Stats for Agassi-Sampras (1995 AO final)

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

Some time ago I started marking them down myself, not to put into my counts (those are still clean winners), but just to be aware of what the official statisticians might be counting. It's no different than counting judgment calls on serves, which we call service winners. On groundies and volleys we don't have a name for them, but official stats definitely make judgment calls on them, at least occasionally. So I started keeping track of them, simply by putting parentheses around the winner. For example, a Sampras forehand volley that Agassi clips with the edge of his racquet: (FHV).

Some people have boxes in which they put down check marks, but that's how I count winners. (My service stats are different).

Just to be clear I counted those too, but didn't mark them specifically as the "not clean" winners

Originally Posted by krosero

Anyway what set did you have the lob?

set 3 - in the beginning part of the set

[abmk]

Originally Posted by EKnee08

On a side note, isn't this the tourney where Pete learned that his coach and good friend, Gully had brain cancer and broke down crying in his match against Courier but came back and beat Courier in 5 sets. He probably didn't have much left in the tank (physically and especially emotionally) when he faced Andre.

He looked pretty fine physically. Emotionally, he was affected quite a bit of course

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

sampras FH winners by set: 3,5,3,1
sampras BH winners by set: 0,2,1,2
sampras BHV winners by set:2,0,4,1

All of these discrepancies seem to be due to our different ways of counting. On my sheet I've got two Sampras winners that I didn't include because Agassi got a racquet on them, but you may have included them in the winner totals: a BHV in the first set and a FH in the second. And in the third set I gave Sampras a BH winner but I made a note that it was a half-volley. Presuming you put that down as a BHV, then all these disrepancies are accounted for.

Anyway, I don't usually make note of what shots are half-volleys, and though now I keep track of possible judgment calls on winners, there are many matches for which I didn't do that. So if you can still make note of those two things going forward, that would helpful.

Originally Posted by abmk

I have agassi making 1 FHV in the 3rd set

I have another one in the second game of the second set, and there I made a mistake. I checked the game, and Agassi is putting away a shot above his head that I marked down as a FHV, then changed to an overhead, without crossing out the original mark. Is this where you have him making an overhead winner?

I'll drop Agassi's total winners from 40 to 39.

Originally Posted by abmk

Just to be clear I counted those too, but didn't mark them specifically as the "not clean" winners

Understood. Counted, included, made note of, marked off -- so many terms flying around! That's how it always is with stats, though.

Originally Posted by abmk

set 3 - in the beginning part of the set

I see it now at 2-1. I have it in my original count, among the winners and the "passes" (but you're right, I'd call it a lob).

[darthpwner]

Wow, I didn't know Agassi could serve that many aces. Sampras hit a ton of aces but that was predictable.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by darthpwner

Wow, I didn't know Agassi could serve that many aces. Sampras hit a ton of aces but that was predictable.

10 aces in 4 sets is not high by any standards

[darthpwner]

Originally Posted by abmk

10 aces in 4 sets is not high by any standards

It's not. Agassi's serve is not a strength. It's like a Nadal serve. That's why I'm amazed he hit 10 aces.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

All of these discrepancies seem to be due to our different ways of counting. On my sheet I've got two Sampras winners that I didn't include because Agassi got a racquet on them, but you may have included them in the winner totals: a BHV in the first set and a FH in the second. And in the third set I gave Sampras a BH winner but I made a note that it was a half-volley. Presuming you put that down as a BHV, then all these disrepancies are accounted for.

I guess all the disrepencies are accounted for this way

Originally Posted by krosero

Anyway, I don't usually make note of what shots are half-volleys, and though now I keep track of possible judgment calls on winners, there are many matches for which I didn't do that. So if you can still make note of those two things going forward, that would helpful.

I'll try marking them from now on ..

Originally Posted by krosero

I have another one in the second game of the second set, and there I made a mistake. I checked the game, and Agassi is putting away a shot above his head that I marked down as a FHV, then changed to an overhead, without crossing out the original mark. Is this where you have him making an overhead winner?

I'll drop Agassi's total winners from 40 to 39.

yep, I have him making an OH winner in the 2nd set ( it was his only OH winner ) - I don't keep tab game by game .

That brings the no of points won by even by your count agassi to 134 ...

Originally Posted by krosero

Understood. Counted, included, made note of, marked off -- so many terms flying around! That's how it always is with stats, though.

I guess so, but it can't be helped

Originally Posted by krosero

I see it now at 2-1. I have it in my original count, among the winners and the "passes" (but you're right, I'd call it a lob).

yeah ...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by darthpwner

It's not. Agassi's serve is not a strength. It's like a Nadal serve. That's why I'm amazed he hit 10 aces.

He did serve pretty well by his standards, but it wasn't that amazing IMO ..For example, he served better in their USO match in 2001 and Indian wells in 2001 ..

Going by krosero's stats of no of serves that agassi made , sampras put back 68.4% of them back into play - which seems ok

I don't get the fuss behind just the no of aces ( ideally the scorers should have the total no of unreturned serves as a stat ( aces+service winners+return errors { forced and unforced } ) it gives a MUCH more accurate picture of how well a player served.

Another example illustrating this would be the federer-roddick match at wimbledon 2009, federer had 50 aces and roddick had 27 aces, but I am pretty sure roddick hit more service winners and federer committed more return errors ...

[krosero]

Originally Posted by krosero

Agassi won 135 points overall, Sampras 122.

Originally Posted by abmk

I have agassi at 134 and sampras at 123

Well this is a minor disrepancy. And my method for counting total points won is not easy to describe like this -- but you may be interested.

In short, I'm confident in the numbers I got because I calculate the total points twice, with two independent methods. First, I use the game scores (for example, a game won at 30 is a 4-2 edge in points for the winner of the game), and then I add up the scores in Excel. Second, I get the points won on first and second serve and add those up.

(I think you use another method, adding up the total winners and errors, right?)

Sometimes those two methods don't give me the same results at first, in which case I know I've made a mistake in either the game scores or the success on 1st and 2nd balls. (So it's useful, I've caught a few mistakes that way.) In this match, they lined up.

I ran the games scores again through Excel and they look good. I can't proof success on first and second serve without rewatching the match, but the figures I got are supported by the ones in the W. Post.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

Well this is a minor disrepancy. And my method for counting total points won is not easy to describe like this -- but you may be interested.

In short, I'm confident in the numbers I got because I calculate the total points twice, with two independent methods. First, I use the game scores (for example, a game won at 30 is a 4-2 edge in points for the winner of the game), and then I add up the scores in Excel. Second, I get the points won on first and second serve and add those up.

(I think you use another method, adding up the total winners and errors, right?)

Sometimes those two methods don't give me the same results at first, in which case I know I've made a mistake in either the game scores or the success on 1st and 2nd balls. (So it's useful, I've caught a few mistakes that way.) In this match, they lined up.

I ran the games scores again through Excel and they look good. I can't proof success on first and second serve without rewatching the match, but the figures I got are supported by the ones in the W. Post.

yeah, your methods are more fool-proof. I just add up the winners and errors by the opponent .

But since you added an extra FHV winner for agassi, that brings down the no of points to 134, correct ?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

He did serve pretty well by his standards, but it wasn't that amazing IMO ..For example, he served better in their USO match in 2001 and Indian wells in 2001 ..

Those two matches are great examples, since he was unbroken in both.

Also at 2000 AO, Pete broke him only once. Moose has a count upthread of how many return errors Agassi drew (on top of his 13 aces).

And he drew two critical ones as he was slipping behind in the fourth-set tiebreak. Two huge serves down the middle. I think his serve got better over the years.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah, your methods are more fool-proof. I just add up the winners and errors by the opponent .

But since you added an extra FHV winner for agassi, that brings down the no of points to 134, correct ?

No, because my total points are not dependent on my winner counts. I track the game scores, and the success on first and second serve, by making marks for the serves. The winners (or errors, if I get them) are a totally separate process on my stat sheets.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

No, because my total points are not dependent on my winner counts. I track the game scores, and the success on first and second serve, by making marks for the serves. The winners (or errors, if I get them) are a totally separate process on my stat sheets.

hmm, ok ... then maybe I put one of the points which was not of much consequence in the game as one that sampras won when actually agassi won it and because the point didn't matter much, I didn't really notice the mistake that time

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

Those two matches are great examples, since he was unbroken in both.

Also at 2000 AO, Pete broke him only once. Moose has a count upthread of how many return errors Agassi drew (on top of his 13 aces).

yeah, he served pretty well at the 2000 AO too. But sampras was in hold-only mode ( didn't really try that much on agassi's serves ) for quite a bit in that match IIRC ..

Originally Posted by krosero

And he drew two critical ones as he was slipping behind in the fourth-set tiebreak. Two huge serves down the middle. I think his serve got better over the years.

yep, just saw that TB again, one helluva TB that was !

His serve did get better over the years

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

hmm, ok ... then maybe I put one of the points which was not of much consequence in the game as one that sampras won when actually agassi won it and because the point didn't matter much, I didn't really notice the mistake that time

Your total number of winners looks fine, so maybe it's on the errors ....

So I've edited my original post, Agassi now at 39 winners. Incidentally I counted up Agassi's passes (non-return) again on my sheet: I still have a total of 12, but actually have 9 FH and 3 BH. We must have made different judgment calls somewhere.

Pleasure working with you.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah, he served pretty well at the 2000 AO too. But sampras was in hold-only mode ( didn't really try that much on agassi's serves ) for quite a bit in that match IIRC ..

To some extent I agree with that, but imo the IW and USO matches certify what he did in AO. In other words I don't think that if Pete had been fully healthy that he would necessarily have gotten any more breaks.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

Your total number of winners looks fine, so maybe it's on the errors ....

So I've edited my original post, Agassi now at 39 winners. Incidentally I counted up Agassi's passes (non-return) again on my sheet: I still have a total of 12, but actually have 9 FH and 3 BH. We must have made different judgment calls somewhere.

Pleasure working with you.

The pleasure is mine

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

To some extent I agree with that, but imo the IW and USO matches certify what he did in AO. In other words I don't think that if Pete had been fully healthy that he would necessarily have gotten any more breaks.

yeah, I agree with that

[krosero]

Originally Posted by darthpwner

Wow, I didn't know Agassi could serve that many aces.

He served 18 in that four-tiebreak USO match against Sampras.

I wonder if that's his career high.

[krosero]

Let me ask you, ABMK, what's the logic for marking half-volleys down as volleys? In the other thread people were mentioning Federer, Agassi, Connors etc. taking balls on the rise from the baseline. Yet those would never be considered volleys. The ball might be taken instantly, as soon as it rises an inch off the bounce, but it would still be considered a groundstroke.

So why would other types of half-volleys be considered volleys? Why do you do it that way? Is it because they're in front of the service line?

IMO the location of the shot has nothing to do with it. The location of the player determines whether it's a net point or a baseline point, of course. But a player can hit a volley with his feet firmly planted at the baseline, and can hit an easy groundstroke putaway while standing on top of the net. How would you separate a putaway of that kind from a type of half-volley that should be put down as a volley?

That seems like too much of a judgment call, which is why I just let the bounce, or lack of a bounce, determine it. And I don't know if any statisticians count half-volleys as volleys, but do you know?