View Single Post
Old 01-06-2013, 09:19 AM   #14
pc1
Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abmk View Post
by aggressive ratio you mean : no of points won by a player through forcing/total number of points in the match


where no of points won by forcing = winners+errors forced from opponent ?



yeah, the surface matters a lot here , which is why it'd be better to arrange it by the surface ....
I mean if a player hits 45 winners and has 15 errors, that would be a 3 to 1 ratio. Another player may hit 15 winners and have only 5 errors but has the same 3 to 1 ratio.

If you do plus-minus the first guy is far better at plus 30 than the second guy at plus 10.

I think ratio may be better.

One other thing we should considering is normalizing the information for the eras. They do that in the National Football League and Major League Baseball all the time. I wrote an article for a well known NFL magazine a few years ago normalizing information on the teams stats of NFL teams from the 1940's onward to the present. The results were in line with the relative dominance of the teams. In the wood era there were far more errors than winners. We should perhaps consider ratios for the different eras also. So era like the 1970's and 1980's had a mix of different racquets and equipment. So used wood into the 1980's and switched to a more modern racquet. Some have argue that Chris Evert was at a huge disadvantage against Martina Navratilova for a while when Navratilova was beat Evert all the time because Evert used wood and Navratilova the most modern racquet. One Evert switched to a modern racquet, it was competitive against.

Some statisticians have used standard deviations as a way of normalizing information. We obviously don't have this information available but it would be wonderful if some researcher was able to find as many matches as possibly to get a large statistical sample.

Last edited by pc1 : 01-06-2013 at 09:26 AM.
pc1 is online now   Reply With Quote