2018 YE Ratings Hype Thread

schmke

Hall of Fame
Unfortunately, yes. And dude ended up MY mixed partner for half of the awful fall season. He had been a 3.5 in another city under Juan Martinez ... moved here and self-rated as a 4.0 under John Martin (yes altering actual name to protect the infamous) ... dude was *maybe* a low 3.5 ... his 4.0 record for 2018 indicates he will be back to 3.5 (or lower) in no time. Wonder what name he will use to get his vanity 4.0 next year ....
What? And I thought it was only the fairer sex that would pull such a trick for a vanity rating! :)
 

brettatk

Semi-Pro
Have you seen some players that move to another city and self rate themselves to whatever they want and play as fresh new player in USTA ? I suspect this has been happening in some instances. I had some high suspicions of these players in the past but I am such a nice guy that I didn't make noise about it.
I've seen this a few times, most recently this season. A new team appeared in our division this season. I was scouting out some of their names and a ran across a guy that had lived and played in Iowa as a 4.5 last year. He had the same last name (not very common) as one of the guys on this new team. Upon further investigating I'm almost 99% sure it's the same guy and he created a new account using a different first name and self rated as a 4.0. His record wasn't that stellar at 4.5 so I was going to wait and see what happened when we played them the first match. Well our line 1 singles beat him pretty thoroughly so I decided not to worry about it. Not sure why he was playing 4.5 in Iowa but if he can't win here at 4.0 there is no way he'd be able to compete at 4.5.
 
Last edited:

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Unfortunately, yes. And dude ended up MY mixed partner for half of the awful fall season. He had been a 3.5 in another city under Juan Martinez ... moved here and self-rated as a 4.0 under John Martin (yes altering actual name to protect the infamous) ... dude was *maybe* a low 3.5 ... his 4.0 record for 2018 indicates he will be back to 3.5 (or lower) in no time. Wonder what name he will use to get his vanity 4.0 next year ....
LOL,, that is unusual. Usually these guys are true 4.0's that had been bumped up to 4.5 and having no luck with USTA on getting back to 4.0. so they get frustrated and make another name and self rate to 4.0
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
LOL,, that is unusual. Usually these guys are true 4.0's that had been bumped up to 4.5 and having no luck with USTA on getting back to 4.0. so they get frustrated and make another name and self rate to 4.0
That would have made much more sense and would have made playing with him at 7.5 mixed much less aggravating than the reality. Reality included: his refusing to play ad side, his DFing an ENTIRE service match, his incapability of hitting an OH or anything at the net
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
That would have made much more sense and would have made playing with him at 7.5 mixed much less aggravating than the reality. Reality included: his refusing to play ad side, his DFing an ENTIRE service match, his incapability of hitting an OH or anything at the net
OMG, that sound more like borderline 3.0 player. If you can't play the Net or hit high % overheads, and you are the Man in mixed doubles, you shouldn't play doubles Period.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
OMG, that sound more like borderline 3.0 player. If you can't play the Net or hit high % overheads, and you are the Man in mixed doubles, you shouldn't play doubles Period.
That's what I said ... and why my record in that particular league was 0% win percentage. Awful, absolutely awful and nothing that I could do about it. Imagine a mixed match where the opposing team picked on the "higher rated" man as a winning strategy!
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
That's what I said ... and why my record in that particular league was 0% win percentage. Awful, absolutely awful and nothing that I could do about it. Imagine a mixed match where the opposing team picked on the "higher rated" man as a winning strategy!
If you get bumped down because of him, you should appeal for sure.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
No worries ... mixed results don't play into my C rating ... although 8 losses with him makes my overall YTD record look worse
LOL,, 8 loses ?? you stuck around and played with the guy for 8 matches ?? was he super hot looking or some other good attributes that made you stuck around ?
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
no no no .... I am the best team member ever ... if a captain asks me to play because otherwise there will be a default ... I will play, no matter what. After the first couple matches I figured he would get better (delusional optimist) ... then it was just to help out team captain. And I clearly didn't write well, of those losses only 5 of them were with the fake 4.0 ... others were with another 3.5 ... in a 7.5 league so so were "supposed" to lose on paper, but they were competitive matches at least.
 

winchestervatennis

Hall of Fame
Didnt TR have some kind of probability of bump last year before the actual ratings came out? Im not seeing it this year as of this afternoon. Maybe they were so far off last year they scrapped that idea?
 

Matthew ATX

Semi-Pro
Didnt TR have some kind of probability of bump last year before the actual ratings came out? Im not seeing it this year as of this afternoon. Maybe they were so far off last year they scrapped that idea?
I've been wondering if/when there will ever be a number in the "projected year end rating" slot.
 
D

Deleted member 293577

Guest
Why are people saying December? Isn't it usually the day after TG that ratings come out?
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
Why are people saying December? Isn't it usually the day after TG that ratings come out?
Here is why ... and I think that is pretty much never the day after TG as that is a Friday and it hasn't been a Friday in 5 years .... and TG is early this year:

Here are the release dates for the last 5 years according to schmke.
  • 2017 - Thursday 11/30
  • 2016 - Wednesday 11/30
  • 2015 - Monday November 30
  • 2014 - Monday December 1
  • 2013 - Monday December 2
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
Here is why ... and I think that is pretty much never the day after TG as that is a Friday and it hasn't been a Friday in 5 years .... and TG is early this year:

Here are the release dates for the last 5 years according to schmke.
  • 2017 - Thursday 11/30
  • 2016 - Wednesday 11/30
  • 2015 - Monday November 30
  • 2014 - Monday December 1
  • 2013 - Monday December 2
Exactly. And as I wrote on my blog, I don't think they are waiting until 12/3, that would be very late and over a week and a half after Thanksgiving. The one time it was on 12/2, that was the Monday after Thanksgiving.

So I'd guess late in the week after Thanksgiving, say the 29th.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
Exactly. And as I wrote on my blog, I don't think they are waiting until 12/3, that would be very late and over a week and a half after Thanksgiving. The one time it was on 12/2, that was the Monday after Thanksgiving.

So I'd guess late in the week after Thanksgiving, say the 29th.
And I am in the same boat as you ... 40+ teams matches begin 1/5/19 so teams have to be formed and valid by 12/15 ... every day counts and the numbers won't be released until after ratings are out .... eek eek
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
Here is why ... and I think that is pretty much never the day after TG as that is a Friday and it hasn't been a Friday in 5 years .... and TG is early this year:

Here are the release dates for the last 5 years according to schmke.
  • 2017 - Thursday 11/30
  • 2016 - Wednesday 11/30
  • 2015 - Monday November 30
  • 2014 - Monday December 1
  • 2013 - Monday December 2
What if I told you we were already playing leagues with the ratings that haven't come out yet!

Russian roulette!

J
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
What if I told you we were already playing leagues with the ratings that haven't come out yet!

Russian roulette!

J
Yes, it is in a way. I just wrote about the conundrum that are early start leagues and how early start ratings helped, but were apparently confusing and were done away with, so now we have a situation where teams/captains have players rostered that will become ineligible for their team if they are bumped up. Those teams that are filled with good players are the most likely affected as there is a decent chance at least some of those are bumped up.

Find what I wrote on my blog, and I also have a poll there to gather feedback on what everyone thinks about the whole situation and if we should go back to early start ratings or not. Would love to get folks opinions.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, it is in a way. I just wrote about the conundrum that are early start leagues and how early start ratings helped, but were apparently confusing and were done away with, so now we have a situation where teams/captains have players rostered that will become ineligible for their team if they are bumped up. Those teams that are filled with good players are the most likely affected as there is a decent chance at least some of those are bumped up.

Find what I wrote on my blog, and I also have a poll there to gather feedback on what everyone thinks about the whole situation and if we should go back to early start ratings or not. Would love to get folks opinions.
Ok, here is my issue; I can come up with many solutions that would work well and be fair in my section. But I don't know if that would be fair with other sections. And I wouldn't want one section to have an advantage or disadvantage at nationals because each section plays by different rules.

In my opinion it is the job of the section to find the best (legitimate and fair) team of each level to represent the section at nationals. That's why it vexes me that different regions have different roster limits, numbers of matches, and treat year end ratings differently.

J
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
Ok, here is my issue; I can come up with many solutions that would work well and be fair in my section. But I don't know if that would be fair with other sections. And I wouldn't want one section to have an advantage or disadvantage at nationals because each section plays by different rules.

In my opinion it is the job of the section to find the best (legitimate and fair) team of each level to represent the section at nationals. That's why it vexes me that different regions have different roster limits, numbers of matches, and treat year end ratings differently.

J
So the USTA agrees apparently that different areas/sections need to handle things appropriate for them. The big challenge, is with leagues that can advance to States, Districts, Sectionals, Nationals, at some point these different approaches come together at some point and the mismatch is going to cause one problem or another.

In Southern for example, not every state has early start leagues. So Southern taking the approach to allow players to play at their pre-bump level through Sectionals arguably puts states without early start leagues like North/South Carolina, at a disadvantage because they have only at level players, while a team from Georgia, Alabama, or Tennessee could have a roster full of now above level players. But, the (correct IMHO) National rule means the winner of Southern Sectionals may very well have Nationals ineligible players so the team going to Nationals isn't representative of the team that won the section. That Carolina's team that would be fully eligible may be the better team with just eligible players playing, but they lose out.

The sections that require immediate promotion to the new level do make things more fair for 2019 competition as only at level players are playing, and the teams will be fully eligible for Nationals, but it really puts captains in a bind as they could lose a good portion of their team, and they have no way to know what their risk is (ok, well, they could get a report from me :)) so it is a bit of a gamble like you say. I think this is fairer than the alternative, it keeps the competition for the general population competitive rather than having a Nationals ineligible team wreaking havoc through league and playoffs, but still isn't ideal.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
So the USTA agrees apparently that different areas/sections need to handle things appropriate for them. The big challenge, is with leagues that can advance to States, Districts, Sectionals, Nationals, at some point these different approaches come together at some point and the mismatch is going to cause one problem or another.

In Southern for example, not every state has early start leagues. So Southern taking the approach to allow players to play at their pre-bump level through Sectionals arguably puts states without early start leagues like North/South Carolina, at a disadvantage because they have only at level players, while a team from Georgia, Alabama, or Tennessee could have a roster full of now above level players. But, the (correct IMHO) National rule means the winner of Southern Sectionals may very well have Nationals ineligible players so the team going to Nationals isn't representative of the team that won the section. That Carolina's team that would be fully eligible may be the better team with just eligible players playing, but they lose out.

The sections that require immediate promotion to the new level do make things more fair for 2019 competition as only at level players are playing, and the teams will be fully eligible for Nationals, but it really puts captains in a bind as they could lose a good portion of their team, and they have no way to know what their risk is (ok, well, they could get a report from me :)) so it is a bit of a gamble like you say. I think this is fairer than the alternative, it keeps the competition for the general population competitive rather than having a Nationals ineligible team wreaking havoc through league and playoffs, but still isn't ideal.
If I recall Eastern gave you until Jan 1 to play at your old level.

It used to be that you could play local at your old level but had to play sectionals at the new level.

The different regions have different rules which vexes me. I think I told you about my friend who was a 4.5 in one area and a 5.0 in another at the same time.

J
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
So the USTA agrees apparently that different areas/sections need to handle things appropriate for them. The big challenge, is with leagues that can advance to States, Districts, Sectionals, Nationals, at some point these different approaches come together at some point and the mismatch is going to cause one problem or another.

In Southern for example, not every state has early start leagues. So Southern taking the approach to allow players to play at their pre-bump level through Sectionals arguably puts states without early start leagues like North/South Carolina, at a disadvantage because they have only at level players, while a team from Georgia, Alabama, or Tennessee could have a roster full of now above level players. But, the (correct IMHO) National rule means the winner of Southern Sectionals may very well have Nationals ineligible players so the team going to Nationals isn't representative of the team that won the section. That Carolina's team that would be fully eligible may be the better team with just eligible players playing, but they lose out.

The sections that require immediate promotion to the new level do make things more fair for 2019 competition as only at level players are playing, and the teams will be fully eligible for Nationals, but it really puts captains in a bind as they could lose a good portion of their team, and they have no way to know what their risk is (ok, well, they could get a report from me :)) so it is a bit of a gamble like you say. I think this is fairer than the alternative, it keeps the competition for the general population competitive rather than having a Nationals ineligible team wreaking havoc through league and playoffs, but still isn't ideal.
If a captain has a full roster of people about to be bumped, he knows. LOL.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
If I recall Eastern gave you until Jan 1 to play at your old level.

It used to be that you could play local at your old level but had to play sectionals at the new level.

The different regions have different rules which vexes me. I think I told you about my friend who was a 4.5 in one area and a 5.0 in another at the same time.

J
Yea, Eastern does let you play through the end of December. My area has local playoffs the second weekend in December and lets teams play those with full rosters just because the timing of ratings coming out is so close, but then players that are bumped up are no longer eligible at their pre-bump level through the remainder of playoffs.

Both of these are reasonable in my opinion, but yes, it is the inconsistency that causes problems. I'm not sure why National doesn't feel they can impose the must play at new level in the near year rule across all sections.
 

ShaunS

Semi-Pro
Find what I wrote on my blog, and I also have a poll there to gather feedback on what everyone thinks about the whole situation and if we should go back to early start ratings or not.
I understand that the old ESL ratings could be a little odd, but I found them to be preferable to the current solution. I believe in working with the best info that you have at any given time, and if the data suggests the player won't be at the current level don't let them play. I've been bitten by this myself where I was blocked from an ESL due to impending bump, but year-end adjustments kept me at the same level. I was frustrated at the time about not getting to play, but I understood the situation. It was more about disappointment of not being on my usual team.

If the USTA feels too many people were negatively impacted like my scenario perhaps you loosen the restriction to include players who could reasonably stay at the existing level. That should have a non-trivial reduction in the amount of people who are ineligible at the real year end. The way it is now seems like the USTA just gave up on trying, and are making local league teams pay the price of facing opponents who won't be able to represent their league in the going forward. To me it'd be similar to letting a DQ'd player finish up if the league was almost over.

FWIW - I wouldn't recommend any sort of scheme where you go back and disqualify wins from players that end up getting bumped up.

Both of these are reasonable in my opinion, but yes, it is the inconsistency that causes problems. I'm not sure why National doesn't feel they can impose the must play at new level in the near year rule across all sections.
Unless there are compelling reasons for variation then the national organization should enforce consistency. Like you I'm confused why they don't agree. Imagine how much simpler some of these discussions could be if there was one, well-designed information sheet for the entire country. Maybe there'd be less confusion about ESL ratings...
 

Zman

New User
That may set a new standard for inaccuracy! No, she isn't going to be a 5.5, nor a 5.0, nor a 4.5, nor a 4.0.
And her partner probably won't be a 1.0, or even a 1.5, despite tr giving her dynamics at those levels. This is the most amazing tr thing I've ever seen. Is 0.51 even possible for a USTA rating? I thought the bottom of the scale was higher than that.
 
:-D That's legitimately hilarious! How is it even possible for her partner to be rated that low? And when she played with a normally rated 3.0 she still somehow generated a 4.75 match rating with a 6-1, 6-4 over two 3.0 ladies. Mind-blowing inaccuracies.
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
Check out this TR blunder. Its a player I work with. She is freaking out over this. Anyone seen anything this out of whack before? First year playing.

http://www.tennisrecord.com/adult/profile.aspx?playername=Jennifer Lane&s=3

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
This one definitely takes the prize. The lady's partner finished 2017 with a 2.87 dynamic rating according to TR. Then she plays a match with a 3.0S in her first match and she gets a rating of 0.88 while her S-rated partner gets 5.38? LMAO.
 
Didnt TR have some kind of probability of bump last year before the actual ratings came out? Im not seeing it this year as of this afternoon. Maybe they were so far off last year they scrapped that idea?
The bump probability, projected YE rating, and appeal eligible columns are working as of this morning. I have not been able to figure out the number in parenthesis with the appeal eligible column. The (x) was not a feature of that column last year. It was a simple yes or no. I have seen x range from 3-9. :unsure:

Note: the projected rating column (low, medium, high, etc.) is not consistent from your own personal page versus the Player Rating search list.
 
Last edited:

Matthew ATX

Semi-Pro
So TR is projected me at 4.0750 4.5C Medium... ruh roh. Says Appeal Available.

On the player list, it's Yes(4) under Appeal. Yea, can't make anything of that number.
 

Matthew ATX

Semi-Pro
Hey so what happens if you register for a tournament, but then you bump before it actually starts? DQ? Still allowed to play the draw you signed up for?
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
The number to the right of the appeal available seems to correspond with how many matches the player played ... at least on the ones I spot checked
 
Top