Why Was My Teammate DQED?

lordmanji · Jun 4, 2009

My teammate is a self-rated 3.0 that was bumped up to 3.5. So whereas before we were no. 2 contending for no.1 in our section, now we are no. 3. And before that, another of our players was dq'ed. I am starting to think the top team and the league coordinator is conspiring against our team who for the first time had a chance to make it to sectionals. Anyway, here's my teammate's 3.0 singles record.

Teammate:
6-0, 7-5 W
6-1, 6-1 W
6-4, 6-3 L (against "2.5" opponent)
6-0, 7-5 W
6-3, 6-2 W
6-0, 2-6, 1-0 W (against guy who the "2.5" opponent beat 0 and 1)

I think there might be a conspiracy because the one player he LOST to is self-rated as a 2.5 and just happens to be on the no. 1 team that displaced us and who we were in contention with until our second dq. Here's his record:

"2.5" Opponent:
6-2, 2-6, 1-0 W
6-4, 6-3 W (against my teammate)
6-0, 6-1 W (against guy who took my teammate to a third set tiebreak)
6-1, 6-1 W (same guy who was his first opponent)

The third player in this list this 2.5 opponent beat 6-0 and 6-1, my teammate had to go to a third set tiebreak against. So how the heck is it that he and his other "2.5" teammates are not dq'ed and bumped up to 3.5? It's more egregious that a 2.5 player could play at a 3.5 level than a 3.0 at a 3.5 level, no?

The league coordinator's response was that it's all dynamic rating but I don't buy it cause this 2.5 opponent is beating everyone else so badly except for the first guy who coincidentally they played again and he beat 1 and 1 (1 and 4 are the same guy).

My teammate did play at the 3.5 level which he won 0 and 1 singles #2 but lost in doubles #3. The opponent did not.

So is this favortism and colllusion?

OrangePower · Jun 4, 2009

I'm sorry for your loss.

As I understand it, a self rated player does not get an official rating until 4 matches have been played versus rated players. At this time, the self-rated player could earn a first rating that is above level, earning an instant DQ. If not instantly DQ'd, each match after that generates an updated dynamic rating, and if 3 such ratings during the season are above level, then the player is DQ'd on the three strikes rule.

So let's look at your situation:

First, the self-rated 2.5 that you're complaining about. So far according to you he has played at most 3 rated player (4 matches, and your guy is self rated). Therefore, he cannot be DQ'd (yet) because not enough matches have been played.

Now your player: He has not played enough to be DQ'd on 3 strikes (minimum of 7 matches for that; 4 to get initial rating, and then 3 to get the strikes). So that means his initial rating was above level. He has played 6 matches, of which we already know 1 was against a self-rated. Maybe there was one more against a self-rated? In which case, 4 against rated players. And if the rated players were high 3.0's, then beating them could well have led to an initial rating above level.

So... no conspiracy here, just bad luck to have your self rated player win his first 4 'rated' matches at 3.0.

amarone · Jun 5, 2009

OrangePower said:
As I understand it, a self rated player does not get an official rating until 4 matches have been played versus rated players. At this time, the self-rated player could earn a first rating that is above level, earning an instant DQ. If not instantly DQ'd, each match after that generates an updated dynamic rating, and if 3 such ratings during the season are above level, then the player is DQ'd on the three strikes rule.

This is not right. Going by this you would have to play at least 7 matches before you could be DQed and there are plenty of examples of players being DQed after as few as 3. You can get a strike in the very first match you play.

What I think you are confusing it with is that when you play against a self-rated player, that match will not affect your own rating unless the self-rated player has played at least two matches, I think, (not four) against players with ratings. Hence in the example in the OP the loss against the 2.5 player will not count because at that time the 2.5 player had played only one previous match.

As for the original question about favoritism and collusion - of course not. For the gazillionth time on these boards - it is purely done according to the computer algorithm (unless there was a self-rate grievance).

raiden031 · Jun 5, 2009

2.5 players do have probably a very high DQ threshold, since its expected that many of them have the potential to quickly improve well into the 3.0 level during the season.

But really you can't make heads or tails from what you posted because you have to know the ratings of the opponents (or be able to predict them by cross-checking tennislink records). If the two opponents the DQ'd played beat before beating the 2.5 player were players who were already at the top of 3.0 (or partially into the 3.5 level), that could have alot of impact.

amarone · Jun 5, 2009

raiden031 said:
2.5 players do have probably a very high DQ threshold, since its expected that many of them have the potential to quickly improve well into the 3.0 level during the season.

Correct. The DQ level for a 2.5 player is 3.0 (i.e. actually a 3.5 rating) whereas the DQ level for a 3.0 is 3.3.

raiden031 · Jun 5, 2009

amarone said:
Correct. The DQ level for a 2.5 player is 3.0 (i.e. actually a 3.5 rating) whereas the DQ level for a 3.0 is 3.3.

Where did you get this information, as it is not published..

SJS · Jun 5, 2009

lordmanji said:
t

My teammate did play at the 3.5 level which he won 0 and 1 singles #2 but lost in doubles #3. The opponent did not.

So is this favortism and colllusion?

Your teammate received a strike every time he went above level. Both your captain and team mate should be able to find out which matches those were. My guess it was the 3.5 match, maybe even the 3.5 loss if it was close to good opponents and/or the 3.0 wins. I don't think it's possible for a league coordinator to dynamically DQ a player since it's all done by the computer and can be documented.

amarone · Jun 5, 2009

raiden031 said:
Where did you get this information, as it is not published..

I was in a briefing on how Dynamic NTRP works that was given to USTA volunteers. We were told that it was okay to pass on any of the information that we were given. We were not disclosed information such as exactly how the algorithm works.

The idea behind the briefing was that we could help dispel the many misconceptions about how the rating system works, which is what I am trying to do by responding to posts such as in this thread.

Ajtat411 · Jun 5, 2009

I just joined a Combo 6.5 league and self-rated at 3.5 so IF I won my first match by a margin of 6-3, 6-3 would that be a strike against me? Assuming the oppenents are established computer rated 3.0/3.5. If they're not and also just self rated then it wouldn't be a strike?

amarone said:
This is not right. Going by this you would have to play at least 7 matches before you could be DQed and there are plenty of examples of players being DQed after as few as 3. You can get a strike in the very first match you play.

What I think you are confusing it with is that when you play against a self-rated player, that match will not affect your own rating unless the self-rated player has played at least two matches, I think, (not four) against players with ratings. Hence in the example in the OP the loss against the 2.5 player will not count because at that time the 2.5 player had played only one previous match.

As for the original question about favoritism and collusion - of course not. For the gazillionth time on these boards - it is purely done according to the computer algorithm (unless there was a self-rate grievance).

PatrickB · Jun 5, 2009

amarone said:
I was in a briefing on how Dynamic NTRP works that was given to USTA volunteers. We were told that it was okay to pass on any of the information that we were given. We were not disclosed information such as exactly how the algorithm works.

The idea behind the briefing was that we could help dispel the many misconceptions about how the rating system works, which is what I am trying to do by responding to posts such as in this thread.

A better approach for this would be for the USTA to actually describe its algorithm in detail and disclose detailed ratings for everyone so we know exactly where we stand.

raiden031 · Jun 5, 2009

Ajtat411 said:
I just joined a Combo 6.5 league and self-rated at 3.5 so IF I won my first match by a margin of 6-3, 6-3 would that be a strike against me? Assuming the oppenents are established computer rated 3.0/3.5. If they're not and also just self rated then it wouldn't be a strike?

Combo does not count towards your ratings. If it did count, then the only way you would get a strike would be if you beat opponents who were rated at the top of the level by that score.

Ajtat411 · Jun 5, 2009

raiden031 said:
Combo does not count towards your ratings. If it did count, then the only way you would get a strike would be if you beat opponents who were rated at the top of the level by that score.

So it doesn't count toward improving my rating, but I could get a strike and DQ. hmm

Nellie · Jun 5, 2009

lordmanji said:
My teammate did play at the 3.5 level which he won 0 and 1 singles #2 but lost in doubles #3. The opponent did not.

The league has nothing to do with ratings and DQs, and honestly, I bet they could less about your player and team.

Your player likely got a strike for the above win. Then, with more wins at 3.0, your player continued to get strikes since the player continued to have a rating that was outside the 3.0 range. 3 strikes and you are out.

The other player, although starting as 2.5, likely got a dynamic rating in the 3.0 range now, so the initial rating does not matter. Who knows what the records/ratings of his/her opponents, so it is hard to tell otherwise.

OrangePower · Jun 5, 2009

amarone said:
This is not right. Going by this you would have to play at least 7 matches before you could be DQed and there are plenty of examples of players being DQed after as few as 3. You can get a strike in the very first match you play.

What I think you are confusing it with is that when you play against a self-rated player, that match will not affect your own rating unless the self-rated player has played at least two matches, I think, (not four) against players with ratings. Hence in the example in the OP the loss against the 2.5 player will not count because at that time the 2.5 player had played only one previous match.

As for the original question about favoritism and collusion - of course not. For the gazillionth time on these boards - it is purely done according to the computer algorithm (unless there was a self-rate grievance).

Of course I can't be sure since USTA does not make these details public. But my info comes from sources that used to work at USTA.

Based on this info, you need 4 matches to get an initial rating. Now, you are saying that there have been DQ's after 3 matches. Of course, that could happen to an Adjusted player (who already has a rating) subsequently getting 3 strikes.

Or have you seen a self-rated player get DQ'd after just 3 matches? I've never seen this myself...

raiden031 · Jun 5, 2009

Ajtat411 said:
So it doesn't count toward improving my rating, but I could get a strike and DQ. hmm

I just said it didn't count, which means you can't get a strike or DQ from playing combo.

Ajtat411 · Jun 5, 2009

raiden031 said:
I just said it didn't count, which means you can't get a strike or DQ from playing combo.

Opps, forgot to read the part that said "If it did count". TGIF!

Raiden.Kaminari · Jun 5, 2009

USTA has a lot more faith in the DNTRP algorithm this year, especially since they are no longer 3 strike disqualifying computer or benchmark players. They're still disqualifying adjusted, appealed, mixed, self-rated, and tournament players.

For players getting DQ'd after 3 matches, their first strike came on their first match, usually against a benchmark player.

amarone · Jun 5, 2009

OrangePower said:
Of course I can't be sure since USTA does not make these details public. But my info comes from sources that used to work at USTA.

Based on this info, you need 4 matches to get an initial rating. Now, you are saying that there have been DQ's after 3 matches. Of course, that could happen to an Adjusted player (who already has a rating) subsequently getting 3 strikes.

Or have you seen a self-rated player get DQ'd after just 3 matches? I've never seen this myself...

I don't know how to link direct to a player's record, but go to TennisLink and look up Christopher G. Krol.

amarone · Jun 5, 2009

Raiden.Kaminari said:
USTA has a lot more faith in the DNTRP algorithm this year, especially since they are no longer 3 strike disqualifying computer or benchmark players. They're still disqualifying adjusted, appealed, mixed, self-rated, and tournament players.

For players getting DQ'd after 3 matches, their first strike came on their first match.

Well yes. And their second on their second and their third on their third - there's no other possibility.

usually against a benchmark player

While the fact of being a benchmark is irrelevant, there will be a correlation between getting strikes and beating benchmark players. BPs made the playoffs, therefore are on good teams and are themselves likely to be above average for their level. And your rating is affected more if you beat good players.

raiden031 · Jun 5, 2009

amarone said:
Well yes. And their second on their second and their third on their third - there's no other possibility.
While the fact of being a benchmark is irrelevant, there will be a correlation between getting strikes and beating benchmark players. BPs made the playoffs, therefore are on good teams and are themselves likely to be above average for their level. And your rating is affected more if you beat good players.

Yes but I would think a large percentage of benchmark players get bumped to the next level, which means beating them at the new level means you are beating a weak player.

Kostas · Jun 5, 2009

I've posted a couple times about DQ's here and I also think there is something 'funky' about this system.

All you're ever able to get are the vague and mysterious answers about the DNTRP system but I don't buy it.

OrangePower · Jun 5, 2009

amarone said:
I don't know how to link direct to a player's record, but go to TennisLink and look up Christopher G. Krol.

Found the player and you are right he was DQ'd after 3... but do you know whether he started out as self-rated verus as an Adjusted? Where can you see this? Sorry I am not so familiar with TennisLink since I am in Norcal where we have our own customized version of TennisLink (which by the way is quite a bit better and shows much more info).

If you know he started out as self-rated then I stand corrected.

amarone · Jun 5, 2009

OrangePower said:
Found the player and you are right he was DQ'd after 3... but do you know whether he started out as self-rated verus as an Adjusted? Where can you see this? Sorry I am not so familiar with TennisLink since I am in Norcal where we have our own customized version of TennisLink (which by the way is quite a bit better and shows much more info).

If you know he started out as self-rated then I stand corrected.

He has only ever played 3 matches in USTA, so must have been self-rated initially. That is his entire record - not just one season.

I can see that he started as self-rated in June of 2008, but you need more than just regular login authorization to see that information, so I can't show you how to see it.

amarone · Jun 5, 2009

Kostas said:
I've posted a couple times about DQ's here and I also think there is something 'funky' about this system.

All you're ever able to get are the vague and mysterious answers about the DNTRP system but I don't buy it.

There is a lot of factual information here. The exact algorithm and each person's exact rating is kept secret, but otherwise there is a lot of information.

But if you prefer to believe that the whole process is mysterious and funky, so be it - maybe the DQs are all worked out at the fake moon landing site just beyond the grassy knoll.

Jim A · Jun 5, 2009

amarone said:
While the fact of being a benchmark is irrelevant, there will be a correlation between getting strikes and beating benchmark players. BPs made the playoffs, therefore are on good teams and are themselves likely to be above average for their level. And your rating is affected more if you beat good players.

This is why there needs to be some sort of Singles or Doubles B rating, especially at the 3.0/ (and possibly)3.5 level

The person I beat last week was playing his first singles match (ever) and was a B player through his results last year at doubles. It was my easiest match (2 and 0) to date although he was the first B rated opponent I've faced.

So if what you are saying is true Amarone, then I likely have a strike for beating the worst of my opponents to date in singles because of his success at doubles

I see tournaments in my future after this league play concludes

kylebarendrick · Jun 5, 2009

Jim, is this your opponent's first season at their current rating? As Raiden correctly pointed out, many players with "B" ratings earned that designation playing at a lower level. As an example, several years ago I went to Nationals as a 3.0. The following season, my rating was "3.5B". This was my first season as a 3.5 and I was not at the top of the level. Beating me, even badly, would not have earned a 3.5 player a strike.

Don't over-analyze "B" ratings. The people I look for are the "A" ratings. In their case you know within .05 what their actual rating is since they were within the appealable range. If you smoke an "A" rated player than you are more likely to get a strike than if you smoke a "B" rated player.

JavierLW · Jun 5, 2009

lordmanji said:
My teammate is a self-rated 3.0 that was bumped up to 3.5. So whereas before we were no. 2 contending for no.1 in our section, now we are no. 3. And before that, another of our players was dq'ed. I am starting to think the top team and the league coordinator is conspiring against our team who for the first time had a chance to make it to sectionals. Anyway, here's my teammate's 3.0 singles record.

Teammate:
6-0, 7-5 W
6-1, 6-1 W
6-4, 6-3 L (against "2.5" opponent)
6-0, 7-5 W
6-3, 6-2 W
6-0, 2-6, 1-0 W (against guy who the "2.5" opponent beat 0 and 1)

I think there might be a conspiracy because the one player he LOST to is self-rated as a 2.5 and just happens to be on the no. 1 team that displaced us and who we were in contention with until our second dq. Here's his record:

"2.5" Opponent:
6-2, 2-6, 1-0 W
6-4, 6-3 W (against my teammate)
6-0, 6-1 W (against guy who took my teammate to a third set tiebreak)
6-1, 6-1 W (same guy who was his first opponent)

The third player in this list this 2.5 opponent beat 6-0 and 6-1, my teammate had to go to a third set tiebreak against. So how the heck is it that he and his other "2.5" teammates are not dq'ed and bumped up to 3.5? It's more egregious that a 2.5 player could play at a 3.5 level than a 3.0 at a 3.5 level, no?

The league coordinator's response was that it's all dynamic rating but I don't buy it cause this 2.5 opponent is beating everyone else so badly except for the first guy who coincidentally they played again and he beat 1 and 1 (1 and 4 are the same guy).

My teammate did play at the 3.5 level which he won 0 and 1 singles #2 but lost in doubles #3. The opponent did not.

So is this favortism and colllusion?

It is what it is.

The 2.5 self rating doesnt mean anything. Andre Agassi could self rate himself at 2.5, play in the 4.0 league and still get DQ'ed to 4.5. (your first match generates your actual rating, not whatever you told the computer your self rating is)

Also your teammates matches at 3.5 do help him get bumped up to 3.5, especially depending on when they occured. (it doesnt care what level you play at, just who your competition is)

It seems pretty cut and dry to me. Im sorry you will not be winning a pen this year, but that's the way it goes sometimes, hopefully you joined the league to play tennis (and not just win a pen) so you can "have fun" and enjoy the season....

Jim A · Jun 5, 2009

kyle, I'm playing 3.0 for now, hoping to avoid a DQ along the way while playing for a good team that may win our flight and advance

the person I played is a 3.0B, he's been on that team for a while now (4th season) and went to playoffs with them last year (they went 9-0) he just never plays singles, they tried to stack against us and it nearly worked but now I'm stuck holding a 2 and 0 win against a benchmark who in singles, sucks

kylebarendrick · Jun 5, 2009

Gotcha - I think that is part of the reason why you get 3 strikes. Flukes can happen to anyone (injuries and illness can bring a superstar back down to size too).

It is also true that you still may not have a strike. Your opponent was clearly not rated outside of the 3.0 level or he would have been bumped. The threshold for a strike at 3.0 is well into the 3.5 level.

amarone · Jun 5, 2009

Jim A said:
So if what you are saying is true Amarone, then I likely have a strike for beating the worst of my opponents to date in singles because of his success at doubles.

While we cannot tell, that may indeed be the case. And I agree with you that having separate doubles and singles ratings would be a way to solve this.

OrangePower · Jun 5, 2009

amarone said:
He has only ever played 3 matches in USTA, so must have been self-rated initially. That is his entire record - not just one season.

I can see that he started as self-rated in June of 2008, but you need more than just regular login authorization to see that information, so I can't show you how to see it.

Oops, there goes my theory then

rainman007 · Jun 7, 2009

having a B rating is just benchmark.. that means the player played at state that doesnt mean they are highly rated for their level also, they cannot appeal their rating.. Playing an A rated player competitively means your rating is probably going up not that your going up but your rating will be moved up closer to the next level..

having a seperate singles/doubles rating is unnecessary.

from the original poster,
like everyone said your players rating was set after his first 2 matches.. If the first 2 matches were against self rates i guess it was set after 2 matches against players with a rating established.. some people say 4 because thats dynamic rating but you only have to play 2 matches in adult to be a computer rated player the next year..

i have a question.. if your a computer rated player and you play self rates during local adult season..
toward the year end calculations

rainman007 · Jun 7, 2009

rainman007 said:
having a B rating is just benchmark.. that means the player played at state that doesnt mean they are highly rated for their level also, they cannot appeal their rating.. Playing an A rated player competitively means your rating is probably going up not that your going up but your rating will be moved up closer to the next level..

having a seperate singles/doubles rating is unnecessary.

from the original poster,
like everyone said your players rating was set after his first 2 matches.. If the first 2 matches were against self rates i guess it was set after 2 matches against players with a rating established.. some people say 4 because thats dynamic rating but you only have to play 2 matches in adult to be a computer rated player the next year..

i have a question.. if your a computer rated player and you play self rates during local adult season..
toward the year end calculations[/QUO

rainman007 · Jun 7, 2009

does it go in reverse after their rating is established and affect my rating.. or does my match not count at all for me it is purely to help establish the self rates rating??

on another side note isnt it crazy that 0 and 0 matches doesnt count and wouldnt it be much better if EVERY match you play included tournaments mixed, combo etc.. regardless of your score, counted for your rating..

Why Was My Teammate DQED?

lordmanji

Guest

Legend

Semi-Pro

Legend

Semi-Pro

Legend

New User

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Rookie

Legend

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Legend

Semi-Pro

Legend

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Semi-Pro

Legend

Rookie

Rookie

Rookie

Similar threads