View Single Post
Old 11-03-2011, 02:33 PM   #54
ian2
Semi-Pro
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cindysphinx View Post
^Following on to that idea . . .

Say you include singles league results in NTRP. In Mid-Atlantic we have singles leagues. Let's say that in Middle States, they do not.

The Mid-Atlantic players who play singles will likely have more singles results in their NTRP calculation than the Middle States players.

Say I (a player who is stronger in singles than doubles) play winter singles, adult and fall singles. Because of these two additional opportunities to play singles, I might have 15 singles league matches, 3 adult singles matches and 5 adult doubles matches.

Say we have someone in Middle States who is also stronger in singles. Because there are no singles leagues there, she might have 3 adult singles matches and 5 adult doubles matches.

If I am the same skill level as the Middle States player, we could nevertheless wind up with different NTRPs. This is because my weak doubles results are diluted by my strong singles play much more than my Middle States counterpart.

Therefore, if you "standardize" by including singles league results despite the fact that many areas do not have singles leagues, you would not be standardizing at all. You would be doing the opposite of standardizing.

Which is what often happens in life when you try to standardize things that are not in fact the same.
It's an interesting argument but it's not an argument against "standardization". If anything, it's an argument in favor of having separate singles and doubles ratings. Obviously there is no such thing currently; whether it would be desirable is a whole other story. There are players in all Sections who play exclusively (or almost exclusively) singles, and there are those who play exclusively doubles. NTRP algorithm already [attempts to] take this into account, by applying a different model to doubles ratings calculation. In the end, both "categories" end up with a "universal" rating.

Why not go with the simplest and most obvious approach, and count ALL USTA singles and doubles matches for same-gender leagues and tournaments, in all Sections? These are matches where all parties have a known DNTRP going in... what could be an argument for counting some matches and not counting others? Don't tell me it's the "across Sections re-balancing based on National playoffs": the whole re-balancing idea is demonstrably absurd.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for inclusion of mixed league/tourney results or other "exotic" formats. I think the existing "mixed-exclusive" rating is a good idea.
ian2 is offline   Reply With Quote