Court weighting in the round robin at nationals.

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#1
Seems like the new format would lend itself well to weighting courts and counting points instead of individual team wins, then obviously team wins for the semis and finals.

Thoughts?

J
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
#3
I thought about that when I was writing about the new format and ways to adapt scoring/standings to it.

One might argue that team wins/losses shouldn't even be used, and just court record should be used in a random round-robin format where teams may not play each other. That would allow the #2 team that just happens to lose to the #1 team to still have a high standing by beating up on their other opponents. Doing this with weighted courts just changes the math a bit, but I'm not sure changes things dramatically from this point.

But there is still something to be said for winning a team match and not just accumulating points. But it is an interesting discussion.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#4
I thought about that when I was writing about the new format and ways to adapt scoring/standings to it.

One might argue that team wins/losses shouldn't even be used, and just court record should be used in a random round-robin format where teams may not play each other. That would allow the #2 team that just happens to lose to the #1 team to still have a high standing by beating up on their other opponents. Doing this with weighted courts just changes the math a bit, but I'm not sure changes things dramatically from this point.

But there is still something to be said for winning a team match and not just accumulating points. But it is an interesting discussion.
It would still happen in the semi and final, I'm just wondering if and how it would change the semifinalists. Obviously it would favor a top heavy team over a deep one, but would it mitigate or exacerbate the effects or tough or easy draws.

J
 
#6
I would not love changing the format of how to win matches after going through sectionals and regional playoffs. I like the idea of weighting but I would want that to be throughout the season and not just at nationals.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
#7
It's blocks stacking, no?
Not really. You are just accumulating points for each match, there is no "team win", so a team may still be in a position where it is advantageous to stack to try to salvage the points they can. It could almost encouraging stacking in some cases.

For example, a team may have a rock solid top 3 players that play court 1 singles and doubles. If a team puts their best up against them and loses, they just got 0 points from their best, and their weaker players may still lose the other courts. But if they stack and win the other courts, they've still accumulated a fair number of points. And if they had gotten a lot of points from their other matches, these salvaged points may still allow them to advance.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
#8
It would still happen in the semi and final, I'm just wondering if and how it would change the semifinalists. Obviously it would favor a top heavy team over a deep one, but would it mitigate or exacerbate the effects or tough or easy draws.

J
It would favor top-heavy teams, and potentially lead the teams that play them to stack to salvage points like I mentioned in the reply I just posted. That isn't necessarily bad, just introduces a different strategy.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#9
It would favor top-heavy teams, and potentially lead the teams that play them to stack to salvage points like I mentioned in the reply I just posted. That isn't necessarily bad, just introduces a different strategy.
Sometimes I think I could do a great job running the USTA then I realize how often I open my trunk instead of the gas fill up door in my car and think I probably shouldn't be in charge of anything.

J
 

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
#10
Not really. You are just accumulating points for each match, there is no "team win", so a team may still be in a position where it is advantageous to stack to try to salvage the points they can. It could almost encouraging stacking in some cases.

For example, a team may have a rock solid top 3 players that play court 1 singles and doubles. If a team puts their best up against them and loses, they just got 0 points from their best, and their weaker players may still lose the other courts. But if they stack and win the other courts, they've still accumulated a fair number of points. And if they had gotten a lot of points from their other matches, these salvaged points may still allow them to advance.
However the team that wins court 1 singles and court 1 doubles cannot lose and that's just winning two courts.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
#15
Sometimes I think I could do a great job running the USTA then I realize how often I open my trunk instead of the gas fill up door in my car and think I probably shouldn't be in charge of anything.

J
Don't give up on your idea so quick!

I take it that points per position is viewed at least somewhat favorably? Do you not run into situations with league play that uses PPP where teams will stack to salvage points? Perhaps there is usually a stronger team that runs away with things so it is moot by the end of the year, but I'd think at Nationals you would end up with situations where going into the last match a team believe N points will get them to the semis and then it becomes about securing those regardless of court. You don't necessarily have to try to get all the points or just the big point courts.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#16
Don't give up on your idea so quick!

I take it that points per position is viewed at least somewhat favorably? Do you not run into situations with league play that uses PPP where teams will stack to salvage points? Perhaps there is usually a stronger team that runs away with things so it is moot by the end of the year, but I'd think at Nationals you would end up with situations where going into the last match a team believe N points will get them to the semis and then it becomes about securing those regardless of court. You don't necessarily have to try to get all the points or just the big point courts.
Yup, that was my line of thinking, plus the potential for a comeback on the second day, and to add value to the bottom courts.

J
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
#17
Yup, that was my line of thinking, plus the potential for a comeback on the second day, and to add value to the bottom courts.

J
Using it at Nationals where there are more strong teams would actually add meaning to the lower courts. A team with 4 ringers that would normally be able to win a bunch of 3-2 team matches would only be getting points for 3 courts each match. While other deeper teams might accrue more and be able to even absorb what would be a loss under normal scoring and still finish ahead.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#18
Using it at Nationals where there are more strong teams would actually add meaning to the lower courts. A team with 4 ringers that would normally be able to win a bunch of 3-2 team matches would only be getting points for 3 courts each match. While other deeper teams might accrue more and be able to even absorb what would be a loss under normal scoring and still finish ahead.
Right, you see all the time the guys on the bottom court just there for a laugh, but 3rd doubles would account for 12 points by the end of the pool where we have seen razor thin margins. It would also likely kabosh the dubious tiebreakers to some degree.

J
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
#19
Right, you see all the time the guys on the bottom court just there for a laugh, but 3rd doubles would account for 12 points by the end of the pool where we have seen razor thin margins. It would also likely kabosh the dubious tiebreakers to some degree.

J
Points certainly adds finer granularity to the standings. You'd still need to have some way of breaking ties though, and I might suggest using most points accrued from court 1 singles, then court 1 doubles, etc. This would give credit to those teams that won more playing straight up and not sacrificing those courts.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#20
Points certainly adds finer granularity to the standings. You'd still need to have some way of breaking ties though, and I might suggest using most points accrued from court 1 singles, then court 1 doubles, etc. This would give credit to those teams that won more playing straight up and not sacrificing those courts.
I would have never thought of that but I like it.

J
 
#24
The biggest draw to me is we'd likely see teams play straight up
The idea of "straight up" isn't something that the USTA mandates. I don't think they perceive it as a problem, nor do I. You could make a decent argument that the current format offers the widest offering of lineup strategy.

While weighting introduces different options, as @schmke noted, it probably won't be the cure-all people expect. Because the weighting would encourage teams to more precisely order their teams it would be "easier" for opponents to predict your lineup and counter. If I know you've got the best singles player in the league, I'm not going to be an idiot and throw my best person against you. I'm still going to stack and strengthen every other spot.

Side note: I would agree with the supposition that most good teams are relatively balanced through their best 8, and that's my foremost issue with the format. If this was an "open" league then weighting would make sense.
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
#25
Just for fun (I know, I have a strange definition for fun), I used @J011yroger's 54643 points and looked at the 18+ 4.5 men standings.

The standings with the current new format were:

Mydwest 4-0 / 16-4
NorCal 4-0 / 13-7
Texas 3-1 / 14-6
SoCal 3-1 / 14-6
PNW 3-1 / 13-7

With the PPP, the standings would have been:
Mydwest 73
Texas 62
SoCal 62
PNW 58
NorCal 56

So, a significant change with the #2 seed falling to #5.

This does align somewhat with the court won/lost record as you'd expect more than team wins, but it does add some granularity to separate tied teams like was discussed above.

Perhaps I'll look at more and write about it, but interested in folks thoughts.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#26
Just for fun (I know, I have a strange definition for fun), I used @J011yroger's 54643 points and looked at the 18+ 4.5 men standings.

The standings with the current new format were:

Mydwest 4-0 / 16-4
NorCal 4-0 / 13-7
Texas 3-1 / 14-6
SoCal 3-1 / 14-6
PNW 3-1 / 13-7

With the PPP, the standings would have been:
Mydwest 73
Texas 62
SoCal 62
PNW 58
NorCal 56

So, a significant change with the #2 seed falling to #5.

This does align somewhat with the court won/lost record as you'd expect more than team wins, but it does add some granularity to separate tied teams like was discussed above.

Perhaps I'll look at more and write about it, but interested in folks thoughts.
PNW dark horse team makes the semis!

J
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
#27
The idea of "straight up" isn't something that the USTA recognizes though. There's no requirement to play your best players in any particular order.
You are correct, except ... Given that the USTA, at least in a few sections, uses points per position for regular season standings, there would seem to be a chink in the armor for the not recognizing court strength claim. This does not mean it is better, I think it was just be trialed where it was used, but I think it has stuck around a few years in those areas.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#28
Just for fun (I know, I have a strange definition for fun), I used @J011yroger's 54643 points and looked at the 18+ 4.5 men standings.

The standings with the current new format were:

Mydwest 4-0 / 16-4
NorCal 4-0 / 13-7
Texas 3-1 / 14-6
SoCal 3-1 / 14-6
PNW 3-1 / 13-7

With the PPP, the standings would have been:
Mydwest 73
Texas 62
SoCal 62
PNW 58
NorCal 56

So, a significant change with the #2 seed falling to #5.

This does align somewhat with the court won/lost record as you'd expect more than team wins, but it does add some granularity to separate tied teams like was discussed above.

Perhaps I'll look at more and write about it, but interested in folks thoughts.
I've always felt that teams try to take the guaranteed team win by sacrificing a court.

There has rarely been incentive to risk losing by going for the sweep.

J
 

schmke

Hall of Fame
#29
PNW dark horse team makes the semis!

J
NorCal was a "find a way to win the team match" team. Should they be rewarded for that? Or is that a sign of weakness and you don't want a weaker team to advance?

FWIW, Texas did beat NorCal in the semis 3-2.

Note that PPP would really favor those with weaker schedules as they wouldn't just get a win, but could stockpile points in those matches.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#30
NorCal was a "find a way to win the team match" team. Should they be rewarded for that? Or is that a sign of weakness and you don't want a weaker team to advance?

FWIW, Texas did beat NorCal in the semis 3-2.

Note that PPP would really favor those with weaker schedules as they wouldn't just get a win, but could stockpile points in those matches.
There is no good solution aside from seeding and you would have to do it by dntrp which would discourage sandbagging, but also discourage having weaker players on the team unless you did top 8 registered players. Or seed based on last year's finishing order, which might not be fair.

J
 
#31
The idea of "straight up" isn't something that the USTA mandates. I don't think they perceive it as a problem, nor do I. You could make a decent argument that the current format offers the widest offering of lineup strategy.

While weighting introduces different options, as @schmke noted, it probably won't be the cure-all people expect. Because the weighting would encourage teams to more precisely order their teams it would be "easier" for opponents to predict your lineup and counter. If I know you've got the best singles player in the league, I'm not going to be an idiot and throw my best person against you. I'm still going to stack and strengthen every other spot.

Side note: I would agree with the supposition that most good teams are relatively balanced through their best 8, and that's my foremost issue with the format. If this was an "open" league then weighting would make sense.
Yeah i quickly realized after posting that a lot more strategy would go into it than I immediately considered.
 
#32
Yeah i quickly realized after posting that a lot more strategy would go into it than I immediately considered.
In defense of the USTA, this is undoubtedly a large part of why they're so reluctant to make changes. People are creative, and no matter how much thought you put into something there will likely unexpected results. And with the way information is disseminated today that knowledge spreads faster than a wildfire.
 
#34
There was a 25 point format in Eastern this past year. It was 6-5-6-5-3.
Based off your 25 point format you mentioned, are those points predetermined per court ahead of time or does your captain use those points and place them to whatever court he wishes to collect the points (6 to court 2 singles and court 3 doubles, etc and so on)? Does that make sense where I’m going with this? I’ve never used a weighted system.
 

J_R_B

Hall of Fame
#35
Based off your 25 point format you mentioned, are those points predetermined per court ahead of time or does your captain use those points and place them to whatever court he wishes to collect the points (6 to court 2 singles and court 3 doubles, etc and so on)? Does that make sense where I’m going with this? I’ve never used a weighted system.
It's a set system:

1S: 6
2S: 5
1D: 6
2D: 5
3D: 3
 
#38
@jo11yroger
Points per court was touted as a response to NY area team saying there were too many cases of stacking,if I recall the explanation at the captains meeting.
 
#42
@Jo11yRoger
Exactly what they quoted. This way the other captain will not ave as much incentive to stack his line up & throw away 1S or 1DNow I do not believe that the system stops stacking.
As for your 40 minute matches, Helium rated players {too light a game for level }, conscripted doubles specialist & you being that d**m good for your level are why you have to make sure the beer is on ice before you head to the match, to ensure a proper chill.
 
Top