2024 18+ 4.0M Preview

schmke

schmke

Legend
Several Nationals start on Friday, I posted a preview of a couple, here is the quick synopsis:

Chance of 4 undefeated: 4.6%
Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%
Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 94% / 4
Strongest / weakest team strength: 4.08 / 3.82
Toughest / easiest schedule: 4.00 / 3.94
Favorites: Intermountain, Middlewest, Missouri Valley, SoCal
Contenders: Middle States, NorCal, Pacific Northwest, Southern

Teams are listed alphabetically. Favorites have a 50+% chance of the semis, contenders are the group most likely behind them.

There often is a surprise that joins the teams I list, who might that be? Does someone outside my eight have a chance to win it all?

Edit: Found an error and corrected it which added Southern to the contenders
 
Last edited:
My guesses

Favorites:
NorCal
Pacific Northwest
Intermountain
Southern

Contenders:
Middle States
Midw3st
Missouri Valley

Dark Horse:
Florida (If they play things right with line ups they could cause some chaos, but they're also just as close to being towards the bottom)

Where I differ:
So Cal would've been up there for me but they play a tough schedule and have pretty low UTRs compared to their dynamic ratings. So I couldn't trust putting them in the contenders list.
 
Last edited:
Snarf said:
Good edit. They have been laying low, but Southern has two ringer singles players as well as a hammer doubles court. I suspect they'll make the semis, even though three of their matches are against teams you have listed as contenders or favorites. I'm dying to see them cross paths with IM ;)
Click to expand...
The simulation looks at playing trends in playoffs, so if they were hiding players it is hard to account for that, so they very well could do better than expected. But trying to win on the strength of just four guys winning three courts is dangerous too. Not that they don't have some other players, but there are some deep teams there and come Saturday fatigue is a factor if you are trying to ride the same guys every match.
 
Snarf said:
Good edit. They have been laying low, but Southern has two ringer singles players as well as a hammer doubles court. I suspect they'll make the semis, even though three of their matches are against teams you have listed as contenders or favorites. I'm dying to see them cross paths with IM ;)
Click to expand...
Their singles players are legit. They hammered a ringer from Arkansas in the finals. With you know who from Utah in it......hard to pick against them winning it all.
 
schmke said:
Several Nationals start on Friday, I posted a preview of a couple, here is the quick synopsis:

Chance of 4 undefeated: 4.6%
Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%
Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 94% / 4
Strongest / weakest team strength: 4.08 / 3.82
Toughest / easiest schedule: 4.00 / 3.94
Favorites: Intermountain, Middlewest, Missouri Valley, SoCal
Contenders: Middle States, NorCal, Pacific Northwest, Southern

Teams are listed alphabetically. Favorites have a 50+% chance of the semis, contenders are the group most likely behind them.

There often is a surprise that joins the teams I list, who might that be? Does someone outside my eight have a chance to win it all?

Edit: Found an error and corrected it which added Southern to the contenders
Click to expand...
I’m curious how the @schmke ratings for these stacked ringer teams compare to the TR, WTN, and UTR ratings.

Asking because I’m wondering if any of these superteams are doing something that somehow obscures the level of their ringers in certain rating algorithms?
 
travlerajm said:
I’m curious how the @schmke ratings for these stacked ringer teams compare to the TR, WTN, and UTR ratings.

Asking because I’m wondering if any of these superteams are doing something that somehow obscures the level of their ringers in certain rating algorithms?
Click to expand...
I can't speak for Schmke but from what I understand there's basically two types.

The ringers that are out in the open are usually computer rated with good but not out of level results in years past. Then they either legitimately improve to be way beyond level or unveil a higher level they were already capable of. I'm not trying to cast judgment one way or another as both scenarios occur. Either way their TR, WTN, and UTR then goes on to reflect this new level. There are a handful of guys at 4.0 nationals with UTRs above 8.00 and several more above 7.70. They almost all happen to be singles players. All of their dynamic ratings on TR are above 4.00 with most of them being well above 4.00. None of them seem disguised. But they're all definitely good 4.5 to borderline 5.0 range. To me these are the more common ones.

Then you have the disguised ones. The prime example might be Utah's guys. He's got some that it's hard to tell how good they are. He's got two former 2 star junior players and a guy who was a 5.0 15 years ago. The former 5.0 is self-rated, one of the juniors is appeal rated, and the final one computer rated. The two junior player's profiles say one used to be a UTR 9, top 500 in the country, and the other a UTR 8, top 700. The better of the two even did well at nationals a few years ago. But now when you look at their UTRs all three are in the low 7s/high 6s which is typical for a really good 4.0. So maybe they've been hidden? Maybe they've declined and are accurately rated? Their TRs are sky high though, so the two rating systems reflect different things. Maybe one caught them and the other didn't? Maybe one is overrating them? Only they know the truth. But if they do perform exceedingly well this weekend, as in well above what is expected on paper, then you have your answer for if they're doing something to obscure the level of their ringers.
 
Last edited:
Vox Rationis said:
I can't speak for Schmke but from what I understand there's basically two types.

The ringers that are out in the open are usually computer rated with good but not out of level results in years past. Then they either legitimately improve to be way beyond level or unveil a higher level they were already capable of. I'm not trying to cast judgment one way or another as both scenarios occur. Either way their TR, WTN, and UTR then goes on to reflect this new level. There are a handful of guys at 4.0 nationals with UTRs above 8.00 and several more above 7.70. They almost all happen to be singles players. All of their dynamic ratings on TR are above 4.00 with most of them being well above 4.00. None of them seem disguised. But they're all definitely good 4.5 to borderline 5.0 range. To me these are the more common ones.

Then you have the disguised ones. The prime example might be Utah's guys. He's got some that it's hard to tell how good they are. He's got two former 2 star junior players and a guy who was a 5.0 15 years ago. The former 5.0 is self-rated, one of the juniors is appeal rated, and the final one computer rated. The two junior player's profiles say one used to be a UTR 9, top 500 in the country, and the other a UTR 8, top 700. The better of the two even did well at nationals a few years ago. But now when you look at their UTRs all three are in the low 7s/high 6s which is typical for a really good 4.0. So maybe they've been hidden? Maybe they've declined and are accurately rated? Their TRs are sky high though, so the two rating systems reflect different things. Maybe one caught them and the other didn't? Maybe one is overrating them? Only they know the truth. But if they do perform exceedingly well this weekend, as in well above what is expected on paper, then you have your answer for if they're doing something to obscure the level of their ringers.
Click to expand...
If I’m not mistaken, TR uses only the most recent 3 matches for the majority of the rating, so it tends to be less sticky and more reflective of recent results than the other algos. UTR is relatively sluggish in responsiveness to changes in level. WTN is somewhere in between.
 
schmke said:
The simulation looks at playing trends in playoffs, so if they were hiding players it is hard to account for that, so they very well could do better than expected. But trying to win on the strength of just four guys winning three courts is dangerous too. Not that they don't have some other players, but there are some deep teams there and come Saturday fatigue is a factor if you are trying to ride the same guys every match.
Click to expand...
GM played 4.5 at state tournament, perhaps because the bottom 8 were plenty good enough for them to get the job done against the one other team there. If you only put the playing trends from sectionals into your model, my guess is that southern’s chances go way up.
 
Snarf said:
GM played 4.5 at state tournament, perhaps because the bottom 8 were plenty good enough for them to get the job done against the one other team there. If you only put the playing trends from sectionals into your model, my guess is that southern’s chances go way up.
Click to expand...
Also, just for the sake of argument, let’s ignore NB’s results before sectionals ;)
 
Still a chance of five 4-0 teams (2%). Would be Eastern, Intermountain, Middle States, NorCal, Southern.

Middlewest lost two match TBs to NorCal, one a minor upset, to lose 3-2.

MoValley lost five (!) match TBs to Eastern, three of them near pick'em but minor upsets, a fourth a decent upset.

Southern pulled one very minor upset vs SoCal to win 3-2.

The five I noted are the most likely to make the semis now, Eastern the most likely to be left out. Middlewest, MoValley, and SoCal still have a path, but two play each other and will need some help regardless.
 
GrassCourtFan said:
I’m kind of surprised it doesn’t happen more often, traveling that far to play tennis seems like a big burden and kind of a waste. But I guess the teams that make nationals tend to have people who want to.
Click to expand...
If usta wants to discourage sandbagging, they should just charge $1000 entry fees to play nationals.
 
Purestriker said:
Don’t they fine them for that? We get fined $50 a line at state for every line we can’t fill.
Click to expand...
I don't think the fine is in the regulations, but agree I think it may be the case. Here is what is in the regulations:

2.03A(5) At all Championships, a minimum number of team members as shown in the following
table, who were on the final roster of their local league team at the conclusion of local league
play, must be available and eligible to compete or to combine and compete, as appropriate. The
required minimum number of team members may be reduced with an approved waiver, but to not
less than the minimum as noted in the following table. At Sectional Championship level and
below, the Championship Committee may grant such a waiver. At the National Championships a
committee comprised of the USTA League Chair, Vice-Chair and the National League
Administrator may grant such a waiver. Waivers are only intended for extreme circumstances.

For 18+ 4.0 the minimum is 8 as you'd expect.

This really isn't fair to the teams that don't face Texas. Yes, Intermountain was going to make the semis regardless, but it could affect seeding by them getting a free court the other semifinalists didn't. And should Middlewest make the semis, that free court in their 3-2 win could be the reason.

They did register eight players, but one of them didn't play day one at least.
 
schmke said:
I don't think the fine is in the regulations, but agree I think it may be the case. Here is what is in the regulations:

2.03A(5) At all Championships, a minimum number of team members as shown in the following
table, who were on the final roster of their local league team at the conclusion of local league
play, must be available and eligible to compete or to combine and compete, as appropriate. The
required minimum number of team members may be reduced with an approved waiver, but to not
less than the minimum as noted in the following table. At Sectional Championship level and
below, the Championship Committee may grant such a waiver. At the National Championships a
committee comprised of the USTA League Chair, Vice-Chair and the National League
Administrator may grant such a waiver. Waivers are only intended for extreme circumstances.

For 18+ 4.0 the minimum is 8 as you'd expect.

This really isn't fair to the teams that don't face Texas. Yes, Intermountain was going to make the semis regardless, but it could affect seeding by them getting a free court the other semifinalists didn't. And should Middlewest make the semis, that free court in their 3-2 win could be the reason.

They did register eight players, but one of them didn't play day one at least.
Click to expand...
Adding to your point, Texas is missing their best player (not including the one that already got DQ'd). It makes a world of difference to get a free defaulted court versus having to play their elite singles guy. Definitely an advantage for the teams that get to play them and could easily help someone if tiebreakers come into play.
 
schmke said:
I don't think the fine is in the regulations, but agree I think it may be the case. Here is what is in the regulations:

2.03A(5) At all Championships, a minimum number of team members as shown in the following
table, who were on the final roster of their local league team at the conclusion of local league
play, must be available and eligible to compete or to combine and compete, as appropriate. The
required minimum number of team members may be reduced with an approved waiver, but to not
less than the minimum as noted in the following table. At Sectional Championship level and
below, the Championship Committee may grant such a waiver. At the National Championships a
committee comprised of the USTA League Chair, Vice-Chair and the National League
Administrator may grant such a waiver. Waivers are only intended for extreme circumstances.

For 18+ 4.0 the minimum is 8 as you'd expect.

This really isn't fair to the teams that don't face Texas. Yes, Intermountain was going to make the semis regardless, but it could affect seeding by them getting a free court the other semifinalists didn't. And should Middlewest make the semis, that free court in their 3-2 win could be the reason.

They did register eight players, but one of them didn't play day one at least.
Click to expand...
Yes, really not fair for those that don’t play Texas.
 
Current standings have:

Intermountain - 3-0 / 13-2
Eastern - 3-0 / 13-2
NorCal - 3-0 / 11-4
Southern - 3-0 / 10-5
Middle States - 3-0 / 10-5

None of them play each other in their last match ...

IM gets New England (1-2)
Eastern gets PNW (1-2)
NorCal gets Hawaii (0-2)
Southern gets Southwest (1-2)
Middle States gets Florida (0-3)

My simulation said there was a chance of five 4-0 teams, close to having it. At least NorCal, Southern, and Middle States gotta go all out, a win may not be enough.
 
schmke said:
Current standings have:

Intermountain - 3-0 / 13-2
Eastern - 3-0 / 13-2
NorCal - 3-0 / 11-4
Southern - 3-0 / 10-5
Middle States - 3-0 / 10-5

None of them play each other in their last match ...

IM gets New England (1-2)
Eastern gets PNW (1-2)
NorCal gets Hawaii (0-2)
Southern gets Southwest (1-2)
Middle States gets Florida (0-3)

My simulation said there was a chance of five 4-0 teams, close to having it. At least NorCal, Southern, and Middle States gotta go all out, a win may not be enough.
Click to expand...
So does it come down to lines won and or games won? They don’t go to a championship bracket?
 
Purestriker said:
So does it come down to lines won and or games won? They don’t go to a championship bracket?
Click to expand...
They use the standard TennisLink tie-breakers, flawed as they are:

Team record
Most courts won
Fewest sets lost (ignores sets won)
Fewest games lost (ignores games won)
Game winning percentage
TBD

Head to head is in there too (after courts) but won't apply in this case.

They take the top-4 to a bracket with semis and a final, but the 5th 4-0 team should there be one is left out.
 
Eastern inexplicably lost 5-0 to PNW so just four 4-0 teams. Eastern was upset on three of the courts.

IM only won 3-2 in their last match, and one of the court wins was in a match TB.
 
schmke said:
IM only won 3-2 in their last match, and one of the court wins was in a match TB.
Click to expand...
They lost both Singles. #1 Singles losing 2&0, which seems impossible.

#2 Singles won 6-1 first set, lost 4-6 second set and then retired (probably already had the 3 doubles wins).
 
Southern won both singles, 6-3,6-1 and 6-0,6-0. IM couldn't pull off all three doubles like they did in the semi, losing 6-2,6-3 on 3D.
 
Singles ringers indeed. Both played all six matches, both went 6-0, and by my calculations their average match rating for the tournament was 4.29.
 
For the history buffs, the team out of Jackson has a lot of parallels with the 2017 champs out of there. It seems there is something about the culture of these smaller markets that incentivizes ringers.
 
Last edited:
DavoEvo said:
Southern wins back to back. The toughest region in the country?
Click to expand...
Was IM out IM'd?

I think one can make the argument that Southern is the toughest section simply because it is the largest and generally teams there have the longest/hardest road to get to Nationals.

That said, and I haven't looked close to see if this is the case or not with this team, finding "ways" to have players out of level at Nationals can and does happen in any section and a few teams being willing to do that doesn't necessarily make the section the toughest top to bottom. Was IM the toughest because of the 3-peat a few years ago?
 
schmke said:
Was IM out IM'd?

I think one can make the argument that Southern is the toughest section simply because it is the largest and generally teams there have the longest/hardest road to get to Nationals.

That said, and I haven't looked close to see if this is the case or not with this team, finding "ways" to have players out of level at Nationals can and does happen in any section and a few teams being willing to do that doesn't necessarily make the section the toughest top to bottom. Was IM the toughest because of the 3-peat a few years ago?
Click to expand...
Did you ever win nationals?
 
Southern is quite big and hard to fight out of, plus with the little tennis enclaves like Jackson it's easy to "incubate" ringers. I have no idea about this particular team though. But, southern can recruit super teams from huge 300 mile areas, I've seen it happena and Atlanta and Charlotte are heavyweights. Is it better, tough to say, I mean better at sandbagging or equally as good as Texas sandbaggers (except this year lol, Waco wtf was that) perhaps and they bested Fowkes. Would love to hear the rundown on these players if they are suspicious.
 
FuzzyYellowBalls said:
Southern is quite big and hard to fight out of, plus with the little tennis enclaves like Jackson it's easy to "incubate" ringers. I have no idea about this particular team though. But, southern can recruit super teams from huge 300 mile areas, I've seen it happena and Atlanta and Charlotte are heavyweights. Is it better, tough to say, I mean better at sandbagging or equally as good as Texas sandbaggers (except this year lol, Waco wtf was that) perhaps and they bested Fowkes. Would love to hear the rundown on these players if they are suspicious.
Click to expand...
It’s the same background as Fowkes guys. Two young guys with good junior backgrounds who could technically rate at 4.0. After that it’s all assumptions as to whether they organically improved or should have been 4.5+ all along.
 
Most of the tennis facilities are outside Jackson but River Hills was recognized as a national private club by the USTA about 6-7 years ago with 4 indoor courts, 12 clay courts, and 4 outside hard courts. Madison just built a brand new 12 court tennis facility just for the Madison county high schools to use. It‘s as nice as most private clubs. We lived in TX before we moved here and most would be surprised how active tennis is in this small metro area. Lot of good junior players from several private schools as well as Madison High School. Several go on to play college tennis at a lower level but still solid players. That is why there is usually some ringer 4.0 and 4.5 team league teams.
 
Vox Rationis said:
It’s the same background as Fowkes guys. Two young guys with good junior backgrounds who could technically rate at 4.0. After that it’s all assumptions as to whether they organically improved or should have been 4.5+ all
Click to expand...
GM was computer rated this year. He had some … strange … results in local league in 2023. He mowed through folks at sectionals though. The rumor is that those matches didn’t count because they played short sets due to rain, and the captain suggested to a southen official that they be dropped for that reason. That sounds unlikely to me, but it was pretty surprising that GM stayed down. Have you ever heard of that happening schmke?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

schmke
Predicting Natonals: 40 & Over 4.5+ women
Replies
0
Views
402
schmke
schmke
schmke
2023 Nationals Week 5 Simulations
Replies
45
Views
2K
fundrazer
fundrazer
schmke
2023 Nationals Week 2 Simulations Posted - 18+ 4.5
Replies
44
Views
2K
schmke
schmke
schmke
2023 Nationals Week 3 Simulation Posted - 40+ 4.5 Men
2
Replies
73
Views
3K
atatu
atatu
T
2024 18+ Male Intermountain Sectionals
Replies
18
Views
940
TennisOTM
T
Back
Top