Introducing True Groundstroke-Winning Percentage

[NonP]

What it says. That is, % of all groundstrokes (FHs in this case) won by the player as outright winners or induced forced errors which are then reduced by all unforced errors.

Some of you jokers already know about TA's so-called FH/BH potency ratings (1 point for a winner + 0.5 for the shot before a winner - 1 for each UFE), and I've found them quite telling and useful myself, but this net winner-UFE stat is marred by at least three major flaws:

1) BH slices are excluded, so a baseliner like Gonzo who slices almost half of his BHs can seriously pad his numbers by cutting down on UFEs.
2) Great movers by virtue of getting to more balls are penalized, whereas their slower peers suffer no damage in this rating at all even though their opponents may have won more points as a result.
3) Pre-'90s players are shortchanged, not only because their successors could hit with more abandon and thus hit plain more winners but also because, as you'll see below, the later generations tend to post significantly high winner %s compared to induced FE%s.

Hence my ingenious true GSW%. Now in case you're wondering, yes I'm borrowing the nomenclature from its basketball counterpart. I hate to give potential ammunition to the know-nothing efficiency-obsessed lemmings that scoff at the virtual consensus (among the pros aka real gurus) that Kobe was the most complete offensive player in bball history, but there's really nothing fancy or "advanced" about my latest invention like free throws being somehow worth 0.44 points each. Rather it's based on the unavoidable logic that each player has his own preferences as to the five possible shot directions - crosscourt, down the middle, down the line, inside-out and inside-in - and his shots must be weighed accordingly in proportion to said preferences (read: shot frequency) and his average GSW% in each direction.

And do note that my true GSW% also includes IFEs, which should mitigate the above three distortions as slices tend to induce fewer FEs than topspin/flat groundies, flat(ter)-footed players are at least on paper likely to average a lower IFE% than pure-winner %, and almost-winners are now counted the same as winners. Obviously this still doesn't close the racquet-driven gap between the old-timers and the Big 3 + Delpo and to a lesser extent Sampras/Agassi/Courier, but at the very least it's a fairer compromise than the potency ratings' inclusion of half winners which should still favor the more recent players by a clear margin.

So here's the deal. I'm gonna assume that my top 10 OE FH masters hit an exact % of their 100 FHs CC/DTM/DTL/I-O/I-I according to their TA averages - if the five frequency %s don't add up to an exact 100 (as was the case for Becker, Djokovic and del Potro), the 0.1 remainder is added or subtracted from the CC average - and also that they win each of their five FH batches per their net GSW% (again winners + IFEs - UFEs). After all Nadal winning an overall 12.6% of his I-Os may be impressive, but surely that takes a back seat to his 3.8% of CCs won when he hits almost half of all his FHs CC but only 20% of 'em I-O, no?

Before we look at the big picture, though, here are the CC/DTL (1st link), I-O (2nd) and DTM/I-I (3rd) numbers for these 10 studs:

Most effective forehand

Check out Cerundulo's forehand. He hits it almost effortlessly and still generates a an impressive amount of speed and spin. I'd like that for myself. Saw it live at Båstad this year, it looks pretty good. @fecund345 one of the closest pro forehands I've seen to the technique you showed me

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Most effective forehand

again, those FHP samples are based on 20-30 matches - very limited. also more net rushing in 90s means higher FHP (due to lesser UEs). I'm not saying Krajicek's FH would hurt him vs fed/nadal on clay. I'm saying it would only help a little, nothing remotely close to what Sod did. Again, like I...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Most effective forehand

Check out Cerundulo's forehand. He hits it almost effortlessly and still generates a an impressive amount of speed and spin. I'd like that for myself. Saw it live at Båstad this year, it looks pretty good. @fecund345 one of the closest pro forehands I've seen to the technique you showed me

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

And now, without further ado, the true FH GSW%s, broken down by the net CC/DTM/DTL/I-O/I-I %s in that order ultimately amounting to the overall GSW%s (click on each name for full TA data):

Borg - 3.00% (44.8 x 6.7%) - 0.31% (28.0 x -1.1%) + 1.68% (9.3 x 18.1%) + 1.10% (15.0 x 7.3%) + 0.28% (2.9 x 9.5%) = 5.75%
Lendl - 2.30% (36.5 x 6.3%) - 0.28% (21.8 x -1.3%) + 1.17% (12.2 x 9.6%) + 1.26% (25.1 x 5.0%) + 0.38% (4.4 x 8.7%) = 4.83%
Becker - 4.46% (38.8 x 11.5%) - 0.89% (16.4 x -5.4%) + 1.21% (15.7 x 7.7%) + 1.46% (26.5 x 5.5%) + 0.12% (2.6 x 4.7%) = 6.36%
Agassi - 3.46% (44.4 x 7.8%) - 0.92% (16.5 x -5.6%) + 1.33% (14.2 x 9.4%) + 1.81% (20.3 x 8.9%) + 0.78% (4.6 x 17.0%) = 6.46%
Courier - 3.37% (31.5 x 10.7%) - 0.95% (19.0 x -5.0%) + 0.95% (8.7 x 10.9%) + 1.58% (33.6 x 4.7%) + 1.08% (7.2 x 15.0%) = 6.03%
Sampras - 2.97% (40.2 x 7.4%) - 0.90% (13.7 x -6.6%) + 2.27% (14.3 x 15.9%) + 2.75% (25.0 x 11.0%) + 0.12% (6.8 x 1.7%) = 7.21%
Federer - 2.52% (37.0 x 6.8%) - 1.32% (22.8 x -5.8%) + 0.89% (10.8 x 8.2%) + 2.65% (23.7 x 11.2%) + 0.75% (5.7 x 13.2%) = 5.49%
Nadal - 1.82% (47.8 x 3.8%) - 0.62% (16.7% x -3.7%) + 1.59% (10.3 x 15.4%) + 2.48% (19.7 x 12.6%) + 0.53% (5.5 x 9.7%) = 5.80%
Djokovic* - 2.31% (39.9 x 5.8%) - 1.07% (21.0 x -5.1%) + 0.25% (11.9 x 2.1%) + 1.48% (24.2 x 6.1%) + 0.45% (3.0 x 14.9%) = 3.42%
del Potro - 2.56% (40.7 x 6.3%) - 0.99% (18.4 x -5.4%) + 1.10% (8.4% x 13.1%) + 1.96% (27.6 x 7.1%) + 0.80% (4.9 x 16.3%) = 5.43%

*As I noted in the linked "Most effective forehand" thread there's a slight discrepancy between Novak's up-to-date total number of overall FHs and his direction-specific totals.

There you go. FYI I wouldn't read too much into Borg's, Becker's and to a lesser extent Courier's %s due to their small sample sizes, but the rest should be good enough. More bullet points:

• GSW%s aren't nearly as subject to the dreaded surface skew as service stats. Cases in point: Bull and Delpo actually win higher %s on clay than on hard overall, and whatever gains Djoker makes on dirt are negligible.
• Anyone that understands these numbers but still says Pistol's FH can't be considered one of the very greatest due to its "inconsistency" needs to come up with a different talking point. Yes, he made more errors than most, but he hit more winners and induced more FEs as well. I mean the fact that nobody comes even close to his net 7.21% should tell you that FH's supposed unreliability has been grossly overstated. I'll wait for more of his CC matches to be charted before declaring it at least co-#1 of the OE, but if you're still denying its well-earned status as one of the top 5 you better have a damn good counterpoint to fall back on. Larsson (in '13) was more than justified to rank it over Fed's for HCs.
• As in other sports versatility tends to be overrated in tennis and I'm beginning to think that may be the case for Lendl's as well. That his %s would go up in this era is a certainty, but it's also very likely that his near contemporary Becker did more damage on this side, incomplete data be damned. I'm still keeping Ivan's FH over Bjorn's for now, but this is no longer as clear a call as I'd thought.
• Dre's sky-high FHP/100 (9.3, second only to Rublev's 10.0) is no accident. His unmatched half-volleying from the baseline was indeed THAT good and dangerous.
• Like I said in that other thread Fraud's arguable overreliance on DTM FHs hurts his net rating here. How much of that to attribute to his preferred high margin for error or his relative weakness when moving to the right is the big Q.
• Ditto Bull's CC GSW% which is by far the lowest among this bunch... and yet he goes there almost half the time! And notice how he doesn't even hold the edge over Pistol DTL. I guarantee you a higher % of my boy's CCs and DTLs were passing shots... but you clueless mugs were only recently questioning my infallible observation re: their running FHs! It really ain't easy being right about everything 24/7.
• OTOH Pig-Pen's running-backward I-O FH is indeed a big point in his favor. Not enough to offset Pistol's decisive advantages, but it might be enough to overtake Lendl's.
• Djoker's dismal DTL % is a surprise. And since I don't think he's that hopeless in his DTL passes the only explation I can think of is that Novak doesn't quite have the firepower to hit through an opponent when attacking his BH head-on (at least for non-lefties).
• If you still have doubts about how much any player's shot is dependent on his movement, look no further than Delpo's good but not quite GOATy %s.

That's about it for now. You're welcome and feel free to put together true FH/BH GSW%s of your faves here.

 

[optic yellow]

Hence my ingenious true GSW%. Now in case you're wondering, yes I'm borrowing the nomenclature from its basketball counterpart. I hate to give potential ammunition to the know-nothing efficiency-obsessed lemmings that scoff at the virtual consensus (among the pros aka real gurus) that Kobe was the most complete offensive player in bball history, but there's really nothing fancy or "advanced" about my latest invention like free throws being somehow worth 0.44 points each.

Subtweeting @Kralingen is rude imo.

 

[NonP]

Before I start, this isn't the first time I've seen a similar glitch on TA (happened not so long ago with Alcaraz's own data) but after his latest charted match Bull's total # of FHs has dropped like a brick (from 57,490 a day or two ago to the current 45,419). In any case I've confirmed that his winner/IFE/UFE%s have hardly changed in all directions, so rest assured that his true FH GSW% (5.80%) shouldn't be far off.

Anyhoo I can't believe I didn't add this earlier, but there's a 4th major aspect that isn't given its due by TA's FH/BH potency ratings... the relative weights of CC/DTM/DTL/I-O/I-I shots themselves! Obviously that's implicit in the very directional/preferential approach of my true GSW%, but I thought I'd make it clear just in case. Will do the same in my next update of the OP.

Also I forgot to emphasize that for most players the five directional shot frequencies don't change a whole lot between hard and clay. Grass is indeed an exception but I suspect that's mostly due to this smaller subsamples, especially since almost everyone plays more or less the same way across all surfaces these days. That said I'll be including the surface distribution of each player's data going forward.

Now let's take a closer look at two more FHs, in fact the only ones along with Dre's to clear the rarefied 9.0 ceiling in FHP/100. There's no doubt both Gonzo and Rublev have great FHs, but nobody in his right mind would put 'em above the likes of Bull, Pistol, Delpo, Fraud and Mailman. So does that mean we've been mistaken about those two all along?

You already know the answer, but why don't we let their true GSW%s speak for themselves? Admittedly they won't be able to tell us much due to Gonzo's inadequate sample size and Rublev's own data corruption which has him hitting only 341 more FHs despite having played 95 more charted matches, but I've noticed that the net %s don't tend to change a whole lot so these numbers should do for this comparison with their potency counterparts.

So here they are, again with % of all FHs hit in each direction followed by Winner/InduceFcd/UnfErr %s and a net % (Ws + IFEs - UFEs) for said FHs, and the true FH GSW% from the net CC/DTM/DTL/I-O/I-I %s (this time I've subtracted the 0.1 rounding error from Rublev's I-O 5.4% frequency):

González in 29 matches (21 on hard, 6 on clay, 2 on grass)
CC - 31.9% (546/1714), 9.2% (50)/6.6% (36)/11.2% (61), 4.6%
DTM - 16.2% (278/1714), 1.4% (4)/3.2% (9)/8.3% (23), -3.7%
DTL - 10.1% (173/1714), 13.3% (23)/11.6% (20)/22.0% (38), 2.9%
I-O - 34.2% (587/1714), 11.2% (66)/8.7% (51)/10.7% (63), 9.2%
I-I - 7.6% (130/1714), 31.5% (41)/10.8% (14)/12.3% (16), 30.0%(!)
Overall - 1.47% (31.9 x 4.6%) - 0.60% (16.2 x -3.7%) + 0.29% (10.1 x 2.9%) + 3.15% (34.2 x 9.2%) + 2.28% (7.6 x 30.0%) = 6.59%

Rublev in 124 matches (90 on hard, 30 on clay, 4 on grass)
CC - 31.1% (640/2055), 10.8% (69)/8.3% (53)/10.6% (68), 8.5%
DTM - 17.4% (357/2055), 1.0% (3)/1.4% (5)/7.3% (26), -4.9%
DTL - 10.8% (221/2055), 15.4% (34)/8.1% (18)/18.1% (40), 5.4%
I-O - 35.4% (727/2055), 11.1% (81)/6.7% (49)/10.3% (75), 7.5%
I-I - 5.3% (110/2055), 14.5% (16)/9.1% (10)/16.4% (18), 7.2%
Overall - 2.64% (31.1 x 8.5%) - 0.85% (17.4 x -4.9%) + 0.58% (10.8 x 5.4%) + 2.66% (35.4 x 7.5%) + 0.38% (5.3 x 7.2%) = 5.41%

This is more like it. I knew Gonzo's CC/DTL %s would be depressed by his relatively limited mobility and Andrey would do better, and that's precisely what we see here. The Chilean's sheer power does give him the I-O advantage despite both guys preferring those FHs to their CCs, but where Gonzo really makes up ground is in I-I which he wins a whopping 30% of the time. That net 2.28% is by far the highest I've come across, but as y'all know the I-I FH is something of a gimmick shot so I seriously doubt he keeps up that sky-high % with a bigger sample and especially with more matches vs. top opponents. (Now you know why having a sufficiently large sample is so important.)

So both elite FHs for sure, but not as good as their potency ratings tell us. My true GSW% is a better metric of FH/BH prowess, for the numerous reasons specified so far.

Having said all that I'm now calling it: Pistol's FH is at worst co-#1 of the OE. With more matches on dirt his FH GSW% would indeed suffer, but let's be real, it's gonna remain well above 6% no matter what. And before you come back with the tried-and-(not-so-)true but-his-serve! quibble keep in mind 1) my boy stuck to his Pro Staff 85 with gut throughout his career and his GSW%s would see a boost with a modern stick and 2) his opponents avoided that running FH like the Black Death so even his 7.4% CC win % (topped only by Dre's 7.8% among those with at least 4k CC FHs) doesn't do justice to how many trickier balls he likely had to deal with on the deuce side.

Mind you one can still make a legit case for many of these guys, but if you don't have Pistol in the top 5 at least at this point you simply have no clue what you're talking about.

Moving on:

Subtweeting @Kralingen is rude imo.

LOL, FYI Kra is actually part of my chat gang and we (and @TheFifthSet) actually hashed out this very topic last weekend. Since I want this thread to stay on topic for now I'll share some of the bball convo when I get to the (very) belated PM you just sent moi earlier today.

Speaking of who... @Kralingen I take back what I said about your boy's FH being on par with Pistol's. See above.

 

[optic yellow]

Since I want this thread to stay on topic for now I'll share some of the bball convo when I get to the (very) belated PM you just sent moi earlier today.

Well I have to get to it first now don't I.

 

[chic]

Subtweeting @Kralingen is rude imo.

Subposting**

 

[optic yellow]

Subposting**

I thought the term had achieved generic status, independent of the social medium being used.

 

[chic]

I thought the term had achieved generic status, independent of the social medium being used.

It has, this is a meta-level joke about 'x' removing all of their brand recognition

 

[optic yellow]

It has, this is a meta-level joke about 'x' removing all of their brand recognition

Oh you've done a fine job weaving the threads there together.

 

[Wander]

It would be useful to also see how successful players with forehands that are perceived as more average fare in the comparison with these guys that everyone agrees on having ATG forehands. Say Edberg, McEnroe, Connors and Murray. What are their numbers?

 

[abmk]

Anyone that understands these numbers but still says Pistol's FH can't be considered one of the very greatest due to its "inconsistency" needs to come up with a different talking point. Yes, he made more errors than most, but he hit more winners and induced more FEs as well. I mean the fact that nobody comes even close to his net 7.21% should tell you that FH's supposed unreliability has been grossly overstated. I'll wait for more of his CC matches to be charted before declaring it at least co-#1 of the OE, but if you're still denying its well-earned status as one of the top 5 you better have a damn good counterpoint to fall back on. Larsson (in '13) was more than justified to rank it over Fed's for HCs.

not top 5:
fed
nadal
lendl
courier
agassi
borg

and clearly worse than fed's on HC.

your numbers and conclusions are flawed for multiple reasons:
based on inaccurate data charted on TA (even more inaccurate when directions come in)
Sampras has only 6 matches charted on clay out of 165 (3 point something %) as opposed to real life % of about 15%
the 90s were the best times to get these %s up with faster surfaces and net rushing. note even someone with as much power/aggression or more than agassi like fed or delpo have clearly lesser # than him. of course again Sampras match charting has the surface skew compared to Courier/Agassi from the same gen.


anyone calling Sampras' FH as top 3, let alone co #1 doesn't know what the f*** they are talking about.
if you've watched enough Sampras-Courier or Sampras-Agassi matches, you'd know they got the better of his FH more of than not, or it was very close. Sampras having a clear edge was the least among the 3.

and your analysis of nadal CC FH is horribly wrong:

or maybe those CC FHs elicit more UEs than probably anyone else.
or charters charted ones with heavy spin (which should forced) as unforced.
CC FH is nadal's bread and butter.

 

[NonP]

It would be useful to also see how successful players with forehands that are perceived as more average fare in the comparison with these guys that everyone agrees on having ATG forehands. Say Edberg, McEnroe, Connors and Murray. What are their numbers?

Right now I'm more interested in guys with strong FHs. Will get to the rest eventually.

your numbers and conclusions are flawed for multiple reasons:
based on inaccurate data charted on TA (even more inaccurate when directions come in)
Sampras has only 6 matches charted on clay out of 165 (3 point something %) as opposed to real life % of about 15%
the 90s were the best times to get these %s up with faster surfaces and net rushing. note even someone with as much power/aggression or more than agassi like fed or delpo have clearly lesser # than him. of course again Sampras match charting has the surface skew compared to Courier/Agassi from the same gen.

Those small errors are peanuts compared to the weights given to each player's directional preferences. Nobody sane thinks Gonzo's bonkers I-I % (which, again, may not hold steady in a bigger sample) is more important than his mediocre CC/DTL %s, for example.

Also Pistol's clay skew isn't anywhere near as big as you think it is, cuz TA's own %s (as opposed to totals) are wrong. I'll get to this in the other thread.

And Fed's surprisingly lowish net % is largely due to him going DTM a lot more often than most modern guys. It might be off by 1-2% but there's absolutely no doubt about that bigger picture. As you can see everyone posts a net negative in that department, as expected.

Not gonna bother with the slower-courts canard. I know I'm in the minority on this but numbers clearly back up my "contrarian" POV.

anyone calling Sampras' FH as top 3, let alone co #1 doesn't know what the f*** they are talking about.
if you've watched enough Sampras-Courier or Sampras-Agassi matches, you'd know they got the better of his FH more of than not, or it was very close. Sampras having a clear edge was the least among the 3.

Pretty sure Larsson and Kafelnikov (just to name two off the top of my head) know what they're talking about.

And you yourself said Pistol wasn't at his best in the '95 USO SF so why are you focusing on that instead of the '94 AO AF where he dispatched Jim in straights? Not to mention we're rating these FHs against the entire field, not just each other.

and your analysis of nadal CC FH is horribly wrong:

I read your response next door and found it unconvincing. Maybe spin induces more errors on clay but on hard and grass I'm pretty sure pace with a Sampras or Lendl's weight of shot behind it matters more. If you've got any evidence that suggests otherwise, I'm all ears.

 

[abmk]

Those small errors are peanuts compared to the weights given to each player's directional preferences. Nobody sane thinks Gonzo's bonkers I-I % (which, again, may not hold steady in a bigger sample) is more important than his mediocre CC/DTL %s, for example.

not that important. see below.

Also Pistol's clay skew isn't anywhere near as big as you think it is, cuz TA's own %s (as opposed to totals) are wrong. I'll get to this in the other thread.

And Fed's surprisingly lowish net % is largely due to him going DTM a lot more often than most modern guys. It might be off by 1-2% but there's absolutely no doubt about that bigger picture. As you can see everyone posts a net negative in that department, as expected. Not gonna bother with the slower-courts canard. I know I'm in the minority on this but numbers clearly back up my "contrarian" POV.

just take the %s of the overall numbers. winners+errors induced-unforced errors.
Fed/Nadal are like at 4.8 and the other 3 are at 6 and above.

you will see Courier/Agassi/Sampras all well above Fed/Nadal which is due to the timing as to when they played. one is net play, another is the courts, another is fed/nadal have more of their not so impressive matches charted.

Pretty sure Larsson and Kafelnikov (just to name two off the top of my head) know what they're talking about.

yeah, ok.
"Yevgeny Kafelnikov had a rather unusual choice for his best claycourt forehand of all time as he named Spain's Roberto Carretero, who won just one singles title throughout his career. " LOL.

Kafel never played prime fed/nadal/borg/lendl.
Being charitable, you can maybe give a little value for his view on Sampras FH vs Agassi/Courier FH. that's about it

And you yourself said Pistol wasn't at his best in the '95 USO SF so why are you focusing on that instead of the '94 AO AF where he dispatched Jim in straights? Not to mention we're rating these FHs against the entire field, not just each other.

I'm talking about a big chunk of their matches, not just 95 USO SF.
AO 95 as you know was a big margin.
AO 94 with Sampras at his best and Courier not at his - Sampras had a slight edge in that match FH to FH.
not a big one like Courier in AO 95.

I just had a look at Wim 93 final between Sampras and Courier on TA:
25 winners+errors forced to 8 UFEs (121 FHs) ...17/121 = 14.05%
13 winners+errors forced to 6 UFEs (65 FHs) ....7/65 = 10.76%
again, a match that Sampras won. Courier's was better here as well.

1993 Wimbledon F: Jim Courier vs Pete Sampras Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

And the point about not being at his best, well that's the sorta the point. At their respective primes, Sampras was at his best (or close to it if you want to expand sample size), lesser than Agassi and Courier with their FHs.
and when Sampras was at his best (in general) in the USO 95 final, agassi's FH was atleast a little better.

see: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...as-ground-game-underrated.325038/post-4609808

if you want to look at TA, am skeptical that Sampras forced only 3 errors with his FH, so that's probably wrong, but from what I remember when charting, Agassi's FH was better in the match.

1995 US Open F: Pete Sampras vs Andre Agassi Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

Yes, vs the entire field as well, both Courier and Agassi were better than Sampras as well, but I can't mention all of those matches one by one, can I?

I read your response next door and found it unconvincing. Maybe spin induces more errors on clay but on hard and grass I'm pretty sure pace with a Sampras or Lendl's weight of shot behind it matters more. If you've got any evidence that suggests otherwise, I'm all ears.

considering 40+% of nadal's charted matches are on clay,. that obviously weighs a lot for that number.
the spin inducing errors is obviously lesser on grass and hard, but still a factor.

I didn't mention Sampras or Lendl FH comparision per se.
Pretty sure you can argue for either of those FHs over nadal on HC.
grass is close between Sampras and Nadal. (considering prime to prime)

Point was about why nadal's CC FH number seems so low.

 

[NonP]

not that important. see below.

Very important. Fed's 22.8% DTM rate isn't gonna drop all the way down to Pistol's 13.7% even if you find and correct all the errors. The kind of errors you're talking about explains a 1-2% difference at most. We're talking bigger fish here.

just take the overall numbers. winners+errors induced-unforced errors.
Fed/Nadal are like at 4.8 and the other 3 are at 6 and above.

you will see Courier/Agassi/Sampras all well above Fed/Nadal which is due to the timing as to when they played. one is net play, another is the courts, another is fed/nadal have more of their not so impressive matches charted.

Where are you getting those numbers? I see a net 4% for Fed and 5% for Rafa vs. 6% for Pistol and a whopping 9% for Dre (I'm ignoring Jim due to his small sample). If anything my true GSW% is more favorable to Fedal!

Not very convinced about that last part, either. More matches = more beatdowns on lower-ranked players. Pistol's and Dre's samples are fairly big, but not enough to include many of those which is why my boy's crazy BP success rates per TA are so telling (for now).

Kafel never played prime fed/sampras/borg/lendl.
Being charitable, you can maybe give a little value for his view on Sampras FH vs Agassi/Courier FH. that's about it

Yev has been one of Pistol's biggest cheerleaders for years now. That's just the latest take I could find from him.

Anyhoo just about every player is biased when it comes to his own era/peers. Pretty much everyone would be singing hosannas for Pistol's serve/FH/volleys as the bestest ever if he were playing today, I guarantee you that.

I'm talking about a big chunk of their matches, not just 95 USO SF.
AO 95 as you know was a big margin.
AO 94 with Sampras at his best and Courier not at his - Sampras had a slight edge in that match FH to FH.
not a big one like Courier in AO 95.

I just had a look at Wim 93 final between Sampras and Courier on TA:
25 winners+errors forced to 8 UFEs (121 FHs) ...17/121 = 14.05%
13 winners+errors forced to 6 UFEs (65 FHs) ....7/65 = 10.76%
again, a match that Sampras won. Courier's was better here as well.

1993 Wimbledon F: Jim Courier vs Pete Sampras Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

Yes, vs the entire field as well, both Courier and Agassi were better than Sampras as well, but I can't mention all of those matches one by one, can I?

Like I said I've got serious doubts about that '95 AO QF dataset. And unless I'm mistaken almost every missed volley by Pete off Jim's FH counts as an IFE, so that 3.3% differential in the '93 Wim F doesn't tell us much about the FH strength of each.

Also you're ignoring the slightly relevant fact that Jim had the better BH (by a huge margin per TA), so their FH winners/UFEs alone can't give us the full picture.

Again I'll just repeat this important point: there's at least one thing you could say Ivan/Dre/Pistol/Fraud/Bull does better than anyone else. I honestly can't think of one for Jim, hence my slight downgrading of that otherwise historically great FH of his.

considering 40+% of nadal's charted matches are on clay,. that obviously weighs a lot for that number.
the spin inducing errors is obviously lesser on grass and hard.

I didn't mention Sampras or Lendl FH comparision.
Pretty sure you can argue for either of those FHs over nadal on HC.
grass is close between Sampras and Nadal.

Point was about why nadal's CC FH number seems so low.

Like I said TA actually has Bull winning the same 6% of all FHs on clay and hard while spraying 1% more on the latter, so his FH actually fares better on dirt. Looking at CC FHs only it's a wash (1% more of IFEs but also UFEs on hard). That's actually true for many guys. It's only on grass where we see noticeable upticks over the clay/hard averages.

I mean even before I pored over these #s I knew Bull's CC FH is relatively weak compared to Pistol's and Ivan's, just not to this extent. It's not a glaring weakness like Djoker's DTL (which TBH will probably push my boy off the OE top 10 for good), but it's a weakness nonetheless.

 

[abmk]

Very important. Fed's 22.8% DTM rate isn't gonna drop all the way down to Pistol's 13.7% even if you find and correct all the errors. The kind of errors you're talking about explains a 1-2% difference at most. We're talking bigger fish here.

just take the total. the directions %s aren't important. The total will take care of how much you have hit direction wise.

Where are you getting those numbers? I see a net 4% for Fed and 5% for Rafa vs. 6% for Pistol and a whopping 9% for Dre (I'm ignoring Jim due to his small sample). If anything my true GSW% is more favorable to Fedal!

Just compute manually:

Federer: 4400 winners, 3625 errors induced, 5532 UFEs. net = 2493
total FHs hit = 51906
% = 2493/51906 = 4.8%

Match Charting Project Player Data: Roger Federer Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

for nadal,
3389+2694-3513 = 2570
total FHs hit: 55007
% = 4.67 actually

agassi, its 860+895-960 = 795
total FHs hit: 11605
% = 6.85

Match Charting Project Player Data: Andre Agassi Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

sampras, its 808+639-935 = 512
total FHs hit: 7716
% = 6.63%

Match Charting Project Player Data: Pete Sampras Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

the difference b/w fedal and sampras/agassi/courier gen is mostly down the generational differences whether you take this one or your GSW.
that's my point.

 

[abmk]

Yev has been one of Pistol's biggest cheerleaders for years now. That's just the latest take I could find from him.

which is why I give it very little weightage (if any)

Anyhoo just about every player is biased when it comes to his own era/peers. Pretty much everyone would be singing hosannas for Pistol's serve/FH/volleys as the bestest ever if he were playing today, I guarantee you that.

nah, fedal's would regarded above sampras' FH for sure.
the fight would between whose fh is better at its best/at prime: Sampras/delpo

 

[Impetus]

It reminds me of one of my favorite books. The teacher asks the students to calculate where a stone will land, when he throws it underhand with three grip of force. The students try with all kind of complex math. Then the teacher call in a young boy and throw the stone to him. The boy reacts and catches the stone.

 

[NonP]

just take the total. the directions %s aren't important. The total will take care of how much you have hit direction wise.

But I'm trying to explain why your boy's true GSW%/potency/winners-UFEs/whatever is lower than expected. It really boils down to this:

1) Every player loses more points than he wins in terms of W/IFE/UFE when going DTM. No exceptions. (Maybe some of the pushers in the wood era manage the opposite, but I've yet to come across any.)
2) Fed went DTM more than most of his modern peers.

There's absolutely no doubt about either of these points unless you can show that TA's charters on the whole are so spectacularly incompetent as to get anyone's average shot frequencies wrong by more than 1-2%. I mean his net -1.32% of DTM FHs won (or lost) is the lowest among these studs by far. That's a lot of ground to make up even if your name is Federer.

Now much of that may well be due to his pure preference for playing with a comfortable margin for error, but you can't deny that some of it has to do with his relative weakness on the run. So yes, the directional/proportional approach may not be perfect, but it does tell us several things that you can't get from plain winners/IFEs-UFEs.

Federer: 4400 winners, 3625 errors induced, 5532 UFEs. net = 2493
total FHs hit = 51906
% = 2493/51906 = 4.8%

Match Charting Project Player Data: Roger Federer Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

for nadal,
3389+2694-3513 = 2570
total FHs hit: 55007
% = 4.67 actually

agassi, its 860+895-960 = 795
total FHs hit: 11605
% = 6.85

Match Charting Project Player Data: Andre Agassi Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

sampras, its 808+639-935 = 512
total FHs hit: 7716
% = 6.63%

Match Charting Project Player Data: Pete Sampras Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

the difference b/w fedal and sampras/agassi/courier gen is mostly down the generational differences whether you take this one or your GSW.
that's my point.

I really hate how these totals change so drastically from one day to next for some of these guys but I'll assume your #s are all correct.

Anyhoo I actually now agree that generational differences have to do with Dre/Pistol's sizable advantages, but not for the reasons you think. Like I just said flubbed volleys off FHs/BHs are almost always counted as IFEs, and since the '90s guys including baseliners came in more than their successors it makes sense that their GSW%s would be higher on average. (I'll add Lendl's own lowish % does give me pause, but the overall dynamics shouldn't be far off.)

But let's be real, even if you shaved off a full % point (which is probably on the generous side) Pistol's and Dre's %s would still be among the highest. So my point stands that Pete is a strong top 5 contender regardless.

nah, fedal's would regarded above sampras' FH for sure.
the fight would between whose fh is better at its best/at prime: Sampras/delpo

Very doubtful when some of his rivals are still touting that FH as the best ever and (yes this is somewhat speculative) his clay results would be significantly better in this era.

And I'm sure Pistol's GSW% would top Delpo's side by side. Again the Argie's limited movement/proneness to injury is too much of a drag to keep him in the convo for long.

 

[metsman]

Just watch the damn matches you nerds.

 

[abmk]

But I'm trying to explain why your boy's true GSW%/potency/winners-UFEs/whatever is lower than expected. It really boils down to this:

1) Every player loses more points than he wins in terms of W/IFE/UFE when going DTM. No exceptions. (Maybe some of the pushers in the wood era manage the opposite, but I've yet to come across any.)
2) Fed went DTM more than most of his modern peers.

that's all fine. Nothing to disagree with there. But the GSW concept in itself is flawed. See below.

There's absolutely no doubt about either of these points unless you can show that TA's charters on the whole are so spectacularly incompetent as to get anyone's average shot frequencies wrong by more than 1-2%. I mean his net -1.32% of DTM FHs won (or lost) is the lowest among these studs by far. That's a lot of ground to make up even if your name is Federer.

Now much of that may well be due to his pure preference for playing with a comfortable margin for error, but you can't deny that some of it has to do with his relative weakness on the run. So yes, the directional/proportional approach may not be perfect, but it does tell us several things that you can't get from plain winners/IFEs-UFEs.

The total already includes directionality. with the respective %s.
By again multiplying with directionality, you are essentially squaring - for no real reason.

I really hate how these totals change so drastically from one day to next for some of these guys but I'll assume your #s are all correct.

I double checked. they are.

Anyhoo I actually now agree that generational differences have to do with Dre/Pistol's sizable advantages, but not for the reasons you think. Like I just said flubbed volleys off FHs/BHs are almost always counted as IFEs, and since the '90s guys including baseliners came in more than their successors it makes sense that their GSW%s would be higher on average. (I'll add Lendl's own lowish % does give me pause, but the overall dynamics shouldn't be far off.)

nope. easy volley errors count as unforced errors, not induced errors. (what counts as an easy volley miss - needs to determined properly by the charter)
Again, Agassi (and Courier) came in lesser than fed. that's not the reason.
the reason is when the opposing player is at the net, vast majority of passing shot attempts which miss are counted as forced. coming more to the net just counts down on the UE%. If you chart the full stats of some 15+ matches across the eras, you'll easily notice this.

But let's be real, even if you shaved off a full % point (which is probably on the generous side) Pistol's and Dre's %s would still be among the highest. So my point stands that Pete is a strong top 5 contender regardless.

Again Agassi's clay% matches is lesser compared to Courier which helps him wrt to Courier's. And of course Pete's clay skew is even more.
My top 5 remains as is IMO. I'm taking Borg as 6, Sampras 7. The highest one can go for Sampras is 4 (below Fed/nadal/Lendl). co #1 is just not realistic at all.

Very doubtful when some of his rivals are still touting that FH as the best ever and (yes this is somewhat speculative) his clay results would be significantly better in this era.

yes, because agassi and courier FHs are lesser than nadal and fed's. and courier's prime was shorter.

And I'm sure Pistol's GSW% would top Delpo's side by side. Again the Argie's limited movement/proneness to injury is too much of a drag to keep him in the convo for long.

that's why I mentioned prime/peak level

 

[NonP]

The total already includes directionality. with the %s.
By again multiplying with directionality, you are essentially squaring - for no real reason.

No it doesn't, not when you're trying to compare different eras/matchups and find out everyone's pros and cons anyway. That's the whole point of this exercise, which is why it's got these guys hit an equal number of FHs based on real-life shot preferences/directions.

Of course an even more useful approach would be to break 'em down by surface, but TA hasn't made that easy so far.

nope. easy volley errors count as unforced errors, not induced errors. (what counts as an easy volley miss - needs to determined properly by the charter)
Again, Agassi (and Courier) came in lesser than fed. that's not the reason.
the reason is when the opposing player is at the net, vast majority of passing shot attempts which miss are counted as forced. coming more to the net just counts down on the UE%. If you chart the full stats of some 15+ matches across the eras, you'll easily notice this.

Not talking about easy volleys, but those tough enough to be counted as IFEs.

And I WAS talking about opponents coming in. I mean how the hell can you induce FEs when you're not the one hitting a FH/BH? You're just repeating the same thing I said but in a different, convoluted way to sound knowledgeable.

Again Agassi's clay% matches is lesser compared to Courier which helps him wrt to Courier's. And of course Pete's clay skew is even more.
My top 5 remains as is IMO. I'm taking Borg as 6, Sampras 7. The highest one can go for Sampras is 4 (below Fed/nadal/Lendl). co #1 is just not realistic at all.

A bigger clay subsample wouldn't make much of a difference (see that reply in the other thread). Besides some of these surface %s are all over the place so you need to do 'em manually to confirm.

only some. yes, because agassi and courier FHs are lesser than nadal and fed's. and courier's prime was shorter.

This is post hoc speculation. You may think the current consensus about Fedal's FHs hasn't been influenced by hype, but you're wrong.

that's why I mentioned prime/peak level

But those ARE prime Delpo's numbers. I mean apart from '07/08 and '19/22 how many of those matches do you think featured him far below his best?

 

[travlerajm]

How do FT end up counting 0.44?

 

[abmk]

No it doesn't, not when you're trying to compare different eras/matchups and find out everyone's pros and cons anyway. That's the whole point of this exercise, which is why it's got these guys hit an equal number of FHs based on real-life shot preferences/directions.

Of course an even more useful approach would be to break 'em down by surface, but TA hasn't made that easy so far.

But doesn't (winner+FE-UFE)% already include their own shot/direction preferences? It is a %.
I mean fed's 4.8 (W+FE-UE%) includes him doing DTM 22% right
so explain with an example, what exactly is the need to do the way you did to get this so called GSW.

of course direction thing helps to determine patterns (given sufficient sample, no skew, proper charting etc)

Not talking about easy volleys, but those tough enough to be counted as IFEs.

And I WAS talking about opponents coming in. I mean how the hell can you induce FEs when you're not the one hitting a FH/BH? You're just repeating the same thing I said but in a different, convoluted way to sound knowledgeable.

not at all. you didn't mention what I did. Atleast not clearly. I am putting it straight forward (almost always do).

your emphasis was on flubbed volleys, which isn't the major factor.
Like I said, fed comes in more than agassi did.

A bigger clay subsample wouldn't make much of a difference (see that reply in the other thread). Besides some of these surface %s are all over the place so you need to do 'em manually to confirm.

oh very much so. see my response in that other thread.

This is post hoc speculation. You may think the current consensus about Fedal's FHs hasn't been influenced by hype, but you're wrong.

perhaps. But doesn't change that having seen enough of matches of all 3, fed and nadal fh are clearly better than sampras; its unequivocal. not even a question.

 

[abmk]

Like I said TA actually has Bull winning the same 6% of all FHs on clay and hard while spraying 1% more on the latter, so his FH actually fares better on dirt. Looking at CC FHs only it's a wash (1% more of IFEs but also UFEs on hard). That's actually true for many guys. It's only on grass where we see noticeable upticks over the clay/hard averages.

I mean even before I pored over these #s I knew Bull's CC FH is relatively weak compared to Pistol's and Ivan's, just not to this extent. It's not a glaring weakness like Djoker's DTL (which TBH will probably push my boy off the OE top 10 for good), but it's a weakness nonetheless.

you are missing an important point. which is that nadal's CC FH is used to drag opponents around eliciting weak replies and the final finishing touches put in many cases by the inside out Fh. (&dtl fh)
the work is mostly done by the CC FH, but credit goes to I/O FH.
while nadal's inside out fh is excellent, it shows higher number than what its worth and CC FH number is lesser than what it is worth.

 

[NonP]

How do FT end up counting 0.44?

Yet one more reason why these "advanced" stats are worse than useless.

But doesn't (winner+FE-UFE)% already include their own shot/direction preferences? It is a %.
I mean fed's 4.8 (W+FE-UE%) includes him doing DTM 22% right?
so explain with an example, what exactly is the need to do the way you did.

But I already gave you an example. You said generational differences explain Fedal's relatively low GSW%s but a closer look reveals that he arguably went DTM a little too much. That's not something you can glean from a simple W+IFE-UFE.

Also you keep saying I'm double-weighting the %s but that's not what I'm doing at all. Rather this attempts to start all over with 100 FHs (or however many you choose) for each player, based on his shot frequencies/preferences and average conversion rates. I'm not taking their current samples and (double-)multiplying them by their respective %s. This is a whole different exercise.

not at all. you didn't mention what I did. Atleast not clearly. I am putting it straight forward (almost always do).
you can induce FEs with the volley at the net. so the player at the baseline - his chances of a UE go down. that's what I am talking about.

your emphasis was on flubbed volleys, which isn't the major factor.

But we're discussing FHs, not volleys. It should've been obvious which of the two shots I was referring to.

That said I can see how that still might have been confusing, so I'll take the hit for this one.

perhaps. But doesn't change that having seen enough of matches of all 3, fed and nadal fh are clearly better than sampras; its unequivocal. not even a question.

Except we never got to see Pistol play with a jumbo in this era. Anyhoo I don't wanna go down this rabbit hole here.

you are missing an important point. which is that nadal's CC FH is used to drag opponents around eliciting weak replies and the final finishing touches put in many cases by the inside out Fh. (&dtl fh)
the work is mostly done by the CC FH, but credit goes to I/O FH.
while nadal's inside out fh is excellent, it shows higher number than what its worth and CC FH number is lesser than what it is worth.

Except it's better to win the point outright at least on hard and grass. I mean by that logic Pistol's BH was a lot better than it's usually given credit for cuz it set up his running FH so well, but nobody would say that stroke itself was elite.

Obviously I'm not saying Bull's CC FH is at that level, but his relatively difficulty generating pace is real and can't be dismissed altogether.

 

[travlerajm]

you are missing an important point. which is that nadal's CC FH is used to drag opponents around eliciting weak replies and the final finishing touches put in many cases by the inside out Fh. (&dtl fh)
the work is mostly done by the CC FH, but credit goes to I/O FH.
while nadal's inside out fh is excellent, it shows higher number than what its worth and CC FH number is lesser than what it is worth.

This. If a forehand is less reliable, the user must resort to the higher risk shot direction (i.e., pulling the trigger) earlier in the point, because he is not going to win points off the crosscourt rally.

 

[abmk]

But I already gave you an example. You said generational differences explain Fedal's relatively low GSW%s but a closer look reveals that he arguably went DTM a little too much. That's not something you can glean from a simple W+IFE-UFE.

that's for patterns. I agree with that. I myself had edited to include "of course direction thing helps to determine patterns (given sufficient sample, no skew, proper charting etc)"

Also you keep saying I'm double-weighting the %s but that's not what I'm doing at all. Rather this attempts to start all over with 100 FHs (or however many you choose) for each player, based on his shot frequencies/preferences. I'm not taking their current samples and (double-)multiplying them by their respective %s. This is a whole different exercise.

I was asking about example for the numerical GSW% in comparision to the % I mentioned.
(W+FE-UE)% already boils it down to per 100 FHs with their directionality %s included, no?
you are squaring here with GSW%s.
what am I missing?

But we're discussing FHs, not volleys. It should've been obvious which of the two shots I was referring to.

That said I can see how that still might have been confusing, so I'll take the hit for this one.

Except it's better to win the point outright at least on hard and grass. I mean by that logic Pistol's BH was a lot better than it's usually given credit for cuz it set up his running FH so well, but nobody would say that stroke itself was elite.

Obviously I'm not saying Bull's CC FH is at that level, but his relatively difficulty generating pace is real and can't be dismissed altogether.

nadal keeps it shorter due to hitting with more spin. which is why can be teed off on HC, which is a weakness (relative one atleast)
My point is the number 3.8% is not representative of how good his CC FH is

I'm not talking about just setting up to be able to hit a good I/O FH. I'm talking about CC FH setting up to make the I/O FH winner very easy. big difference in the bh/running FH example you mentioned.

 

[abmk]

This. If a forehand is less reliable, the user must resort to the higher risk shot direction (i.e., pulling the trigger) earlier in the point, because he is not going to win points off the crosscourt rally.

that's partly true. but there is also that nadal's FH CC can drop short on HC.

 

[travlerajm]

One thing that may not be obviously apparent:

The less effective a forehand is, the more the player will avoid playing it crosscourt to the opponent’s forehand. Playing crosscourt in a rally invites the opponent to reply crosscourt back to the player’s weaker wing. Conversely, playing the forehand DTL invites the opponent to channel replies to the backward.

I have a much more reliable backhand wing, when hitting topspin. On my forehand wing, my topspin forehand is always a level or two weaker than the forehand of my opponent, so I usually hit slice on that wing (which I can do reliably but as a neutralizing shot). My forehand slice is directed DTL to my opponent’s backhand 80% of the time, because a slice to my opponent’s bh keeps me neutral in the point, while a slice to my opponent’s fh (assuming my opponent is a 5.0ish level player) gives my opponent the upper hand.

In the pros, players with a relatively weaker forehand will often adopt a similar pattern of avoiding the crosscourt rally ball.

 

[NatF]

Lol at PETE's fh being number one.

 

[abmk]

But those ARE prime Delpo's numbers. I mean apart from '07/08 and '19/22 how many of those matches do you think featured him far below his best?

I just checked. like 29 matches outside of 07/08, 14-first half 16 and 19-later. so not that high.
But then I also checked Delpo's FHP is 8.4 - identical to Sampras.
his (W+FE-UE)% is about 4.52 - a little below nadal's.
so why won't be it very close/comparable with Sampras FH.

 

[travlerajm]

I just checked. like 29 matches outside of 07/08, 14-first half 16 and 19-later. so not that high.
But then I also checked Delpo's FHP is 8.4 - identical to Sampras.
his (W+FE-UE)% is about 4.52 - a little below nadal's.
so why won't be it very close/comparable with Sampras FH.

Maybe Pete’s fh effectiveness numbers get skewed upwards because he was so good at pressuring the net behind his offensive forehands? Delpo was lumbering and net averse in comparison, and fleet-footed opponents could retrieve and moonball his Thor blows back deep to reset.

 

[abmk]

Except we never got to see Pistol play with a jumbo in this era. Anyhoo I don't wanna go down this rabbit hole here.

I'm adjusting for the era/tech obviously. why else would Borg/lendl be in the convo?

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Lol at PETE's fh being number one.

FYI you're up against a LOT of blah blah yackity schmackity with that take.

 

[Third Serve]

TL;DR: PETE GOAT & BOAT and the sooner u jokers realize this, the better.

 

[Kralingen]

Subtweeting @Kralingen is rude imo.

LeBron better but not more skilled

 

[travlerajm]

TL;DR: PETE GOAT & BOAT and the sooner u jokers realize this, the better.

Here’s the full expanded TLDR:

1. PETE
2. ‘80s & ‘90s all-court guy.
3. Best ‘90s baseliner.
4. Other ‘90s baseliner.
5. Best ‘70s baseliner.
6. Rafa
7. Fed
8. Delpo
9. Best ‘80s fh.
10. Djoker

 

[NonP]

I was asking about example for the numerical GSW% in comparision to the % I mentioned.
% already boils it down to per 100 FHs with their directionality %s included, no?
you are squaring here.
what am I missing?

OK, IC what you mean now. So you're saying the overall Ws+ICEs-UFEs would ultimately have the same CC/DTM/DTL/I-O/I-I distribution and the net GSW%s, right?

But that's not what TA shows. I dunno if that's because the charters leave the directional input empty for some of these shots or there's another glitch I'm not aware of, but I've yet to come across any player's dataset where total FH GS = total CC/DTM/DTL/I-O/I-I FHs. Take another gander at Dre's:

Match Charting Project Player Data: Andre Agassi Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

So presumably 11,605 FHs off the ground, but if you add up the CC/DTM/DTL/I-O/I-I totals you get only 9124 FHs. Even if you also count the lobs, drop shots and slices you're still left with just 9355. That's a lot of missing FHs.

But with a sample that big you already know which FHs he likes to hit and what %s of 'em he tends to win, so why not make it simple and more informative with a manual CC/DTM/DTL/I-O/I-I breakdown for each player? These have gotta be more indicative of their actual FH prowess than the Ws-ICEs-UFEs unless you think era differences alone explain the big 2+% gap between Fedal and Pistol/Dre.

And true GSW% is just flat-out a more accurate metric than the potency ratings which for one thing don't bother with IFEs at all. I mean is there anyone who thinks Rublev's FH, which again I do like a lot, is the best of 'em all past or present? Or that Dre's, however GOATy it may be, is that much better than Bull's, Pistol's or Fed's?

nadal keeps it shorter due to hitting with more spin. which is why can be teed off on HC, which is a weakness (relative one atleast)
My point is the number 3.8% is not representative of how good his CC FH is

I'm not talking about just setting up to be able to hit a good I/O FH. I'm talking about CC FH setting up to make the I/O FH winner very easy. big difference in the bh/running FH example you mentioned.

But you just acknowledged yourself why unlike the majority of his peers Bull doesn't see at least a slight boost on hard. Not to mention that, again based on an equal sample of 100 FHs, those lost winners would presumably translate into more winners under the I-O/DTL/whatever columns.

And your 2nd point is really a distinction without a difference, no? Everyone does the same to some extent, hence the relatively low CC GSW%s across the board (no way Boris and Jim keep their 10+% with a bigger sample). The point was that one shot is used to set up another. I'm not denying that Bull's CC FH makes his life easier on average.

I just checked. like 29 matches outside of 07/08, 14-first half 16 and 19-later. so not that high.
But then I also checked Delpo's FHP is 8.4 - identical to Sampras.
his (W+FE-UE)% is about 4.52 - a little below nadal's.
so why won't be it very close/comparable with Sampras FH.

See above. I give Sackmann much credit for going beyond winners and UFEs and giving us a new perspective with his potency ratings, but I say GSW% is a superior measure of GS prowess especially with the extra info it provides.

Maybe Pete’s fh effectiveness numbers get skewed upwards because he was so good at pressuring the net behind his offensive forehands? Delpo was lumbering and net averse in comparison, and fleet-footed opponents could retrieve and moonball his Thor blows back deep to reset.

How to separate a stroke and the rest of one's game is always tricky. I'll just add that Delpo's lack of durability alone keeps him from challenging the demigods.

I'm adjusting for the era/tech obviously. why else would Borg/lendl be in the convo?

A lot easier said than done, that's why. Somewhat ironically, though, exos have given us a better idea about Borg's would-be transition than Lendl's cuz Ivan's back was pretty much shot by the time he called it quits.

 

[abmk]

OK, IC what you mean now. So you're saying the overall Ws+ICEs-UFEs would ultimately have the same CC/DTM/DTL/I-O/I-I distribution and the net GSW%s, right?

yes, it would have the same distribution. (not sure about GSW%)

But that's not what TA shows. I dunno if that's because the charters leave the directional input empty for some of these shots or there's another glitch I'm not aware of, but I've yet to come across any player's dataset where total FH GS = total CC/DTM/DTL/I-O/I-I FHs. Take another gander at Dre's:

Match Charting Project Player Data: Andre Agassi Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

So presumably 11,605 FHs off the ground, but if you add up the CC/DTM/DTL/I-O/I-I totals you get only 9124 FHs. Even if you also count the lobs, drop shots and slices you're still left with just 9355. That's a lot of missing FHs.

But with a sample that big you already know which FHs he likes to hit and what %s of 'em he tends to win, so why not make it simple and more informative with a manual CC/DTM/DTL/I-O/I-I breakdown for each player? These have gotta be more indicative of their actual FH prowess than the Ws-ICEs-UFEs unless you think era differences alone explain the big 2+% gap between Fedal and Pistol/Dre.

got it.
if you had asked earlier, I would have told you. Not all matches have the directions charted. its not that easy to chart directions when you start off. I didn't chart directions for the first 3 matches IIRC.

the breakdown is fine for information, but GSW doesn't help.

And true GSW% is just flat-out a more accurate metric than the potency ratings which for one thing don't bother with IFEs at all. I mean is there anyone who thinks Rublev's FH, which again I do like a lot, is the best of 'em all past or present? Or that Dre's, however GOATy it may be, is that much better than Bull's, Pistol's or Fed's?

FHP/BHP does included induced errors or errors forced. (again with the caveat that BHP doesn't include slices)

But you just acknowledged yourself why unlike the majority of his peers Bull doesn't see at least a slight boost on hard. Not to mention that, again based on an equal sample of 100 FHs, those lost winners would presumably translate into more winners under the I-O/DTL/whatever columns.

And your 2nd point is really a distinction without a difference, no? Everyone does the same to some extent, hence the relatively low CC GSW%s across the board (no way Boris and Jim keep their 10+% with a bigger sample). The point was that one shot is used to set up another. I'm not denying that Bull's CC FH makes his life easier on average.

no, but Nadal's does this the most than probably any other player. yo yo with CC FH to finish off with easy I/O (or DTL) FH. so that depresses his CC FH and increases his I/O FH the most

See above. I give Sackmann much credit for going beyond winners and UFEs and giving us a new perspective with his potency ratings, but I say GSW% is a superior measure of GS prowess especially with the extra info it provides.

not really. see above.
FHP though flawed is probably still a little less flawed than (W+FE-UE)%.
BHP is a different story with slices excluded.
Again, I'm still trying to understand how GSW is not squaring or if it should add up to (W+FE-UE)%

A lot easier said than done, that's why. Somewhat ironically, though, exos have given us a better idea about Borg's would-be transition than Lendl's cuz Ivan's back was pretty much shot by the time he called it quits.

you missed that Sampras didn't have to face defending the likes of nadal/djokovic/murray/davy/ferrer etc that fed had to face for example with the exception of Chang.

 

[abmk]

It's not a glaring weakness like Djoker's DTL (which TBH will probably push my boy off the OE top 10 for good), but it's a weakness nonetheless.

I told you before Djokovic's FH is just outside of top 10, but not quite top 10 in open era.

 

[NonP]

got it.
if you had asked earlier, I would have told you. Not all matches have the directions charted. its not that easy to chart directions when you start off. I didn't chart directions for the first 3 matches IIRC.

the breakdown is fine for information, but GSW doesn't help.

So it's not a glitch after all. Good to know.

FHP/BHP does included induced errors or errors forced. (again with the caveat that BHP doesn't include slices)

It actually doesn't. It simply adds that extra +0.5 for each shot before a winner.

no, but Nadal's does this the most than probably any other player. yo yo with CC FH to finish off with easy I/O (or DTL) FH. so that depresses his CC FH and increases his I/O FH the most

I still say finishing off points earlier is preferable on hard and grass, but fair enough.

not really. see above.
FHP though flawed is probably still a little less flawed than (W+FE-UE)%.
BHP is a different story with slices excluded.
Again, I'm still trying to understand how GSW is not squaring or if it should add up to (W+FE-UE)%

I'm gonna try looking at some guys with really small (and full) samples to see if only topspin/flat drives count for GS or lobs/drop shots/maybe (FH) slices are also included.

you missed that Sampras didn't have to face defending the likes of nadal/djokovic/murray/davy/ferrer etc that fed had to face for example with the exception of Chang.

Pretty sure the likes of Bruguera/Kucera/Rios/Hewitt weren't half bad themselves. Also while playing net players can be condusive to more IFEs they also make it harder for you to get into a comfortable rhythm on your groundies.

I told you before Djokovic's FH is just outside of top 10, but not quite top 10 in open era.

Wasn't expecting his net DTL %s to be so low (Gonzo's come close, but still ahead). Like I said that's probably because he doesn't quite have the weight behind his DTL FHs to target his opponents' BHs (or lefties' own FHs) head-on.

 

[abmk]

So it's not a glitch after all. Good to know.

It actually doesn't. It simply adds that extra +0.5 for each shot before a winner.

FHP/BHP does include errors forced
I wrote about this to Jeff March 2022 2nd.



My email
Title: Errors forced with FH/BH absent from FHP/BHP ?

Hi Jeff,

http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2019/08/17/match-charting-project-rally-stats-glossary/

Regarding forehand potency(FHP) and backhand potency(BHP), why aren't errors forced with the FH/BH a part of the potency.
I'd argue an error forced with FH or BH is just as valuable as a winner with it.
At the very least there should be consideration for it.

Thanks and Regards
abmk

Jeff response:

yep, winners and forced errors are treated equally. In my attempt to make a more concise description for the glossary, I left that out.

My response:

Hi Jeff,

Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying. It would be better if mentioned on that page.

Thanks and Regards
abmk

I still say finishing off points earlier is preferable on hard and grass, but fair enough.

if possible, yeah. but just speaking about nadal's style.

Pretty sure the likes of Bruguera/Kucera/Rios/Hewitt weren't half bad themselves. Also while playing net players can be condusive to more IFEs they also make it harder for you to get into a comfortable rhythm on your groundies.

hewitt didn't even hit his stride till 2000.
sampras didn't face rios in his short prime
kucera not a consistent top 10
bruguera is probably the only consistent top 10nner sampras faced in his prime (apart from Chang) and we know bruguera caused Sampras problems.
again doesn't remotely compare to what fed had to face

ironically enough, I missed out mentioning Hewitt for Fed, heh.

Wasn't expecting his net DTL %s to be so low (Gonzo's come close, but still ahead). Like I said that's probably because he doesn't quite have the weight behind his DTL FHs to target his opponents' BHs (or lefties' own FHs) head-on.

Djokovic has the angles, depth, but not the consistent power/weight.

 

[NonP]

FHP/BHP does include errors forced
I wrote about this to Jeff March 2022 2nd.



My email
Title: Errors forced with FH/BH absent from FHP/BHP ?

Hi Jeff,

http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2019/08/17/match-charting-project-rally-stats-glossary/

Regarding forehand potency(FHP) and backhand potency(BHP), why aren't errors forced with the FH/BH a part of the potency.
I'd argue an error forced with FH or BH is just as valuable as a winner with it.
At the very least there should be consideration for it.

Thanks and Regards
abmk

Jeff response:

yep, winners and forced errors are treated equally. In my attempt to make a more concise description for the glossary, I left that out.

My response:

Hi Jeff,

Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying. It would be better if mentioned on that page.

Thanks and Regards
abmk

Hmm, that does raise my opinion of the potency ratings somewhat.

But I still say true GSW% is better. An I-I winner/IFE just isn't worth the same as a CC/DTL one. When given the choice you wanna excel in the latter. I mean the fact that Rublev's FH GSW% is closer to our expectations than his comically high FHP says a lot, no?

hewitt didn't even hit his stride till 2000.
sampras didn't face rios in his short prime
kucera not a consistent top 10
bruguera is probably the only consistent top 10nner sampras faced in his prime (apart from Chang) and we know bruguera caused Sampras problems.
again doesn't remotely compare to what fed had to face

Sergi was a lot more aggressive on return than the typical dirtballer, that's what most people don't get. Mere retrieval skills didn't cause Pistol too many problems.

And you already know his H2H vs. Kaf. Don't really see him struggling with Ferru or Davy, and Muzz's defensive return wouldn't pose him nearly as many headaches as Djoker's. And Nadal is Nadal, obviously.

Djokovic has the angles, depth, but not the consistent power/weight.

Which is why I hadn't expected him to end up with 3 RGs. But when you put yourself in contention year after year good things tend to happen.

 

[abmk]

Hmm, that does raise my opinion of the potency ratings somewhat.

But I still say true GSW% is better. An I-I winner/IFE just isn't worth the same as a CC/DTL one. When given the choice you wanna excel in the latter. I mean the fact that Rublev's FH GSW% is closer to our expectations than his comically high FHP says a lot, no?

but that's included anyways. you hit more CC and DTL ones than inside in shots no.
I may have to look at Rublev's more in detail, but I suspect part of reason is weaker competition.

Sergi was a lot more aggressive on return than the typical dirtballer, that's what most people don't get. Mere retrieval skills didn't cause Pistol too many problems.

And you already know his H2H vs. Kaf. Don't really see him struggling with Ferru or Davy, and Muzz's defensive return wouldn't pose him nearly as many headaches as Djoker's. And Nadal is Nadal, obviously.

not talking about win loss per se, but that FH stats would take a hit vs these guys - by some margin (compared to what Sampras had to face in his time/prime)

Which is why I hadn't expected him to end up with 3 RGs. But when you put yourself in contention year after year good things tend to happen.

2 RGs is fine. 3rd is a real gift with Alcaraz's cramps (&Ruud in 3rd slam final, come on)

 

[NonP]

Here’s the full expanded TLDR:

1. PETE
2. ‘80s & ‘90s all-court guy.
3. Best ‘90s baseliner.
4. Other ‘90s baseliner.
5. Best ‘70s baseliner.
6. Rafa
7. Fed
8. Delpo
9. Best ‘80s fh.
10. Djoker

I thought you were poking (good-natured) fun but just realized that's the exact numerical order, LOL.

but that's included anyways. you hit more CC and DTL ones than inside in shots no.
I may have to look at Rublev's more in detail, but I suspect part of reason is weaker competition.

Except the CC/DTL/I-O GSW%s are given greater weight, as I say they should be. Like I said nobody enters a match expecting to unleash a bunch of I-I winners. And while I'm at it I'd say an elite DTL is preferable to an elite I-O (which is more common), too. Obviously nothing beats a top-notch CC.

And Rublev would be up there no matter what. I've dug the kid's FH for a while now and hope he makes at least one Slam F to end up in the record books, though given his lack of other weapons I've got my doubts.

not talking about win loss per se, but that FH stats would take a hit vs these defenders - by some margin.

Vs. the Big 3 and to a lesser extent Muzz, sure. But against Ferru and Davy? Doubt it. Their games are just too lightweight/straightforward to bring down Pistol's #s by much.

2 RGs is fine. 3rd is a real gift with Alcaraz's cramps (&Ruud in 3rd slam final, come on)

Well, sometimes you make your own luck. That SF with Carlitos was indeed a battle until that unfortunate "incident" which he later admitted wasn't much of one. That's to the veteran's credit.

 

[Devilito]

Lol at PETE's fh being number one.

LOL as in, it's so obviously true you'd have to know nothing about tennis to deny it?

 

[MichaelNadal]

My eyes hurt

 

[NatF]

LOL as in, it's so obviously true you'd have to know nothing about tennis to deny it?

Lol as in it was superb shot that complimented the game of maybe the best fast court player ever - but - as a stand alone shot you need to be a massive fan boy to try and argue it as the best forehand ever, as its clearly not.