breakpoint chances converted

[Babblelot]

I was looking at the stats during this weekend's matches, and, as always, they focused on breakpoint chances converted. But they never give any context. IMO, I could care less if someone is 1/1 in a game or 1/4 in a game. The importance of the break gets lost in the stat. Alternatively, a player could have only converted on 3 of 13 break points but not have lost a single game. For instance, 1/4 in game one, 1/5 in game two, and 1/4 in game three. 3/13 is a horrible ratio, but... BFD: the player had three chances to break the server and broke serve all three times 3/3.

A very different story unfolds, however, if the player with a 3/13 ratio only breaks serve 3 of 7 games: 1/2 in game one, 0/2 in game two, 0/2 in game three, 1/3 in game four, 0/1 in game five, 1/1 in game six and 1/2 in game seven.

Anyone else think this, by itself, is a bogus stat because it's taken out of context? Just curious.

 

[Babblelot]

It seems that just about any stat only tells part of the story when taken out of context. I like this stat though, because it tells you how the players are playing the big points. If you are facing a lot of breakpoints but manage to hold your serve consistently, then it says a lot for your ability to suck it up and grind it out and play those pressure points well. Conversely, if you have a lot of breakpoint opportunities but don't convert them, then you have trouble putting pressure on your opponent and finishing a game when you have the chance. These are the points that separate winners from losers.

Whenever this stat is presented, however, it's done so to reflect opportunities lost by the returner: "(S)He only converted on 3 of 13 breakpoint chances." Agreed?

While I see your point--the server saved 10 of 13 breakpoints--IMO, the conclusion one should draw is very different: the server really struggled to hold serve, be it in just three service games, or seven service games (see examples in my first post above). In other words, I don't think saving a ton of breakpoints is a feather in the cap of the server. On the contrary, it reflects a horrible day trying to hold serve.

Case in point: Tommy Haas just def. Max Myrini 6-3, 6-3. Haas' breakpoint conversions was 3/13--pretty **** poor. However, IMO, it should be interpreted that Myrini struggled to hold serve despite playing the "big points" well, saving 10 of 13 breakpoints.

 

[oldguysrule]

Whenever this stat is presented, however, it's done so to reflect opportunities lost by the returner: "(S)He only converted on 3 of 13 breakpoint chances." Agreed?

While I see your point--the server saved 10 of 13 breakpoints--IMO, the conclusion one should draw is very different: the server really struggled to hold serve, be it in just three service games, or seven service games (see examples in my first post above). In other words, I don't think saving a ton of breakpoints is a feather in the cap of the server. On the contrary, it reflects a horrible day trying to hold serve.

Case in point: Tommy Haas just def. Max Myrini 6-3, 6-3. Haas' breakpoint conversions was 3/13--pretty **** poor. However, IMO, it should be interpreted that Myrini struggled to hold serve despite playing the "big points" well, saving 10 of 13 breakpoints.

I don't disagree with anything that you are saying...especially with your earlier comment that you can't tell much from statistics. I would agree Max struggled to hold serve. But the reality is, he struggled the entire match...whether serving or returning. He never even had a breakpoint on Tommy's serve. So, here is my evaluation of the match (based on statistics). Haas cruised through this match and wasn't really tested. He had lots of BP's and probably wasn't too worried about losing his serve. When he had a BP, he figured he could win it now or get another one later. If this was indeed his attitude, then it could explain why someone with his talent hasn't won more big matches. His low percentage would be much more troublesome if he wasn't dominating on his serve.

 

[Max G.]

I definitely see your point - by itself, that stat doesn't say much.

For example, the 3/13 says two things - that the server played the big points well and that the receiver didn't (bad percentage) but also that the server was struggling on serve (3 breaks, 13 breakpoints in a two-set match is a lot.)

In the case of Haas-Mirnyi, you could see that Mirnyi was certainly playing very well on the big points. But he was also just being outplayed, meaning that Haas GOT to a lot of key points on Mirnyi's serve but not vice versa.

Really, this stat is more interesting in a close match than in a blowout. THEN it could make a difference - if one player is 3/13 on break points and the other is 4/5 (in, say, a longer match, maybe a four-set match or something) then it's much more meaningful.

I suppose the "games broken" stat would also be interesting, but I wouldn't really see it as much of an improvement.

 

[RMac]

What about adding a stat that gives the number of games broken when a break point was had?

In other words: Player A was 2/10 on break chances, but was 2/2 in breaking games when he had a chance to do so.

That stat gives much more significant info than simply breaks/break points imo. I have no idea what to "call" the state though, 'cause "Games broken in which a break chance was had" would be waaayy too long to fit in a graphic on tennis telecasts. : )