Any surprising bumps up or down?

[CrispyFritters]

Originally Posted by Angle Queen

See schmke's description earlier in this thread. All it means is that they were a 3.0 whose team made it to playoffs (and they played some match, any match in the post-season). Just mentally separate the NTRP from the "Letter" after it. Except to the behind-the-scenes stats gurus, B...means little...except that a "Benchmark" (read: playoff player) cannot automatically appeal their rating the first year they receive it.

I agree with AQ. "B" is not better than "C." All it means is that you were chosen as a ruler to measure others against. You could have been a "weak player" and still be a ruler.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by Angle Queen

See schmke's description earlier in this thread. All it means is that they were a 3.0 whose team made it to playoffs (and they played some match, any match in the post-season). Just mentally separate the NTRP from the "Letter" after it. Except to the behind-the-scenes stats gurus, B...means little...except that a "Benchmark" (read: playoff player) cannot automatically appeal their rating the first year they receive it.

Originally Posted by CrispyFritters

I agree with AQ. "B" is not better than "C." All it means is that you were chosen as a ruler to measure others against. You could have been a "weak player" and still be a ruler.

Thank you.

[bobbything]

My team lost 6 of our top 8 guys in 4.5. Our district has been making a push for some time now to bump people up.

[Angle Queen]

Originally Posted by CrispyFritters

"B" is not better than "C." All it means is that you were chosen as a ruler to measure others against. You could have been a "weak player" and still be a ruler.

If you think about, it does actually make some sense. The "ruler" needs a start and stop point. New to an NTRP and still B...probably sets the bottom of that level...in that they were good enough to be on a team to go to playoffs and had a personal record to back up that collective success. A "B" that remains at-level, is likely to be the high end of that level (setting the top of the lower level)...in that they played well enough to be on a team that went to playoffs but didn't have the personal record to push them to the next level.

Not sure if I'm explaining that well but let's try with some names.

Able, Baker, Charlie and his Dog all play on a 3.5 team. They make the playoffs, all of them play at least one match in the post-season. ALL of them will be "B" players next year, regardless of their NTRP.

Able has a good season and wins in playoffs. He becomes a 4.0B.
Baker has a so-so season and wins in playoffs. He stays a 3.5, albeit a 3.5B.
Charlie has a so-so season and loses in playoffs. He's like Baker and stays a 3.5 but also with a B.
Dog had an awful season and loses in playoffs. He drops down to 3.0...but with the B tag...3.0B.

Now let's say Earl also played on this same 3.5 team but couldn't make the playoffs due to a prior obligation. He had a great season. It's very possible he'll also be bumped to 4.0...but he'd be a 4.0C.

Now, is Earl better than Able. Maybe, maybe not. But from the computer's perspective, it's easier to evaluate Able since he played opponents outside his region and, ostensibly, would be a better benchmark....against which to judge future opponents at the follow year's ratings computation, even if it's at the bottom end.

Clearly, however & from the computer's perspective, both Able and Earl are 4.0s. Baker and Charlie are 3.5s...probably at the upper end since they were good enough to play for a playoff-bound team (which is, after all, the sum of its parts).

Dog needed to move down...but again, is probably the top of his now lower NTRP...since he'd most recently played a level up.

Does that help any?

[Cindysphinx]

You need to change your sig line.

[schmke]

Originally Posted by Angle Queen

If you think about, it does actually make some sense. The "ruler" needs a start and stop point. New to an NTRP and still B...probably sets the bottom of that level...in that they were good enough to be on a team to go to playoffs and had a personal record to back up that collective success. A "B" that remains at-level, is likely to be the high end of that level (setting the top of the lower level)...in that they played well enough to be on a team that went to playoffs but didn't have the personal record to push them to the next level.

Not sure if I'm explaining that well but let's try with some names.

Able, Baker, Charlie and his Dog all play on a 3.5 team. They make the playoffs, all of them play at least one match in the post-season. ALL of them will be "B" players next year, regardless of their NTRP.

Able has a good season and wins in playoffs. He becomes a 4.0B.
Baker has a so-so season and wins in playoffs. He stays a 3.5, albeit a 3.5B.
Charlie has a so-so season and loses in playoffs. He's like Baker and stays a 3.5 but also with a B.
Dog had an awful season and loses in playoffs. He drops down to 3.0...but with the B tag...3.0B.

Now let's say Earl also played on this same 3.5 team but couldn't make the playoffs due to a prior obligation. He had a great season. It's very possible he'll also be bumped to 4.0...but he'd be a 4.0C.

Now, is Earl better than Able. Maybe, maybe not. But from the computer's perspective, it's easier to evaluate Able since he played opponents outside his region and, ostensibly, would be a better benchmark....against which to judge future opponents at the follow year's ratings computation, even if it's at the bottom end.

Clearly, however & from the computer's perspective, both Able and Earl are 4.0s. Baker and Charlie are 3.5s...probably at the upper end since they were good enough to play for a playoff-bound team (which is, after all, the sum of its parts).

Dog needed to move down...but again, is probably the top of his now lower NTRP...since he'd most recently played a level up.

Does that help any?

Good scenario and description AQ.

The one thing I'd add is that I "think" that Able, Baker, Charlie, and Dog becoming Bs causes them to be used as benchmarks for 2012 instead or as well as 2013, i.e. the benchmark part of the year-end rating has players that played against ABCD being adjusted based on how they did in their matches against ABCD or any other benchmark they played. I don't do any benchmark calculations in my estimated ratings in large part because I haven't fully figured out how the USTA does it, so any confirmation of this one way or the other would be great.

[beernutz]

There's a local player who played 4 matches rated as a 4.5 in 2012, winning three of them
6-4, 3-6, 1-0
6-3, 6-2
6-2, 6-2
and losing one
7-5, 6-2.

His rating for 12/31/2012 is 4.0A so does that mean he was bumped down to 4.0 and has appealed the bump down?

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Originally Posted by beernutz

There's a local player who played 4 matches rated as a 4.5 in 2012, winning three of them
6-4, 3-6, 1-0
6-3, 6-2
6-2, 6-2
and losing one
7-5, 6-2.

His rating for 12/31/2012 is 4.0A so does that mean he was bumped down to 4.0 and has appealed the bump down?

NO ... think it means he was computer rated at 4.5 and appealed down to 4.0. If his appeal was denied it would still say 4.0 C or 4.0 B.

From personal experience I know when an appeal is denied you do not get the A rating.

[RedWeb]

One player in our area got bumped from 3.5 to 4.5. Don't see that happen very often.

[Rjtennis]

My budy hadn't lost a match at 4.5 playing #1 singles in a long time and was bumped up to 5.0. He then proceeded to lose two 5.0 singles matches and was bumped right back down. He also plays USTA Tournaments and win the majority he enters at singles. I have a hard time understanding how he got bumped back down.

[Mike Y]

I personally think that ratings should be more volatile. There are too many people that go 9-2 for 3 straight seasons without getting bumped up. If you win 80% of your matches in any one season, you should get bumped up. If you then go 2-8 at the higher level the next season, then you should get bumped back down. If you go 5-5, then that is your appropriate level. It just seems like there are too many people who just camp out at the higher end of their level for years, and then get all disappointed when they finally get bumped up, even though that should have happened years ago.

[schmke]

Originally Posted by Mike Y

I personally think that ratings should be more volatile. There are too many people that go 9-2 for 3 straight seasons without getting bumped up. If you win 80% of your matches in any one season, you should get bumped up. If you then go 2-8 at the higher level the next season, then you should get bumped back down. If you go 5-5, then that is your appropriate level. It just seems like there are too many people who just camp out at the higher end of their level for years, and then get all disappointed when they finally get bumped up, even though that should have happened years ago.

You are right that as constructed, the NTRP algorithm isn't terribly volatile and you generally have to really dominate at your level, happen to play very strong competition and win at your level, or play up in order to be bumped up.

[emilyhex]

About 1/3 of my 4.0 team (incl. me) got bumped up. But, I noticed a handful of other ladies in our league who also got bumped up, so at least in our part of the country, the competition was hot. All who got bumped deserved it, no surprises. There were some other good players who didn't get bumped, who must be right on the cusp.

And yeah, we had an awesome team

[Taxvictim]

In 2012, I only played mixed doubles and 6.5 combo doubles (but made it to the state finals in that one). They didn't review my standing at all. I still have the same computer rating with a 2011 date. Is that because they don't use mixed and combo doubles to re-rate?

[schmke]

Originally Posted by Taxvictim

In 2012, I only played mixed doubles and 6.5 combo doubles (but made it to the state finals in that one). They didn't review my standing at all. I still have the same computer rating with a 2011 date. Is that because they don't use mixed and combo doubles to re-rate?

Correct. The USTA bases your rating on your eligible gender specific matches only, eligible being only the leagues your section/district elects to use. So your mixed matches don't count and I don't know of any section that uses combo matches either.

If you don't play 3 gender specific matches from eligible leagues, but play enough mixed matches, you can get a mixed-exclusive rating, but I believe when you have a gender specific rating from the prior year, that still carries over instead and seems to be what happened with you.

[Taxvictim]

Originally Posted by schmke

Correct. The USTA bases your rating on your eligible gender specific matches only, eligible being only the leagues your section/district elects to use. So your mixed matches don't count and I don't know of any section that uses combo matches either.

If you don't play 3 gender specific matches from eligible leagues, but play enough mixed matches, you can get a mixed-exclusive rating, but I believe when you have a gender specific rating from the prior year, that still carries over instead and seems to be what happened with you.

Thank you. I did notice that one of my teammates got a new 2012 "mixed exclusive" rating at the same level he was before.

[bobbything]

Originally Posted by Mike Y

I personally think that ratings should be more volatile. There are too many people that go 9-2 for 3 straight seasons without getting bumped up. If you win 80% of your matches in any one season, you should get bumped up. If you then go 2-8 at the higher level the next season, then you should get bumped back down. If you go 5-5, then that is your appropriate level. It just seems like there are too many people who just camp out at the higher end of their level for years, and then get all disappointed when they finally get bumped up, even though that should have happened years ago.

I've said this for years but the USTA should go to a dynamic rating system. Where I live, there's a rating system called Tencap. They use it in a few other cities as well. It adjusts on the fly as you complete matches. It's kind of like a golf handicap. The lower the rating, the better the player. And they have divisions that encompass rating ranges. For instance...

The Men's Blue Division is for players rated between 22-28; which is typically a 4.5 level. If a 28 rated player plays a 22 rated player and wins 6-4, 6-4, their rating will go up accordingly and the losing player's rating will go down accordingly. Vice versa, if the 22 rated player wins, but let's say it's in three sets, their rating could still go down (because the match was close).

I've been playing Tencap for about 10 years and the system is far more accurate. And you can see exactly where you are relative to other players. This is one of the problems I see with the USTA's rating system. Nobody knows where they fall within their respective rating spectrum. I've been a 4.5 for years, but I have no idea where I am relative to other players.

One of the concerns with the Tencap system is that they thought it would encourage sandbagging to keep a rating where it is. But I've honestly never seen that happen.

[Platocat]

I was a 3.5 self rate that got DQ'ed by end of summer and received 4.0 D rating. I played on both 3.5 and 4.0 teams, neither of which made it to playoffs. Just saw that my rating is now 4.0 B.

My 4.0 team this summer comprised of 8 3.5 women and 6 4.0 women. All the 4.0's were new bumps from previous year. Theses women have been playing together for years and dominated at 3.5, routinely going to states playoffs. They decided to move up as a team last year and not unexpectedly, lost a lot but we managed to end up in the middle of the pack by end of the season. I was surprised to see that all the 4.0s now got moved down to 3.5. I imagine that I'll have to look for a new 4.0 team next summer.

[Tmano]

does the tri-level leagues matter about getting bup up or down? Asking because I played 4 matches at 4.5 all won ( one of them defoulted) plus I won a 4.0 tourney in January and I still are the same 4.0.
It does not really matter to me but I was just curious.

[goober]

Originally Posted by bobbything

I've said this for years but the USTA should go to a dynamic rating system. Where I live, there's a rating system called Tencap. They use it in a few other cities as well. It adjusts on the fly as you complete matches. It's kind of like a golf handicap. The lower the rating, the better the player. And they have divisions that encompass rating ranges. For instance...

The Men's Blue Division is for players rated between 22-28; which is typically a 4.5 level. If a 28 rated player plays a 22 rated player and wins 6-4, 6-4, their rating will go up accordingly and the losing player's rating will go down accordingly. Vice versa, if the 22 rated player wins, but let's say it's in three sets, their rating could still go down (because the match was close).

I've been playing Tencap for about 10 years and the system is far more accurate. And you can see exactly where you are relative to other players. This is one of the problems I see with the USTA's rating system. Nobody knows where they fall within their respective rating spectrum. I've been a 4.5 for years, but I have no idea where I am relative to other players.

One of the concerns with the Tencap system is that they thought it would encourage sandbagging to keep a rating where it is. But I've honestly never seen that happen.

Nobody knows their exact rating by design. Trust me, if you applied this to the USTA, people would abuse it. The vast majority wouldn't, but those hell bent on sectionals and nationals would. Want to make sure that all your self rate players are available for playoffs? This would make it incredibly easy to manage your scores so they are available. Worried that some on your team may get a bump for ESR or end of year? Now you know exactly what you need to do and how close you are to adjust your scores. No more guessing. A tencap system would work well for a local league where people are actually trying to move up levels, but not for USTA where people are trying to stay put at their level for playoffs.

In USTA most people know where they stand in their rating level- upper, mid or lower just by how they do in their matches. That is good enough IMO.