Self rated players bumped mid season but not DQed?

Discussion in 'Adult League & Tournament Talk' started by beernutz, Apr 4, 2013.

  1. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Like the subject says, this appears to have happened to two players at my club but I didn't believe it was possible. The players were both self rated but now have been moved up a level and given a D (dynamic) rating as of yesterday. They were both on a team which had played the first two of its ten season matches but they were not DQed for their victories in those matches.

    Does anyone have any clarifying information about what might have happened?
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2013
  2. J_R_B

    J_R_B Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,632
    Location:
    Newtown, PA
    Were they playing up as well? I've seen this happen once in our section. Player self-rates at 4.0 and registers at 4.0 and 4.5. Plays first match at 4.0, which is not a strike. Plays next 3 matches at 4.5, which are strikes against 4.0 but not 4.5. Player is bumped to 4.5 and barred from 4.0 matches, but the one 4.0 match is not overturned because it was not a strike. Is this what happened possibly?
     
  3. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    No they both self rated in January of this year and each played on two 4.0 teams. The first was an 18+ winter league which is completed and the other is an ongoing 18+ spring league which is ongoing and where they both had played in the first two of the ten matches scheduled for that league. I think one of them won a match and the other won two of those current league matches but they weren't DQed for them. Just seems odd to me so I was wondering if had happened to other players as well.

    I tried to find out more about what a (D) Dynamic rating is and the NTRP FAQ on the USTA site says to look in the USTA Regulations Glossary but it isn't described there* and the USTA Regulations themselves don't refer to a (D) rating at all.

    *The Glossary entry is: Dynamic Rating: A rating associated with a player who has the potential to change with every match played by the player.

    I don't think that is the definition of a D rating though.
     
  4. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
  5. Steve Huff

    Steve Huff Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    I've seen it happen before. A guy started the season as a 3.5 legit. He was a good athlete, but wasn't too good at tennis yet. He took lessons and improved quickly, and began winning his matches decisively. The team got into the playoffs. He got bumped up, made ineligible for the playoffs. Kind of sucked if you asked me.
     
  6. NumbersGuy

    NumbersGuy Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Messages:
    152
    Post the name and we'll look into it. I don't think any privacy issues are at stake here.
     
  7. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Let me ask one of them whether they care if I do that or not. How would knowing a name help?
     
  8. NumbersGuy

    NumbersGuy Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Messages:
    152
    It lets us look at his match record, look at his rating history, identify any important clues that you may not have identified.
     
  9. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Ok I will ask one or both of them if they mind me posting their tennislink.

    In the meantime, does anyone have any information about what a D rating signifies and how you get one? I know players who are dynamically DQed receive a B rating but this D thing is new to me as these are the first two people I know who actually have one.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2013
  10. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,287
    Does your section/district perhaps have a local rule that has players being bumped up after 3 strikes but not having their matches turn to DQs?

    I have not done a full analysis, but it certainly looks like SB's bump could have been the result of his 2nd Spring match (1 & 2 win). JD's is a bit odd in that it appears he actually self-rated at 3.5, but proceeded to go 8-0 in four 4.0 leagues before losing his last match. But losing a match does not mean a strike can't be generated from it.

    But yes, in both cases, the bump would appear to have come after the 2nd Spring league match so I'd think your section has to have a rule that allows for bumps without a DQ, or they are just slow to have the DQ show up in TennisLink.

    Was either player contacted to tell them they were bumped up or that they had 3 strikes?

    Or, just really speculating here, but perhaps the bump for each happened at the end of the Winter league and is just a mid-season bump at that checkpoint (do you have early start ratings at all?) but it wasn't calculated until the first two Spring matches had been played. So there was no DQ, just a bump that was calculated/notified late.
     
  11. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067
    I'm very confused.

    At what level did they self-rate (3.5? 4.0?) ?

    At what level are they now (4.5B?)?

    I have never heard of a D rating, and I am pretty sure the only rating types are C, B, A, S, T (I think) and M.

    So yeah, I'm confused by your description . . .

    One possibility is that these players are ineligible because they violated a local two-player rule.
     
  12. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Both players self rated in 1/2013 as 4.0S

    They both played Winter 4.0 18+, playing about six matches. That season is now over.

    They both started playing Spring 4.0 18+ and each played in first two of ten scheduled matches

    On 4/3/2013 the captain and both players were notified that the players had been assigned a 4.5 D (Dynamic) rating and were no longer eligible at 4.0. They were not disqualified from their previous matches played.

    Cindy, the D rating does exist though I had never heard of it either and like I say below there is almost nothing about it posted on the USTA site I can find, hence this thread. Just go check anyone's NTRP rating in tennislink and you will see D in the ratings key. An odd thing I just noticed is that if you search for the individual names of the players for their NTRP, their rating type shows up as D. However, if you do a drill down search to see all the 4.5s in my area, their ratings are shown as B. More USTA consistency!

    To schmke, I don't know that answer but we have had players get DQed here and assigned B ratings. The email supposedly explaining the situation from USTA they received which I have seen was very vague, essentially just telling them to look here for the answer: http://www.usta.com/Play-Tennis/USTA-League/Information/ratings/

    I HAVE read all those links (and also more documents including the USTA Regulations and its Glossary) and do not see where a D rating is explained.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2013
  13. BabblingPsychopath

    BabblingPsychopath Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    127
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    Our team had 2 players bumped yesterday as well, without a DQ, for three strikes rule.
     
  14. gmatheis

    gmatheis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,553
    Like Cindy I have never heard of a "D" rating but I went and looked up myself to see the listing of rating types and saw this:

    Key to Type of Rating
    S - Self-rate or Medical Appeal
    A - Appeal
    B - Benchmark - advanced to playoff or championship round
    C - Computer
    D - Dynamic
    E - Early Start League dynamic
    M - Mixed Exclusive Year-end Rating
    T - Tournament Exclusive Year End Rating

    So it obviously does exist, but I think it may be relatively new.

    TO venture a guess I'd say that perhaps your friends results from their matches may not have been enough to generate "strikes" but it may have been enough to push their dynamic ratings (the ones that are calculated to the hundredth of a point) to the next level.

    To illustrate ... maybe they self rate at 4.0 , but their matches while not lopsided enough to generate a strike did push their dynamic rating to 4.02

    This is just my best guess given the information at hand.
     
  15. gmatheis

    gmatheis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,553
    Thats odd because three strikes rule IS a DQ .... maybe USTA is fiddling with alternative ways of dealing with all this.
     
  16. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,287
    From an NTRP FAQ I've saved:

    27. What are the consequences of disqualification?
    In all cases, the player is disqualified from participation at that NTRP level. Each USTA Section will determine which of two methods the section will follow at the local and the championship level. The effect on Team Standings may vary, depending on when the DQ occurs: During local league: In all cases, the player is disqualified from participation at that NTRP level. Each USTA Section will determine what matches, if any will be reversed for the local season.​

    This seems to allow for a DQ at a given level without reversing the matches played at the discretion of the section. So it appears your section doesn't reverse the matches already played and the player is just disqualified from playing 4.0.

    As far as a "D" rating, I believe this is just stating that the player has played enough matches to have their dynamic rating calculated. A "C" or "B" only occurs at year-end. Everyone that is playing matches during a year is having their "D" rating calculated on a regular basis.
     
  17. NumbersGuy

    NumbersGuy Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Messages:
    152
    A D is what the USTA used to use in TennisLink to signify a DQ, but last year they changed to using a B (multiple examples are out there of DQed players this year sporting a B). I didn't think that D was in use anymore. That's another reason I wanted to know the player's name, so that I could see for myself. I think schmke is probably right, it's probably that the Section chose option B (no match reversals).
     
  18. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    That isn't quite true here anyway as I know a player who was DQed last year (2012) and was immediately assigned a B rating. This was not at year end. When he was DQed, all his matches played in the current season were reversed.

    Now that may have changed this year (2013) and instead of DQing the player based on 3 strikes and assigning them a B rating, they are just assigning them a D and disallowing participation at their previous level but not DQing any matches. I wish I knew more but what I have seen provided by the local and state USTA about this situation is very vague.

    You and numbersguy could be correct that a D is essentially the same as the B received through disqualification, except that with a D no matches are reversed. My question would be why are some disqualified players treated one way while others are treated differently? If D means enough matches have been played to determine a dynamic rating, then why aren't all self rated (S) players who have played enough changed to this rating? It appears only those who have played enough (whatever that standard is) and who are being disqualified get a D.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2013
  19. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    When you go here http://tennislink.usta.com/Leagues/Common/Default.aspx, and enter their names in Find NTRP Rating Info, what rating type do they have?
     
  20. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,287
    You are right, DQ's becoming an immediate B is one of the exceptions I always forget to note.

    It is probably worth a question to your LLC to see if the rule changed and what it is regarding DQs. Are their results reversed or not? Or are they applying some other rule that does a mid-season bump that isn't a normal DQ?
     
  21. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Dear lord. Now the situation has changed somewhat as both still have their D ratings type but one of them has now had all of their matches reversed which were played in both the Winter and Spring seasons. This must have just happened today as I looked at his tennislink info last night and the matches had not been reversed at that time.

    Curiouser and curiouser.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2013
  22. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Like I just found and and reported, today one of the two players previous Winter and Spring matches were all reversed (DQed). This was not immediately done as I had looked at tennislink last night and it had not happened then.

    So I'm not sure why both of them were not assigned a B rating, instead of this curious D rating, since the situation for one of them at least now appears to resemble a typical disqualification.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2013
  23. NumbersGuy

    NumbersGuy Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Messages:
    152
    I see one thing, it depends on how you search for a player's rating. If you do the Advanced Search by Area, you see a B, but if you search by the player's Name you see a D.
     
  24. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Yes, I noted that in post 12.

    I now have the letters received by the two players and can say they were not treated the same way intentionally. I have spent too much time on this as is but will say one of the players appears to have received a typical three strike disqualification with all his matches reversed and the odd thing is the assignment of a D, rather than a B rating.

    The other player's letter says (I'm not making this up) that there was a bug in tennislink which did not detect that the player had met the three strike criteria, but it now been fixed and the player in question is no longer eligible at the previous level at which he self-rated. His match results were not reversed but he too was assigned a D rating level.

    It will be this evening late (I have a date with she who must be entertained) before I can post any updates.

    Thanks for all the help from those who have responded so far.
     
  25. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,287
    I wrote earlier :)

     
  26. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Yes, I must have missed that, sorry. That does appear to be what happened to one of the players.
     
  27. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,287
    The other one is odd though. They seem to be saying that because of a bug, they didn't identify the strike(s) on time and for that reason aren't reversing the prior matches? I'd think they would have reversed the ones prior to the third strike when he should have been notified but not the ones since as that would be unfair (he was in the lineup not knowing he was DQ'd).

    I'm curious, did they indicate which matches were the strikes? Just initials and dates would do if they did as I'd like to see if I agree.
     
  28. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067
    A "D" rating, eh?

    I like the idea of having a different rating type for players moved up due to a DQ.

    "B" only means you played in post-season. You could be at the top of your rating level, the bottom, or anywhere in between.

    "D" would mean you are probably at the low end of the new level to which you were bumped up.
     
  29. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    No they didn't but here's the letter received by that player:

    Dear XXXX:

    During USTA League Tennis (Adult 18 & Over, Adult 40 & Over, and Adult 55 & Over League Types) local league competition and at every level of championship competition below national championships, computer ratings are calculated for all players to determine if any players have reached the promotion criteria using the USTA NTRP Computer Rating System Procedures. Players are promoted if they reach out-of-level three times based on all Adult matches reported in the national database.

    The TennisLink software had a serious undetected bug which was not showing players that were at the promotion level in a timely fashion. The bug has been repaired. Due to the error in calculations, any players that were affected will be promoted immediately to the next level and all matches will stand. We truly apologize for the error, and we are pleased that the problem has been identified and fixed. We wanted to be open and transparent with all our players. We believe the resolution is as fair as possible considering the circumstances.

    Your match results to date have resulted in three computer ratings at the promotion level for your 4.0 self rating. Beginning today, you must now participate at the 4.5 level (or higher) in USTA League Tennis (Adult and Mixed Doubles divisions), Combo Doubles, and/or USTA sanctioned NTRP Tournaments.

    This rating will be your minimum level of play for all USTA League (Adult and Mixed Doubles divisions), Combo Doubles, Tri Level, and/or USTA sanctioned NTRP Tournaments until a new computer rating is published.

    According to these procedures, there will be no reversal of matches.

    Starting today (April 3), you must register and participate as a 4.5-rated player.

    The sole basis for an appeal to a NTRP Promotion is missing or incorrect match data.

    Please understand that a promotion is not a suggestion that a player has intentionally defrauded the NTRP system, but is simply recognition by the NTRP rating system that a player should be competing at the higher level. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

    the letter was signed by our State League Coordinator
     
  30. Cindysphinx

    Cindysphinx G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    15,067
    Hee, hee.

    I like how they call it a "promotion" and not a "strike."

    Can you imagine how this sounds in a typical three-strikes DQ letter?

    "Congratulations, player! You have been promoted to the next level and, as your reward, we are reversing your spectacular wins to losses!!"
     
  31. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Note I am not questioning whether or not the players should have received strikes. I am more curious about what happened to them when they did as each was apparently treated differently on the same day even though their participation level was not very different. Plus the fact that both of them received this rarely used D rating instead of a B upon disqualification.

    I am also curious now because there are two other self-rated players in our area who many players and captains have wondered why they haven't been DQed as well.

    One of their records practically screams disqualification but neither has been and I wonder if this purported tennislink bug was a factor in their out-of-level matches possibly not being detected.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2013
  32. NumbersGuy

    NumbersGuy Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Messages:
    152
    Actually on the D rating, I think you'll find it's what's always used (not rarely used) when you search by Name, and that the B is always used when you do Advanced Search, as you previously noted. Look up some other players who have been DQed this year and see if you see the same thing I do.

    Now I wonder if the error, and the solution, were peculiar to Alabama (no it wasn't hard to ID the players) or if it was nationwide? My section had a player last year who similarly received three strikes and, just like your guy, it was not detected until some weeks later, after he had played additional matches. The Section chose not to reverse those matches out of perceived fairness. One of the oopposing captains filed a grievance, which was ultimately upheld at the National level, and the player's matches were reversed, even though he had played them with no idea that he'd already received three strikes. An interesting dilemma.
     
  33. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Yes, I didn't think with as much information I've posted about myself here that identifying the players would be that difficult. I'd still rather their names be kept out of the discussion for now but that is your call.

    It may be that D is a new thing for 2013 because every player from 2012 I know that was DQed (all 3 of them, so I'll grant you I don't have a huge sample size) was afterwards assigned a B rating. Perhaps D is the new B.
     
  34. SunshineJS

    SunshineJS New User

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    44
    This issue was nationwide, as ratings are all calcualted on a national level. Each district/section has leeway of what all go towards their members ratings but when there is a bug in the actual caculation it is a nationwide thing.

    The decision, as mention in the letter that beernutz posted, was to no reverse any matches from DQs that popped up as a result of recaculation upon fixing the bug. These players are signified with the D. It is not something that will show up going forward on other players (that I am currently aware of). All future DQs will have matches reversed and be signified in the previous ways.
     
  35. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    Ok here's an odd new development. The player whose letter I posted above has now had all of his matches reversed as well, even though the letter says they will not be reversed. Apparently no notice was given to the captain that this change was going to happen, they just did it. I generally like the USTA but some of their procedures are messed up.
     
  36. tennis_tater

    tennis_tater Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    452
    A player in our league just got DQ and received the same letter from the state league coordinator indicating matches would not be reversed. The interesting thing is that this player has won 2 deciding court matches for his team that if reversed, would knock this team out of contention for state.
     
  37. lobman

    lobman Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    133
    Same thing in our league(Southern Section)--if the DQ'D player's winning matches had been reversed his team would also have been knocked out of contention for state. Curious thing here is that a few years ago a player on a team I captained was DQ'D and all his wins were forfeited causing our team to drop from first place to middle of the pack. Possibly the sectional policy has changed?
     
  38. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    The captain of the two players in question has been communicating with me and with the LLC and a state level coordinator including a two hour call with him yesterday but has not gotten any satisfaction. Apparently there have been five 4.0 self-rate DQs in the state so far this season and two of them were the two players in question who were on the same team.

    An anomaly of the system we found was another local self-rated 4.0 who has not lost a set and has beaten (obviously in straight sets) the two players who were DQed but has not himself been disqualified.

    There are other examples of self-rated players we've found who when you examine their tennislink data appear to be clear candidates for disqualification but have not been DQed. Those inconsistencies and the stonewalling from the USTA are perhaps the most frustrating part of this for the parties involved.

    Hopefully it will sort itself out. We would like to keep these two players at our club but we don't have any 4.5 teams so the captain had to call in some favors to get one of the guys picked up by a current 4.5 team located elsewhere.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2013
  39. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,719
    Just got a call from a friend. His wife is a 3.0 team who is in 4th place on in their league. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place teams each have a 3.0S player that is now DQed, but only the 3rd place team is having their matches reversed. :shock: So the top three teams has two (DQ)3.0 and one (DQ*) 3.0. Funny how that works with ringers? :roll:

    Two the DQed 3.0 ladies played against each other, one with an asterisk vs one without the asterisk. Only the lady who played up at 3.5 is showing (DQ*)3.0, but the other lady she played and beat just shows DQ)3.0

    In 2010, if you played at one level and DQed, all matches reversed whether you played up or not. My team had it happen to a guy on their team (before I joined) and looked up his record to confirm today.

    The USTA is a complete joke.


    If a player DQs, a player DQs. Period. Matches should be reversed. Playing up or not, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact the the player isn't at the appropriate level. The USTA will NOT allow them to continue playing at the level the self-rated, but their team 3-2 wins still count to propel them into the playoffs while the 4th place team (who lost to both the 1st and 2nd place teams 2-3) sits out? :mad: WTFO?

    Who is in making these calls at the USTA? Reverse the wins and the 4th place team makes the playoffs. Without the reversal, two out of three teams with (DQ)3.0 players still advance. How does this help accomplish the USTA's Mission Statement: To Promote and Develop the Growth of Tennis? ??? By discouraging teams the didn't self-rate improperly, and maybe having their players quit playing USTA tennis because the USTA condones it? So now, the USTA has deemed "No penalty" for self-rating too low. You and your team keep the Wins. There is something very wrong with that logic.

    If playing up is the only way to DQ with match reversal, the USTA has just actually encouraged more of this crap at the Captain level. The team gets to keep the wins, but they lose the player for season and they knock out teams who followed the rules in the process. Screw the playoffs, glad my team doesn't change when we make the playoffs or don't, we still play tennis, and hang out as friends.

    The USTA needs to be cleansed.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2013
  40. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,719

    If the two S players played the first match against each other, is it possible to get a strike 4.0S vs 4.0S? I am not sure, but it seems most likely that the USTA algorithm would spit out "Does Not Compute"

    e.g. We had a beginner tennis player self-rated at 4.0 (yep beginner and guy with English as very poor second language). What if he played a sandbagging ex college tennis player who also self rated at 4.0? oh, I know that has never happened in the USTA:roll:

    The scores would be 0&0 but would it generate a strike if it was the first match for both players?
     
  41. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    I don't know the answer to that question but oddly enough when I just looked in tennislink for one of our players who was DQed and for the 4.0S player who beat him, this was the first USTA match for both of them.

    Also it is kind of odd is that the other player on our team who was DQ'ed was beaten by the 4.0S in his last match played the day before the DQ occurred.

    It just seems to me that if a self-rate player beats two other self-rates who are then DQed then the first self-rate ought to be strongly considered for DQ as well, especially since he had won all 8 of his matches up to the point of the DQ in straight sets.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2013
  42. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,719
    So the 4.0S that isn't DQed, hasn't generated his 3rd strike, yet he beats two players who are now (DQ)4.0 ?

    This is another problem with the USTA DNTRP Algorithm as it only looks forward when generating DNTRPs and strikes.

    The USTA could easily code the algorithm to generate strikes if a S rated player beats another player (who is later DQed), and this should have happened long ago.

    Scenario:

    All singles for no complications

    Players A & B are both Self Rated, while Players R, S ,and T are either C or B rated

    Player A beats Player B 6-2,6-2 then Player A plays one more match beating a Player R 6-2, 6-1, then sitting down for a few weeks.

    Player B then goes on to beat three players (S,T, then R) and gets DQed.

    If Player A is still playing with no DQ, I submit the USTA's system is flawed .

    An more accurate USTA algorithm would DQ Player A regardless of strikes. The fact that is doesn't speaks volumes about the holes in their algorithm.

    So it depends when you play a S Rated player as much as the score. First match of the season, S rated vs S rated would generate no strikes for either player. But if both players played C or B rated players and won convincingly, they could both have strikes.

    The more a S rated player plays the greater the chance for a DQ. So one S rated player can beat other S rated players who get DQed, and keep playing. That is perfect logic from the folks in the USTA.

    Yep. The USTA needs to be cleansed of the guys in charge of the algorithm.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2013
  43. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,397
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    That is exactly what has happened. Up to the date of where the DQs occurred, the player who was not DQed had played 7 doubles and 1 singles match and won all in straight sets.

    The first of his doubles matches was a win against one of our players who was DQed and his last doubles match against our other player who was DQed.

    These were the set scores for the not-DQed player's first 8 match wins:
    6-2, 6-2 D - was against one of our DQed players
    6-2, 6-3 D
    6-2, 6-2 D
    6-4, 6-2 D
    6-2, 6-1 D
    6-1, 6-1 D
    6-4, 6-3 S
    6-3, 6-3 D - was against the other of our DQed players
     
  44. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,719
    I would love to know the process to address the flawed logic of the USTA and see if there is any hope to change the current process and procedures.

    Please keep this thread updated.
     
  45. J_R_B

    J_R_B Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,632
    Location:
    Newtown, PA
    I don't disagree that there are flaws in the system. I think everyone agrees with that. I do disagree with the bolded part. You cannot have a three strike system where a person can be DQ'd without even playing three matches. That's insane and far too punitive. If the system could go back and recalculate strikes based on the players' current DNTRP and not the DNTRP (or lack thereof) at the time of the match, that is what should happen. In this case, say "we didn't have any information these guys at the time, but now we know that Mr B is out of level, so A beating B should be a strike". Therefore, A would have (likely) two strikes (vs A and vs R). But regardless, you can't DQ a person just for beating a DQ'd player. What if the one guy just had a bad day? Crazy things can happen on one individual day among rec players. That's why they give people THREE chances in the first place.
     
  46. wrxinsc

    wrxinsc Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,400
    Location:
    Cackalacky South
    I am a volunteer area league coordinator but don't have access to the specifics of this situation at a national level.

    What I believe is true is that there was a glitch in the software which generates a strike or not for self rates - which is of course at national.

    This glitch was not discovered in a timely fashion and some players were allowed to continue playing even though they should have been dq'd.

    It appears that it was decided that it would not be fair to the team of that player involved to reverse all of their matches because the captains of their team wouldn't have been able to continue playing them had there not been a problem with the software.

    If it is possible to determine that the the third strike actually occurred on a players last match played when the problem had been corrected, I suspect a District's Director of Leagues could reverse those matches. That could explain the discrepancy if there is one. Just a guess on my part.
     
  47. wrxinsc

    wrxinsc Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,400
    Location:
    Cackalacky South
    Agreed and that is why the system averages the current match with the past three matches played if available. Plenty of self rate players generate strikes, but never know because they don't generate the third.
     
  48. wrxinsc

    wrxinsc Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,400
    Location:
    Cackalacky South
    seems odd but one would need to know the dynamic rating of this player's opponents and their partner to decide for sure. possibly their partner(s) in those dubs matches is at the top range of their rating and/or ready to be 'promoted' and their opponents are at the very low end. all that being said those are some solid wins strung together, and i am assuming there were not any losses mixed in there not being displayed. the generally accepted expected result of a lets say a 4.0 level player at the high range vs. a low range is a 0,0 win. ratings are like a cold. you catch it from someone - actually in the case of dynamic ratings you catch it four times deep if you have played the matches.
     
  49. Orange

    Orange Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    208
    No, matches between two players without dynamic ratings do not generate strikes. This happens a lot at 2.5, particularly in doubles, where both opposing players must have dynamic ratings in order to generate strikes. At 4.0, I wonder why a captain would invite a beginner to play on his team. That isn't doing anyone any favors.
     
  50. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,719
    Three S Rated players all in the same league. Player A plays Player B in week 1 and Player C in week 2. Player C was idle in Week 1.

    So what happens when player A plays two matches, blows out the other "S" rated players B&C, then sits and waits until his is needed in playoffs against other and better "S" players? Maybe he has two strikes? Maybe, like in my example, he has no strikes at all since he played "S" Rated players with no record in week 1 & again in week 2.

    JRB and you are both missing the logic that you don't need three strikes to accurately determine a player is out of level. If players B & C are DQed and Player A beats both of them, logic prevails. DQ player A.

    So in your view both DQed players have to have had bad days against the Player A, and it isn't fair to DQ to Player A, since he has beaten both Players B & C and could currently be sitting with NO strikes currently on his record? Really?:shock:

    I think you are both missing the point BeerNutz and I are making.

    If the possibility exist that I just explained, the current process is flawed. Period.

    Any Law School LSAT gurus follow my logic?
     

Share This Page