Level vs percentage stats, or Which performance was better

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Note:
Service points won % = SPW %
Return points won % = RPW %
Total points won % = TPW %
Dominance ratio (return points won % divided by service points lost %) = DR

Higher values are bolded.

Federer

2008 Wimbledon

SPW 73.3%
RPW 37.9%
TPW 54.9%
DR 1.42

2019 Wimbledon

SPW 73.5%
RPW 40.3%
TPW: 55.9%
DR 1.52

Nadal

2012 Australian Open

SPW 68.2%
RPW 40.8%
TPW 54.0%
DR 1.28

2019 Australian Open

SPW 71.3%
RPW 41.5%
TPW 56.1%
DR 1.45

Djokovic

2012 YEC

SPW 67.6%
RPW 38.2%
TPW 53.0%
DR 1.18

2018 YEC

SPW 77.0%
RPW 40.3%
TPW 56.8%
DR 1.75

 

[ForehandCross]

The difference in 2012 and 2018 is mind boggling.

So Zverev straight setted that great a Novak indoors?

I don't think so. Older big 3 have huge chinks in their armors internally but it is shiny outside.

Zverev exploited Djokovic's lack of power brilliantly in that match.
A 2015 version would overpower him and outdefend Zverev easily.

 

[ForehandRF]

So, as statistics show, 2019 AO Nadal was better than 2012 AO Nadal, and the conclusion is that the 2019 match ended in a straight sets beatdown just because Novak was way too good no ? Roger that

 

[Lew II]

I know that this sounds silly to Fed fans, but players can lose despite being playing their best tennis.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

Connors in 4

 

[ForehandRF]

I know that this sounds silly to Fed fans, but players can lose despite being playing their best tennis.

That rarely happens, see Federer Rome 2006.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I know that this sounds silly to Fed fans, but players can lose despite being playing their best tennis.

Peak Zverev > peak Djokovic at the YEC? Zverev BOAT!!

 

[Lew II]

Peak Zverev > peak Djokovic at the YEC? Zverev BOAT!!

One match is not enough to determine who has the highest peak. Let them play 10 tournaments when both peak and let's see who wins the most of them.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

One match is not enough to determine who has the highest peak. Let them play 10 tournaments when both peak and let's see who wins the most of them.

Highest peak by definition can be shown at one match unless there happen to be several matches played at exactly the same level.

 

[Lew II]

Highest peak by definition can be shown at one match unless there happen to be several matches played at exactly the same level.

The highest peak can be shown in one match but there's no way to prove it, as it's just one match.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

The highest peak can be shown in one match but there's no way to prove it, as it's just one match.

Replace one with any single digit number, and 'match' with 'tournament', and the argument holds. But nobody has peaked double digit times at one tournament.

 

[RF-18]

Peak Zverev > peak Djokovic at the YEC? Zverev BOAT!!

But think about it for a second. 2018 YECs Djokovic and Zverev plays the tournament 5 times, do you choose Zverev to win more of them than Djokovic?

In one match anything can happen.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

But think about it for a second. 2018 YECs Djokovic and Zverev plays the tournament 5 times, do you choose Zverev to win more of them than Djokovic?

In one match anything can happen.

They played, and Zverev won the final. Replaying it is like replaying a tape, the result will always be the same because the past cannot be changed.

In two, three, ..., ten matches anything can happen too. Thanks for admitting H2H is irrelevant.

 

[RF-18]

They played, and Zverev won the final. Replaying it is like replaying a tape, the result will always be the same because the past cannot be changed.

In two, three, ..., ten matches anything can happen too. Thanks for admitting H2H is irrelevant.

10 matches is a bigger sample than one.

In a scenario like you have presented, this is the way we have to think.

 

[KINGROGER]

I know that this sounds silly to Fed fans, but players can lose despite being playing their best tennis.

Agreed

See AO05, Rome 06, Wimbledon 07 for example

 

[Sport]

They played, and Zverev won the final. Replaying it is like replaying a tape, the result will always be the same because the past cannot be changed.

In two, three, ..., ten matches anything can happen too. Thanks for admitting H2H is irrelevant.

I know you want to protect Federer, but you went too far. You really have to be fanatic to say "H2H is irrelevant". Irrelevant because Federer loses the H2H to Nadal and Djokovic huh? Even most Fed fans acknowledge some relevance of the H2H. No one denies that there are more relevant stats like the number of Slam titles, etc. But to say that "H2H is irrelevant" is wishful thinking.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I know you want to protect Federer, but you went too far. You really have to be fanatic to say "H2H is irrelevant". Irrelevant because Federer loses the H2H to Nadal and Djokovic huh? Even most Fed fans acknowledge some relevance of the H2H. No one denies that there are more relevant stats like the number of Slam titles, etc. But to say that "H2H is irrelevant" is wishful thinking.

Santoro-Safin 7-2

Davydenko-Nadal 6-1 on HC

 

[Sport]

Santoro-Safin 7-2

Davydenko-Nadal 6-1 on HC

Funny, you strategically showed H2H of less than 15 matches. Sample size matters. Only H2H of 15 or more matches represent a reliable stat.

1. Djokovic doesn't lose any H2H of 15+ matches (excluding his H2H in Slams against Nadal)
2. Nadal only loses his H2H of 15+ matches against Djokovic
3. Federer only loses his H2H of 15+ matches agianst Nadal and Djokovic

 

[NatF]

Funny, you strategically showed H2H of less than 10 matches. Sample size matters. Only H2H of more than 10 matches represent a reliable stat.

1. Djokovic doesn't lose any H2H of 10+ matches (excluding his H2H in Slams against Nadal)
2. Nadal only loses his H2H of 10+ matches against Djokovic
3. Federer only loses his H2H of 10+ matches agianst Nadal and Djokovic

Why does only 10+ make a reliable sample size?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It only shows, Davydenko was better on hard than teenager Nadal. That stat is relevant to show it. And Safin is not an all-time great, he was never supposed to have a winning H2H over the whole field.

Davydenko has 0 wins over Nadal in Grand Slam matches on hard courts though, meaning he is not better than Nadal in Slams on hard courts.

What a fail, all of Davydenko's wins happened when Nadal was in prime.

Also
del Potro 6-5 Nadal on HC (1-1 in slams)

 

[Sport]

What a fail, all of Davydenko's wins happened when Nadal was in prime.

Also
del Potro 6-5 Nadal on HC (1-1 in slams)

No, he wasn't at his prime on hard. Nadal in 2005-2007: 0 Slam semifinals on hard. Only because Nadal won RG 2005 it doesn't follow that he was at his best in all surfaces, only on clay.

Delpo and Nadal played less than 15 matches on hard. Your example doesn't refute the rule of 15+ matches to make a reliable H2H. You always strategically pick very few samples sizes H2H, the smaller the sample size, the more deceiving it can be.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Becker-Edberg 25-10 h8h

Edberg 3-1 in slams, 1-0 in YEC finals

LOL

 

[Sport]

Becker-Edberg 25-10 h8h

Edberg 3-1 in slams, 1-0 in YEC finals

LOL

So? Becker developed a game that Edberg could not stop in most direct meetings. Credit to Becker and a relevant stat that shows Becker's incredible capacity to stop a great player of his time like Edberg.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

No, he wasn't at his prime on hard. Nadal in 2005-2007: 0 Slam semifinals on hard. Only because Nadal won RG 2005 it doesn't follow that he was at his best in all surfaces, only on clay.

Delpo and Nadal played less than 15 matches on hard. Your example doesn't refute the rule of 15+ matches to make a reliable H2H. You always strategically pick very few samples sizes H2H, the smaller the sample size, the more deceiving it can be.

Extreme goalpost movement speed.
Lul Davydenko's first Nadal win came in 2008. inb4 not prime but 2011 is prime, yes? Hahaha.

 

[Sport]

Extreme goalpost movement speed.
Lul Davydenko's first Nadal win came in 2008. inb4 not prime but 2011 is prime, yes? Hahaha.

Still, Nadal-Davydenko H2H on hard is based on less than 15 matches. Not a reliable sample size, as it is too small, and so deceiving.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

So? Becker developed a game that Edberg could not stop in most direct meetings. Credit to Becker and a relevant stat that shows Becker's incredible capacity to stop a great player of his time like Edberg.

Edberg 4-1 in biggest matches duh. Prime Edberg => prime Becker.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Still, Nadal-Davydenko H2H on hard is based on less than 15 matches. Not a reliable sample size, as it is too small, and so deceiving.

14 = small
15 = big
jajajaja.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Delpo and Nadal played less than 15 matches on hard. Your example doesn't refute the rule of 15+ matches to make a reliable H2H. You always strategically pick very few samples sizes H2H, the smaller the sample size, the more deceiving it can be.

This is not really the way statistics work. There is no hard and fast number for which n becomes significant, it depends on the metric being used and the context within which it’s being interpreted and the assumptions you’re using to set up your analysis. This thread is just making a simple demonstration that the percentage stats posted elsewhere can’t be used alone to derive useful information about level of play during a tournament, which is by definition a small sample size anyways.

Even with large H2H samples, you need to be very precise about the claims you make, if you’re actually making probabilistic confidence claims based on statistical methods as opposed to your opinion. Take Nadal - Djokovic for instance, the 2006-10, 2011-14, 2015-16, 2017-present periods are all quite different from each other in terms of circumstances so you can only make very specific and high level claims based on stats that analyze all of these periods together.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

I know that this sounds silly to Fed fans, but players can lose despite being playing their best tennis.

Like 2017 AO R64
Peak novak lost to istomin

 

[Lew II]

Like 2017 AO R64
Peak novak lost to istomin

You mean Djokovic in one of the worst periods of his career in the 2nd round of a tournament is peak?

 

[RelentlessAttack]

You mean Djokovic in one of the worst periods of his career in the 2nd round of a tournament is peak?

The game always evolves and players always get better, so certainly 2017 > 2011

 

[Lew II]

The game always evolves and players always get better, so certainly 2017 > 2011

Ok, the one who won 5 of the last 7 slams must be the best then.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Ok, the one who won 5 of the last 7 slams must be the best then.

Indeed he evolved again this January after the game passed him by at WTF19. But next time absolute peak Nole loses to Medvedev or Tsitsipas, all of his records go back into the dustbin of history along with Fedal, since new > old and tall > short

 

[ADuck]

While I think part of the reason why their stats are improving overall is due to a lower level of competition, I think a lot of it is also because they've become so efficient at dismissing lower-level opponents.

 

[NatF]

While I think part of the reason why their stats are improving overall is due to a lower level of competition, I think a lot of it is also because they've become so efficient at dismissing lower-level opponents.

Indeed, they've become quite ruthless at dispatching players in the early rounds which inflates their stats somewhat. Saw this in 2015 with Fed, he was posting really good numbers because his up tempo first strike game was very good at taking the baseline bots out of their comfort zone. It's only against elite opponents that the loss in movement/athleticism becomes apparent.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Edberg 4-1 in biggest matches duh. Prime Edberg => prime Becker.

having followed tennis pretty closely in the 80s, I can say with some confidence that Edberg considered his Davis Cup Final matches vs Becker among the “biggest matches” they played vs each other. and Becker won all 3 of those. And he beat him in doubles in the finals as well. Edberg probably would have traded his YEC final win or RG SF win to get wins in 88 or 89 DC finals, if it would have given the cup to Sweden(he lost to Becker in the 85 final on day 1, but clinched the title in the 5th rubber).

88 was pretty devastating for Sweden, they picked clay to diffuse Becker’s game and he won singles and doubles(and Mats shockingly lost to Steeb, giving Germany a 3-0 win).

 

[ThiemPlayer]

Nadal-Federer slam H2H is 10-4. 14 matches. Doesn't that make it statistically irrelevant?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

having followed tennis pretty closely in the 80s, I can say with some confidence that Edberg considered his Davis Cup Final matches vs Becker among the “biggest matches” they played vs each other. and Becker won all 3 of those. And he beat him in doubles in the finals as well. Edberg probably would have traded his YEC final win or RG SF win to get wins in 88 or 89 DC finals, if it would have given the cup to Sweden(he lost to Becker in the 85 final on day 1, but clinched the title in the 5th rubber).

88 was pretty devastating for Sweden, they picked clay to diffuse Becker’s game and he won singles and doubles(and Mats shockingly lost to Steeb, giving Germany a 3-0 win).

Edberg would have traded the RG semi in retrospect since it didn't bring him the title, but at the time? Reasonably expecting the upcoming final to be his best winning chance by far against teen Chang? No way, RG was bigger than DC by then.

Trading the Masters is plausible, as I can see Edberg holding DC in higher esteem, but still I think the YEC title should have been more valuable as it was Edberg's first and possibly only, as it indeed happened, whereas he already had a DC title. Kind of like the YEC is bigger than the Olympics in tennis, but it looks better to win either once than the YEC twice.

 

[Third Serve]

This thread in a nutshell:

(not talking about OP or the intention of the thread, but the development of the thread)

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

This thread in a nutshell:

(not talking about OP or the intention of the thread, but the development of the thread)

Just as expected, indeed.

Man, the boards have succumbed to much rot. It's not pleasant to discuss anymore... you can't filter out the ridiculous and the agenda-driven except in a private chat group. Sad.