Self rated players bumped mid season but not DQed?

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

  1. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,886

    The Captain didn't invite the guy on a 4.0 team, but rather a 6.5 Combo team. The guy self-rated at 4.0 when he was a 3.0 at best.

    The Captain was doing the guy a favor trying to get him to play. The player thought taking lessons meant he was enrolled in a school or something and self-rated at 4.0. The USTA only granted his appeal down to 3.5 where he remains with no wins ten months later.
     
    #51
  2. J_R_B

    J_R_B Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,667
    Location:
    Newtown, PA
    This seems a little far fetched, but no, he definitely should NOT be DQ'd for playing two matches, period, no one should. That's why it's a THREE strike system. He should get two strikes retroactively based on the others' subsequent performance, so if he plays in the playoffs, he's playing with 2 strikes, and his captain is taking a real risk by using him. It's no different than when an S rated player plays 2 top-of-level B or C rated players, blows them out, and then sits until the playoffs. He gets no more than 2 strikes and can still play in the playoffs on his last chance.
     
    #52
  3. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,886
    You could if the system did what I think it should. :)

    Basically in my example, Player A is not DQed because of scheduling. Had he played Player B & C in week 6 or 7 and beat them, he would have strikes and be DQed just like Players B&C.

    Because the possibility exist to play back to back S rated players, and not generated strikes, like I posted earlier, the system should look back for DQs. That is the only way to address this.

    So Player A has two really good days against two guys that are DQed, but he really is a not that good of player. He just drilled them 2&2 and 2&3.
     
    #53
  4. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,886
    But it is entirely possible.
     
    #54
  5. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,886
    But it my example, he has NO strikes because he played Player B in week 1 and Player C in week 2 and Player C was idle in week 1.

    That is why an accurate system would not allow Player A to be sitting in the playoffs with no strikes, but in my case Player A is doing just that.
     
    #55
  6. beernutz

    beernutz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,426
    Location:
    expanding my Ignore List
    The only loss this player has occurred the week after the DQs of the other two players. A suspicious person could suspect that the loss was possibly intentional given how much the two DQs have been talked about and that the non-DQed player had previously beaten both of them. I don't know that other player however and have no way of confirming that though.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2013
    #56
  7. J_R_B

    J_R_B Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,667
    Location:
    Newtown, PA
    Now you're changing you're whole scenario. I AGREE that he shouldn't be in the playoffs with no strikes. That is clearly a deficiency in the system. BUT, what you were arguing earlier is that he should be DQ'd having played only TWO matches, and that is clearly wrong. The USTA has said everyone gets 3 strikes. Therefore, there should be no way to get DQ'd (dynamic DQ anyway) without playing at least three matches. Period. I'm sorry about what happened to your wife, but you gotta take a deep breath and chill for a minute here. You're not being rational.
     
    #57
  8. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,886
    Dude. It wasn't my wife. It was a friend's wife. And I am very chilled.

    And I have changed nothing in my scenario. I don't care that he could have have only played two matches

    I disagree with the logic of the USTA based on my example. An example that actually happened in to Beernutz (except the guy seems to have possibly tanked a match after the two guys he beat got DQed).

    Reread my post. If the guy only played two matches, and those matches were blowouts of other "S" rated players, logic tells us, the guy is clearly out of level. It wasn't the other guys "both had bad days" with 2&2 and 2&3 wins

    I disagree with the requirement to play three matches in the cases of one player beating two other DQ players. I don't care if he plays 2 or 3, or 4 matches.

    I have shown that the possibility exist for S rated player to have beaten two Self Rated Players and be sitting ready for playoffs with no strikes. That is flawed. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

    Have a good night JRB.
     
    #58
  9. wrxinsc

    wrxinsc Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,400
    Location:
    Cackalacky South
    Your passion for the sport is apparent, and it is good that you are reasoning out possible scenarios and trying to understand what might or might not happen. I think what the other gentleman meant by far fetched is simply that the vast majority of league players (particularly at 4.0 up levels) are computer rated such that multiple self rates who are destined to be dq'd playing against each other multiple times is unlikely. Certainly possible for sure.

    In order to cheat the system as a self rated player let's say at a 4.5 level playing in a 4.0 level league one would first have to have a reason to do that and probably have lied on the self rate. By reason I mean no one that is skilled at the 4.5 level has a problem evaluating their skill set so they are likely cheating by rating too low and then able to kick ass repeatedly. Even though we are a large section every 4.5+ player knows each other. That being said, there are certainly a very small number of people that will try to cheat at this recreational activity. Strange as that may seem.

    In our rather large area most all of the dq's occur because people improve so quickly as they become enamored with the sport, and put the work in, such that they ended up rating themselves too low as it were. And in fact the guidelines ask you to consider your potential improvement when you self rate. A tough ask for sure.

    We have only had two occurrences (of the many hundreds of players in our area) where people have [in my opinion] clearly cheated the system and they were both caught. One by a grievance being filed where there was proof that person had played D1 college tennis and she was still her early 20's, and the other ended up getting dq'd at states.

    People who care about this sport and have an inquiring mind about possible problems, like you g4, are a very good thing for the sport and the USTA.

    Rally on! Inquiring minds want to know.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2013
    #59
  10. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,367
    I agree with J_R_B. There are flaws, but the proposal doesn't really address them and introduces ideas that are themselves flawed.

    Yes, the NTRP system doesn't generate a strike when two self-rated players (A beats B) play each other in their first match. The system has no data to go on so it can't generate one.

    If at some point later, player B gets DQ'd, like J_R_B says, you can't just DQ A because he beat him. First, it could be the only match player A played that would be a strike. But more importantly, since it was both players first match, it is entirely possible that player B was just coming back to the game and very rusty and their play didn't represent their ability in their matches that were strikes. So this match doesn't really indicate that A is better than the B that has been DQ'd.

    Yes, you might make an argument that past matches should be recalculated once you do have data on self-rated players (and my understanding is that the year-end calculations may do something like this for self-rated players), but just blindly making DQ decisions based on matches that could be several to many months old when player's level of play could be significantly different doesn't make sense.
     
    #60
  11. schmke

    schmke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,367
    I did a bit more research and a quick pass at calculating my estimated dynamic NTRP ratings for the 3 players being discussed, and they are consistent with the 2 DQ'd players being rated higher than the not-DQ'd one.

    The key reason is that the not-DQ'd player has played primarily doubles and has done so with very strong partners. Six of his doubles matches have been played with partners that were at the top of the 4.0 range to start the year and have hovered around 4.1 all year thus far. So when he plays with them, since he is a strong 4.0, around 3.85 to 3.9, they are supposed to win comfortably against most teams and those wins don't really improve his rating very much if at all.

    Again folks, especially in doubles, it isn't wins and losses that tell the whole story. The partner and opponents ratings have to be factored in too.
     
    #61

Share This Page