Early ratings: surprised I didn't get bumped up?

[time_fly]

First of all, I want to say this post isn't supposed to be a whine-fest. I'm captain of a 3.5 team and enjoy doing it so I'm happy to keep at it. I play against 4.0 competition inside our club all the time anyway. I'm just curious how the system worked in this case.

We just got our early ratings, and we had 3 people bumped to 4.0. I was a bit surprised I wasn't one of them. I had an 8-2 record last year, 114 games for, 64 games against. I played singles once (won), #1 doubles 5 times, #2 doubles 3 times, and #3 doubles once (we had a guy who was winless so I played with him in our final match of the year and we won). Both of my losses were 3-setters, one against a team where both members just got bumped to 4.0 and the other we actually won more total games but choked in the tie-breakers.

The people who were bumped up had records of 4-1, 7-2, and 6-3. However, they did play a lot more singles. Is that the main driver for ratings changes?

 

[robert]

It is normal.
Couple of years ago, I was 11-0 for the season and only dropped one set at Sectional. But still no bump in early start rating.

 

[kevrol]

Also would help to know the strength of your partners. Could be that you played with really strong partners, with the exception of the last match.

 

[OrangePower]

It also depends on what your exact rating was at the start of the season. That is, where within the 3.5 range you started the season at. Of course there is no accurate way to know that since USTA does not make it public. But anyway, if you started out towards the bottom of that range, then even with the increase you would have gotten based on your results, it might still not have taken you into 4.0 territory.

On the flip side, it means you are now close to 4.0 range, and so another good season will push you over the edge.

 

[NTRPolice]

As other posters have said, it depends where you were at the start of the season, and will depend on who you played as opponents as well.

It doesnt matter what your record is. It matters how well the NTRP system could predict the results. If it cannot predict the results accurately, then your rating is adjusted, up or down. Who wins in a regular season match is irrelevant. How well your section does at nationals matters because the "benchmark" rating across the nation is adjusted. 50% of your YER is based off of the national benchmark, the other 50% is the live rolling total, calculated immediately following your last match. If you are a C-rated player your rating cannot be adjusted during the season without specific circumstances.

Are you a long time player at 3.5, and your players that got bumped mostly all self-rates?

There was a 4.5 girl here who appealed down to 4.0. She got DQ'ed back to 4.5 mid season, one of her "strikes" was a loss if I saw the letter right. That loss was thrown out on appeal, but she still had 3 strikes and was DQ'ed back to 4.5. I'm not sure im remembering this 100% correctly, but I do remember thinking "wow, that was nice they threw out one of the strikes on appeal, because they knew it wouldnt affect the DQ, but still looks like they did something." If I had to speculate what happened here, id say that loss was against a C rated player who was due to get bumped. So, when her 4.0 appeal rating was compared to a (basically) 4.5 computer rating, it was a strike for being somewhat close.

 

[schmke]

As others have said, it isn't just winning that matters, nor does the court you play on matter, but it is the dynamic ratings of the players at the time of the match and the score of the match that matters. The system really looks at what is expected based on the ratings of the players and you have to do better than that expected result to improve your rating. It is entirely possible you can win a match more closely than expected and have your rating go down if the opponents are low rated or you play with a really strong partner.

Singles can be a way to improve your rating more quickly in part because it is pretty common that stronger players play singles. So if you win a singles match it can often result in a higher match rating than winning by the same score in doubles, simply because the opponent is higher rated.

See my FAQ (link below) for more information on how it all works and how I can generate a report for you estimating your dynamic rating.

NTRP Ratings FAQ

 

[eelhc]

As others have said, it isn't just winning that matters, nor does the court you play on matter, but it is the dynamic ratings of the players at the time of the match and the score of the match that matters. The system really looks at what is expected based on the ratings of the players and you have to do better than that expected result to improve your rating. It is entirely possible you can win a match more closely than expected and have your rating go down if the opponents are low rated or you play with a really strong partner.

Singles can be a way to improve your rating more quickly in part because it is pretty common that stronger players play singles. So if you win a singles match it can often result in a higher match rating than winning by the same score in doubles, simply because the opponent is higher rated.

See my FAQ (link below) for more information on how it all works and how I can generate a report for you estimating your dynamic rating.

NTRP Ratings FAQ

At the risk of making it too complicated, there really should be singles and doubles ratings (like the ATP and WTA).

 

[schmke]

At the risk of making it too complicated, there really should be singles and doubles ratings (like the ATP and WTA).

To be technically correct, the ATP and WTA do not have singles and doubles "ratings" but have "rankings" for each. They are two different beasts.

But see http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...les-and-doubles-specific-ntrp-ratings.541676/ regarding different NTRP ratings for singles and doubles.

 

[NTRPolice]

At the risk of making it too complicated, there really should be singles and doubles ratings (like the ATP and WTA).

What's an ATP/WTA rating? I know ITF has ratings/grades.

Just speaking on NTRP, what would happen if someone has a higher singles/doubles rating that puts them in different brackets? You'd have to join a 4.0 team to play singles and a 3.5 team to play doubles? That doesnt make much sense. The 3.5 doubles rating means they wouldnt get to play doubles in 4.0, and the 4.0 rating in singles means they cant play singles in the 3.5. Then captains would have to keep track of bi-rated players on their team. If you put your 4.0 singles player in for singles in 3.5 there would be a DQ.

Would mean more money for USTA since active players would have to be registered in 2-3 rating levels, and probably on 4-5 teams.

They would also have to expand roster sizes since you'd have more players who are less eligible for play.

Assuming you dont have a preference for either, you have a 3:1 chance to affect your doubles ranking in adult league, and a 6:6 chance in mixed league. This doesnt sound good in terms of accuracy.

Would be a nightmare trying to manage a roster of 25+ people who may not all be eligible for play.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

You can always play up. Someone who is 3.0 singles 3.5 doubles could join a 3.5 team and play both.

 

[NTRPolice]

You can always play up. Someone who is 3.0 singles 3.5 doubles could join a 3.5 team and play both.

Right... but, what if I wanted to play

3.0 for singles.
3.5 for singles and doubles.
4.0 for doubles.

That's 3 rating levels and 4 teams if you could split teams for the 3.5 ranks.

It's already hard enough to share a player who is on 7/8/9.0 or w/e, imagine if the captains had larger rosters and had to manage a players double rating at the same time! More money for USTA, but the # of teams entered would be at an all time low since no one would want to captain. lol

 

[eelhc]

Right... but, what if I wanted to play

3.0 for singles.
3.5 for singles and doubles.
4.0 for doubles.

That's 3 rating levels and 4 teams if you could split teams for the 3.5 ranks.

It's already hard enough to share a player who is on 7/8/9.0 or w/e, imagine if the captains had larger rosters and had to manage a players double rating at the same time! More money for USTA, but the # of teams entered would be at an all time low since no one would want to captain. lol

Like I said, it would make things more complicated but maybe only a little more than managing mixed lineups with all that drama.

In my observation, most people would rated higher in doubles than singles. It would give those people a chance to play competitive USTA singles. A 4.0 doubles player.

 

[Startzel]

Right... but, what if I wanted to play

3.0 for singles.
3.5 for singles and doubles.
4.0 for doubles.

That's 3 rating levels and 4 teams if you could split teams for the 3.5 ranks.

It's already hard enough to share a player who is on 7/8/9.0 or w/e, imagine if the captains had larger rosters and had to manage a players double rating at the same time! More money for USTA, but the # of teams entered would be at an all time low since no one would want to captain. lol

This would be great for those of us in smaller areas. You would have a bigger pool to pull players from.

You would have to be a terrible captain not to know your players well enough to know what levels they could play.

 

[NTRPolice]

This would be great for those of us in smaller areas. You would have a bigger pool to pull players from.

You would have to be a terrible captain not to know your players well enough to know what levels they could play.

That means terrible? It would be so easy to make a mistake by playing the wrong player at the wrong rating in the wrong line, by either being too high of a combination, or falling outside the 1 NTRP difference maximum. In a doubles only league it's not that complicated. In a league that has singles and doubles lines it can become twice as complicated.

It also creates a scheduling nightmare because rosters would be larger, players would likely be on more teams. Right now the maximum number of teams a player can play on at any one time is 3. If you're allowed to split your teams for each rating, that number could double to 6.

Could you imagine managing a team that has 25+ players on it, half of which are on 5 or 6 teams?
Could you imagine trying to recruit someone for league, but explaining they have to be a male, 4.0, and only can play doubles. If I was a 4.0 male singles player I wouldnt join a team like that unless im desperate.

It can get pretty heated between captains over a good player who is playing on 2 teams at 1 NTRP level... if a critical match falls on the same day for both levels. Some captains wont want their player to play 9.0 if they played 8.0 on the same day.

Just imagine 4-5 captains all wanting the same player on the same day. Insane.

 

[eelhc]

That means terrible? It would be so easy to make a mistake by playing the wrong player at the wrong rating in the wrong line, by either being too high of a combination, or falling outside the 1 NTRP difference maximum. In a doubles only league it's not that complicated. In a league that has singles and doubles lines it can become twice as complicated.

It also creates a scheduling nightmare because rosters would be larger, players would likely be on more teams. Right now the maximum number of teams a player can play on at any one time is 3. If you're allowed to split your teams for each rating, that number could double to 6.

Could you imagine managing a team that has 25+ players on it, half of which are on 5 or 6 teams?
Could you imagine trying to recruit someone for league, but explaining they have to be a male, 4.0, and only can play doubles. If I was a 4.0 male singles player I wouldnt join a team like that unless im desperate.

It can get pretty heated between captains over a good player who is playing on 2 teams at 1 NTRP level... if a critical match falls on the same day for both levels. Some captains wont want their player to play 9.0 if they played 8.0 on the same day.

Just imagine 4-5 captains all wanting the same player on the same day. Insane.

It's complicated but not much more than tri-level. I built a spreadsheet for tri-level that determines whether a team can be fielded with available players (players can play 0.5 level up but not down). I don't think it's that much more difficult for separate singles/doubles ratings.

 

[Startzel]

That means terrible? It would be so easy to make a mistake by playing the wrong player at the wrong rating in the wrong line, by either being too high of a combination, or falling outside the 1 NTRP difference maximum. In a doubles only league it's not that complicated. In a league that has singles and doubles lines it can become twice as complicated.

It also creates a scheduling nightmare because rosters would be larger, players would likely be on more teams. Right now the maximum number of teams a player can play on at any one time is 3. If you're allowed to split your teams for each rating, that number could double to 6.

Could you imagine managing a team that has 25+ players on it, half of which are on 5 or 6 teams?
Could you imagine trying to recruit someone for league, but explaining they have to be a male, 4.0, and only can play doubles. If I was a 4.0 male singles player I wouldnt join a team like that unless im desperate.

It can get pretty heated between captains over a good player who is playing on 2 teams at 1 NTRP level... if a critical match falls on the same day for both levels. Some captains wont want their player to play 9.0 if they played 8.0 on the same day.

Just imagine 4-5 captains all wanting the same player on the same day. Insane.

Alright it'll be easier for those of us playing to have fun. Clearly, it will be harder on those of you trying to cheat the system to win.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

Yeah, I think you're overcomplicating it a little!

For most players, it would be exactly the same as it is now, since most people would probably have their singles rating be the same as their doubles rating.

For a few players, one of those would be higher than the other by 0.5. Maybe old guys whose mobility issues mean they can't play singles as competitively, but can still play high-level doubles. Or young guys who can get a good boost to their singles game by being athletic. Those folks would have the advantage of being able to play half a level lower if they still want occasional matches of the type they're weaker at.

I don't think it would mean that a player can somehow play in 6 teams at once... Why would the number of teams or roster sizes need to change?

For a captain, they would just have to know which of the players on their roster can play singles, which can play doubles, and which can play either. ...but that's no different than it is now! Presumably a captain already needs to know which of their players are their singles-only guys, which are the doubles-only guys, and which can play both! There's now going to be one or two people on each team who are "singles-only" or "doubles-only" not just by preference but also by rating... but that's even easier to keep track of because it'll be enforced by the system.

 

[NTRPolice]

It's complicated but not much more than tri-level. I built a spreadsheet for tri-level that determines whether a team can be fielded with available players (players can play 0.5 level up but not down). I don't think it's that much more difficult for separate singles/doubles ratings.

I was actually going to suggest that captains make a spread sheet to keep track. It's a great idea.

Alright it'll be easier for those of us playing to have fun. Clearly, it will be harder on those of you trying to cheat the system to win.

To be fair, most players who play 3 levels, like 6-7-8, or whatever are usually trying to win. I dont think it's fair to say that they're trying to "cheat the system" however.