained USTA. So while you're complaining about others supposedly not having read or understood what you've been saying...
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
I asked the coordinator to be on any sort of team. She said there were some mixed doubles teams and I said sure let them know I am interested. But I never heard back. I think it may be that those teams only take members that belong to a certain tennis club in our town. I belong to the other one. But I am going to join get a membership at both. So I may be able to get on a team next season. But I am not really interested in playing doubles competitively. I am happy to play doubles every now and then but I am much more interested in playing singles competitively.
But to answer your question Tennis record is showing 2021 combo leagues for women in my area but not for men and no Tri-Level.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
BTW: I just attended a tournament where brackets were determined by NTRP but seeding within the bracket was done by UTR. So UTR was good enough for the TD to use to do relative ranking, its fluctuations notwithstanding. Why is it not good enough for you to chart improvement?
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
That could be. I originally didn't want to captain a team because I never even played on a team and still often forget where I am supposed to stand on the court. But I will offer to captain a team if others want to play and just not do the logistics.
UTR may be fine if they start having events near me. I think COVID really hit UTR at a bad time. It may be many of the concerns here about ratings moving up and down are because of COVID and your ratings change if the people you played against in the past play and get unexpected results.
I noticed UTR seems to have something similar to play your court where you can apparently sign up to play individual rated matches against other locals.
Check this out:
Tennis & Pickleball Ratings & Events | UTR Sports
Find tennis and pickleball events, leagues, and tournaments near you. Get your free UTR Rating and UTR Pickleball Rating (UTR-P) within minutes.
app.universaltennis.com
The problem is there is no way to tell UTR you are interested in playing matches against local people. So you have to find someone on your own and then get them to sign up to UTR and agree to be rated by UTR. Play your court sets that up for you.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
For those that wonder how USTA nationals is rigged against less densely populated areas here is the post where I explain it:
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
I gave you specifics about my area. I am in the Illinois Mid south discrict we have Peoria Springfield Bloomington/Normal Decatur and Pekin in our area. There is only one league for men it is 3.5 and under and has 3 teams. You are extremely vague about who is on your teams and where they are from. I don't even know what division you are playing in. So it is impossible to actually address your point.
Do you agree that the bolded is a problem?
But anyway I would love to see a comprehensive listing of teams that made it to nationals and won nationals in the different categories. Are you aware of any such lists?
Your entire pitch seems to be yes it is rigged against less densely populated areas but sometimes they can still make it to nationals. I think your data actually proves my point. If it is level based play why rig it against smaller communities at all? If you average the players that play (as I propose) you wouldn't grossly rig the system against smaller communities. USTA intentionally chooses a system where larger communities win just because they can stack players in a very narrow range of skill.
Since the system is rigged against smaller communities in this way, are we surprised that there are virtually no leagues outside of these larger cities? (As I bolded in your original quote.)
I'm not saying that going into the playoffs is the only motivator to play in a league. But it is a motivator. Why restrict this reason to play in a league to densely populated areas?
Problems with how the USTA Rates Players and Possible Solutions
Yes, and weighted lines generally implies points per position and points accumulation determining standings rather than team wins/losses, so that is another change that has caused captains to consider line-up strategy. And you are right, while weighted lines or PPP discourages stacking, there...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
I gave you specifics about my area. I am in the Illinois Mid south discrict we have Peoria Springfield Bloomington/Normal Decatur and Pekin in our area. There is only one league for men it is 3.5 and under and has 3 teams. You are extremely vague about who is on your teams and where they are from. I don't even know what division you are playing in. So it is impossible to actually address your point.
[emphasis added]
Do you agree that the bolded is a problem?
But anyway I would love to see a comprehensive listing of teams that made it to nationals and won nationals in the different categories. Are you aware of any such lists?
Your entire pitch seems to be yes it is rigged against less densely populated areas but sometimes they can still make it to nationals. I think your data actually proves my point. If it is level based play why rig it against smaller communities at all? If you average the players that play (as I propose) you wouldn't grossly rig the system against smaller communities. USTA intentionally chooses a system where larger communities win just because they can stack players in a very narrow range of skill.
Since the system is rigged against smaller communities in this way, are we surprised that there are virtually no leagues outside of these larger cities? (As I bolded in your original quote.)
I'm not saying that going into the playoffs is the only motivator to play in a league. But it is a motivator. Why restrict this reason to play in a league to densely populated areas?
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
I transplanted this from a different thread because I didn't want it to get too derailed by this discussion. I think it fits better in this thread.
I understand. I think when people play in clubs that have leagues with many teams they will know much more than people like me.
Do you only get strikes if you win the match? The way I understand it is an appeal or self rate gets a strike if 1) their dynamic rating is above a threshold and 2) they perform in a match above a certain threshold. But your "performance rating" against someone considerably out of your level may be well above level if the match is close.
Lets say two self rates play each other late in the season. And assume they both have a dynamic rating that is above whatever threshold USTA uses for a strike. If the match is close enough it would seem possible that both the winner and the loser of the match could end up with a strike.
This may be an even more likely scenario: Since USTA did not update ratings this year it seems someone could have have had a dynamic rating of 3.47 two years ago as they just started playing competitive tennis. Thus they would have a computer rating of 3.5. But if they improved about .8 over the past two years they might have a dynamic rating of about 4.27 which is a mid 4.5 level. Is it possible a self/appeal rated player could lose a very close match to this computer rated opponent and still get a strike?
I understand. I think when people play in clubs that have leagues with many teams they will know much more than people like me.
Do you only get strikes if you win the match? The way I understand it is an appeal or self rate gets a strike if 1) their dynamic rating is above a threshold and 2) they perform in a match above a certain threshold. But your "performance rating" against someone considerably out of your level may be well above level if the match is close.
Lets say two self rates play each other late in the season. And assume they both have a dynamic rating that is above whatever threshold USTA uses for a strike. If the match is close enough it would seem possible that both the winner and the loser of the match could end up with a strike.
This may be an even more likely scenario: Since USTA did not update ratings this year it seems someone could have have had a dynamic rating of 3.47 two years ago as they just started playing competitive tennis. Thus they would have a computer rating of 3.5. But if they improved about .8 over the past two years they might have a dynamic rating of about 4.27 which is a mid 4.5 level. Is it possible a self/appeal rated player could lose a very close match to this computer rated opponent and still get a strike?
Yes. You can get strikes while losing matches. Especially if you’re playing up against like you said against someone with a very high rating.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
Are we seeing more DQs lately? I imagine by now some 3.0 and 3.5 c rated players have dynamic ratings pretty far above their class. I wonder if the Strike margins widened because USTA didn't adjust ratings last year.
schmke
Legend
I wrote about it a few months ago. At the time, yes, DQ rates were higher, around 60% higher than 2019.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
I saw an early article. But I missed this article:
How often do players that appeal their rating down get disqualified? Interesting Tennis League Stats
One of the challenges of USTA League is that players that are bumped up may feel they can't compete at the higher level and get frustrated w...
computerratings.blogspot.com
Update on 3-strike DQs in 2021 - Interesting Tennis League Stats
About two months ago I wrote about the trends with 3-strike DQs in 2021 , in large part because 2021 is a unique year as it is really an ext...
computerratings.blogspot.com
I would have thought there would be an even higher rate of DQs by the end of this year because computer rated players have much more time to improve their dynamic rating which would seem to lead to many more chances a self/appeal rate can play a match where they perform above the threshold. If we did not see more DQs then I would think they changed the thresholds.
It seems the DQs up to June 1 of 2021 was about 63% compared with 2019. I would predict that the rate of DQs between June 1 of 2021 and September 1 of 2021 is higher than the 63% so far as compared to 2019. The only reason I think it may not be is if there already were so many DQs that many of the players already got bounced so basically there are just fewer appeal and self rates left to be DQed.
people dont want to Captain teams because its miserable. Usually due to the USTA ratings. New players quickly tire of the joke of a system and older players think they paid their dues and deserve something. Then finding players is the big complaint but then captains look at USTA ratings and make a decision off a doubles only rating. I keep asking my captain to bring the player out and hit. Then the player destroys the captain and he passes... he's better than a 4.0 so he will get DQ'd. Honestly its like little league in a town where the coach is there to make sure his kid gets to play first and pitch. Has no clue of the game.
All of this stems from a horrible rating system that I cant just go to a pool of players and KNOW that I am getting a 3.5 thats missing a few strokes for my 7.5 combo. I have no idea if its a real 3.5 or not. Then again most 4.0 and lower teams think you are supposed to guard the line in doubles so.....
All of this stems from a horrible rating system that I cant just go to a pool of players and KNOW that I am getting a 3.5 thats missing a few strokes for my 7.5 combo. I have no idea if its a real 3.5 or not. Then again most 4.0 and lower teams think you are supposed to guard the line in doubles so.....
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
IMO the rating system should be based on wins and losses. (the whole having someone decide how good you subjectively is less interesting to me) I think there definitely can be certain pockets of ratings that are off base from the national averages but by and large I think USTA ratings do a pretty good job of letting you know how well someone will do. Schmke did some research and the ratings did show a somewhat predictable and reasonable relationship between rating and winning percentage.
I suppose at lower levels you could have more variability as far as strengths and weaknesses in your tennis game. You could be very out of shape and have a terrible back-hand if you have a great serve and and a few other weapons. Also at a lower level someone may have a weak serve but might still do ok if they are in very good shape and have good ground strokes etc. Players can try to work out strategies of play that work with their strengths and weaknesses. It might be because there can be such a mixed bag of players that the ratings do not seem to be working well.
I suppose at lower levels you could have more variability as far as strengths and weaknesses in your tennis game. You could be very out of shape and have a terrible back-hand if you have a great serve and and a few other weapons. Also at a lower level someone may have a weak serve but might still do ok if they are in very good shape and have good ground strokes etc. Players can try to work out strategies of play that work with their strengths and weaknesses. It might be because there can be such a mixed bag of players that the ratings do not seem to be working well.
Similar threads
