Limiting self-rated players in Adult league postseason?

[Angle Queen]

Wowee, wow, wow...we've gotten gotten some of the biggest, savviest TT players to chime in on one of our long-time most serious Adult League topics.

I'll take a knee, gentlemen, to your collective experiences. I'm but that lowly 3.5W, unfortunately, tagged with a 4.0 label. I know where I really stand. Except that I truly care about USTA and how tennis-hookups happen on the local level.

Oh how so sad that no one from the powers-that-be (USTA) even listen to our social media extract.

ps...don't care your proclivity...just,please, if you're a registered US voter....please go vote. Every vote. Counts.

 

[Jim A]

Which is why blanket bumps is the most effective fix for the problem.

If you want to be on a team that wins you should all be bumped up so teams can't manage their ratings while also winning.

But everyone on here seems opposed to it.

Of course I'm opposed to a large scale change on a few people. Using my team as an example. We are a good local team but we win because we give a sh*t about one another. I'm about 40 lbs too heavy at the moment thanks to no work/life balance. Overall, we range from Mid to late 30s to 60+. Good local team but not competitive at a Section or National level.

Last year we didn't get out of our flight in the regular season and won some close ones to advance this year , this year we made it to the final day of districts each time. We were better last year probably but injured. A team that won their flight in 2014 went 1-8 in 2015 when placed in a different bracket...they def shouldn't have been massed bumped nor the team that went in 18+. Likely to have a better team next year and have a worse result.

We don't manage our ratings and are at level. Most of us would prefer to get bumped. We have very strict rules regarding playing up in our section so it's not easily done. If 2-3 teams in our entire 6 state section want to play those games go ahead. We will have a good time playing, drinking and grilling regardless.

Back to watch people tilt at windmills


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Startzel]

Of course I'm opposed to a large scale change on a few people. Using my team as an example. We are a good local team but we win because we give a sh*t about one another. I'm about 40 lbs too heavy at the moment thanks to no work/life balance. Overall, we range from Mid to late 30s to 60+. Good local team but not competitive at a Section or National level.

Last year we didn't get out of our flight in the regular season and won some close ones to advance this year , this year we made it to the final day of districts each time. We were better last year probably but injured. A team that won their flight in 2014 went 1-8 in 2015 when placed in a different bracket...they def shouldn't have been massed bumped nor the team that went in 18+. Likely to have a better team next year and have a worse result.

We don't manage our ratings and are at level. Most of us would prefer to get bumped. We have very strict rules regarding playing up in our section so it's not easily done. If 2-3 teams in our entire 6 state section want to play those games go ahead. We will have a good time playing, drinking and grilling regardless.

Back to watch people tilt at windmills


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not surprised you would be opposed to blanket bumps. I'm not sure how you escaped being bumped in 2015 and it led to you being unbeaten until your last match.

Had you been bumped up last year you would have been fine at the next level this year.

 

[Jim A]

I'm not surprised you would be opposed to blanket bumps. I'm not sure how you escaped being bumped in 2015 and it led to you being unbeaten until your last match.

Had you been bumped up last year you would have been fine at the next level this year.

Ahh Startzel. Once again. Great season last year but beat players ( much like this year) who weren't necessarily at the top of the range. Lost a couple singles matches when pressed into duty. You probably missed those losses though.

Schmke can give his 0.02 if he wants but I believe I was far away from being bumped last year. Will be close this year but based on results from our district at sectionals etc I will probably stay down again. Good locally doesn't mean I am at level nationally. Tournament record is just over .500 for the season.

The top team in our section has done very well at 18/40+ nationals this year. You'd love them with 6 or 7 self rated players but no one here gives a sh*t that they are killing it. Next year a team in our state can come back together and will be ridiculous. Probably even better than the team there now...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Startzel]

Ahh Startzel. Once again. Great season last year but beat players ( much like this year) who weren't necessarily at the top of the range. Lost a couple singles matches when pressed into duty. You probably missed those losses though.

Schmke can give his 0.02 if he wants but I believe I was far away from being bumped last year. Will be close this year but based on results from our district at sectionals etc I will probably stay down again. Good locally doesn't mean I am at level nationally. Tournament record is just over .500 for the season.

The top team in our section has done very well at 18/40+ nationals this year. You'd love them with 6 or 7 self rated players but no one here gives a sh*t that they are killing it. Next year a team in our state can come back together and will be ridiculous. Probably even better than the team there now...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trust me I noticed your winless record in 40+. It looks real suspect when you didn't lose at 18+ until the semi finals in playoffs.

40+ must have been the only thing that saved you because your 18+ on its own should have gotten you bumped.

 

[Jim A]

Trust me I noticed your winless record in 40+. It looks real suspect when you didn't lose at 18+ until the semi finals in playoffs.

40+ must have been the only thing that saved you because your 18+ on its own should have gotten you bumped.

Haha. I love the bubble you live in, did everything I could to get bumped up last year but sometimes a captain has to take one for the team (singles) and oh yeah my doubles partner was coming back from a heart procedure so when his heart rate would get up to like 130 it was impossible for him to serve so we lost like 80% of his serve games. I guess even though he is a good friend and long time teammate I shouldn't play with him just so I can move up because someone on the internet thinks I'm cheating otherwise. Probably shouldn't have played that match we lost a set in earlier this year when he was coming back from injury either. Oh my goodness what would the pundits say. It will probably kill you to know that my former partner is likely to be bumped down this year and at most we may lose one player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Startzel]

Haha. I love the bubble you live in, did everything I could to get bumped up last year but sometimes a captain has to take one for the team (singles) and oh yeah my doubles partner was coming back from a heart procedure so when his heart rate would get up to like 130 it was impossible for him to serve so we lost like 80% of his serve games. I guess even though he is a good friend and long time teammate I shouldn't play with him just so I can move up because someone on the internet thinks I'm cheating otherwise. Probably shouldn't have played that match we lost a set in earlier this year when he was coming back from injury either. Oh my goodness what would the pundits say. It will probably kill you to know that my former partner is likely to be bumped down this year and at most we may lose one player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nah, you're definitely going up this year barring a miracle. Your self rate will also go up.

As for the excuses, everyone has them.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Haha. I love the bubble you live in, did everything I could to get bumped up last year but sometimes a captain has to take one for the team (singles) and oh yeah my doubles partner was coming back from a heart procedure so when his heart rate would get up to like 130 it was impossible for him to serve so we lost like 80% of his serve games. I guess even though he is a good friend and long time teammate I shouldn't play with him just so I can move up because someone on the internet thinks I'm cheating otherwise. Probably shouldn't have played that match we lost a set in earlier this year when he was coming back from injury either. Oh my goodness what would the pundits say. It will probably kill you to know that my former partner is likely to be bumped down this year and at most we may lose one player.
/QUOTE]

If there was an NTRP scale for how likely someone is to conclude sandbagging, @Startzel would be a 5.0 [97th percentile]; most of the rest of us are clustered around the median [3.5-4.0], which is to say we recognize that sandbagging exists but we choose not to focus on it nearly as much. Note I'm not commenting on either view's correctness; it just "is".

Now, having said that, Startzel does raise a valid point about the large discrepancy between your two records [40+ vs 18+]. I accept at face value your explanation about your partner but you didn't have to pair yourself with him every time [you could have spread the pain out, so to speak; your team shouldn't expect you to always be the one taking the hit]. Playing Devil's Advocate, if you did everything you could to get bumped up, you would have avoided taking too many for the team and planned the matches accordingly [ie playing less singles or fewer matches at the higher spots; and pairing your partner with others].

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Haha. I love the bubble you live in, did everything I could to get bumped up last year but sometimes a captain has to take one for the team (singles) and oh yeah my doubles partner was coming back from a heart procedure so when his heart rate would get up to like 130 it was impossible for him to serve so we lost like 80% of his serve games. I guess even though he is a good friend and long time teammate I shouldn't play with him just so I can move up because someone on the internet thinks I'm cheating otherwise. Probably shouldn't have played that match we lost a set in earlier this year when he was coming back from injury either. Oh my goodness what would the pundits say. It will probably kill you to know that my former partner is likely to be bumped down this year and at most we may lose one player.

Sorry for the previous malformed post.

If there was an NTRP scale for how likely someone is to conclude sandbagging, @Startzel would be a 5.0 [97th percentile]; most of the rest of us are clustered around the median [3.5-4.0], which is to say we recognize that sandbagging exists but we choose not to focus on it nearly as much. Note I'm not commenting on either view's correctness; it just "is".

Now, having said that, Startzel does raise a valid point about the large discrepancy between your two records [40+ vs 18+]. I accept at face value your explanation about your partner but you didn't have to pair yourself with him every time [you could have spread the pain out, so to speak; your team shouldn't expect you to always be the one taking the hit]. Playing Devil's Advocate, if you did everything you could to get bumped up, you would have avoided taking too many for the team and planned the matches accordingly [ie playing less singles or fewer matches at the higher spots; and pairing your partner with others].

 

[schmke]

Now, having said that, Startzel does raise a valid point about the large discrepancy between your two records [40+ vs 18+]. I accept at face value your explanation about your partner but you didn't have to pair yourself with him every time [you could have spread the pain out, so to speak; your team shouldn't expect you to always be the one taking the hit]. Playing Devil's Advocate, if you did everything you could to get bumped up, you would have avoided taking too many for the team and planned the matches accordingly [ie playing less singles or fewer matches at the higher spots; and pairing your partner with others].

So, it is ok for someone to manipulate things to try to get bumped up? But not the other way?

 

[MathGeek]

So, it is ok for someone to manipulate things to try to get bumped up? But not the other way?

No one worries about it (either way) in the shooting sports.

It would be a simple matter to shoot long range precision rifle matches with an inexpensive hunting rifle to land in one of the lower classifications, then break out the $4000 custom rifle for state, regional, and national championships.

Likewise, manipulating one's classification upward is as simple as using good equipment and trying one's best at shorter range events (300 yards rather than 600 yards, 800 yards rather than 1000 yards) on calmer days (more points are lost to wind than anything else). One can also simply withdraw from tournaments (and thus not turn in the scorecard for classification) if one has scored poorly.

These are things that commonly occur in the shooting sports, but they are rarely ascribed to ulterior sandbagging or pumping up motives.

If someone shows up and shoots a match with an inexpensive hunting rifle, most folks simply attribute it to 1) preparing for hunting season 2) the nicer rifle is unavailable, loaned out, at the gunsmith, etc. 3) the shooter just wanted to see what it would do or have a change of pace.

Lots of shooters favor shorter ranges and calmer days, so no one bats an eyelash at absences. If someone withdraws from a tourney, shooters tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, or (worst case) recognize that they may be slightly embarrassed by a poor score and prefer it not be published in the results bulletin for the whole world to see. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep a bad day private.

 

[OrangePower]

Now, having said that, Startzel does raise a valid point about the large discrepancy between your two records [40+ vs 18+]. I accept at face value your explanation about your partner but you didn't have to pair yourself with him every time [you could have spread the pain out, so to speak; your team shouldn't expect you to always be the one taking the hit]. Playing Devil's Advocate, if you did everything you could to get bumped up, you would have avoided taking too many for the team and planned the matches accordingly [ie playing less singles or fewer matches at the higher spots; and pairing your partner with others].

Like many things, it's not black and white. I think intent is very important here, and nobody knows that other than the person involved.

If a dubs specialist who seldom plays singles deliberately puts himself in at singles specifically because he knows he will under perform relative to his rating, that's shady. Likewise, deliberately pairing with an over-rated partner (like one coming back from injury) is suspect.

But on the other hand, being a captain myself I know that sometimes you have to put yourself in less than ideal positions in the lineup, in the interests of keeping the peace. In a perfect world other team-members would be accommodating such that the captain does not have to take the short straw, but not all team-members are like that. Sometimes the captain bites the bullet rather than having to deal with unhappy team-mates.

I have no idea who Jim A is and have no idea if he deliberately manipulates or not. And since I don't know, I'd rather presume innocent until proven guilty, rather than the other way around.

 

[Startzel]

Like many things, it's not black and white. I think intent is very important here, and nobody knows that other than the person involved.

If a dubs specialist who seldom plays singles deliberately puts himself in at singles specifically because he knows he will under perform relative to his rating, that's shady. Likewise, deliberately pairing with an over-rated partner (like one coming back from injury) is suspect.

But on the other hand, being a captain myself I know that sometimes you have to put yourself in less than ideal positions in the lineup, in the interests of keeping the peace. In a perfect world other team-members would be accommodating such that the captain does not have to take the short straw, but not all team-members are like that. Sometimes the captain bites the bullet rather than having to deal with unhappy team-mates.

I have no idea who Jim A is and have no idea if he deliberately manipulates or not. And since I don't know, I'd rather presume innocent until proven guilty, rather than the other way around.

The question is always, how can you prove someone is cheating?

His partner in 40+ went 5-1 at 18+. Does that change things?

For the record I don't think he threw doubles. I think jt was the singles matches.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

So, it is ok for someone to manipulate things to try to get bumped up? But not the other way?

Hadn't thought about it that way, schmke; valid point.

One is probably stuck between a rock and a hard place: if you manipulate things to get bumped down, people accuse you of sandbagging. If you do the opposite, people will complain you are ruining it for the next level players because they'll crush you. Possibly even the same person will accuse you of both.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Like many things, it's not black and white. I think intent is very important here, and nobody knows that other than the person involved.

Agreed. Which is why I led off with "I accept your explanation at face value...".

If a dubs specialist who seldom plays singles deliberately puts himself in at singles specifically because he knows he will under perform relative to his rating, that's shady. Likewise, deliberately pairing with an over-rated partner (like one coming back from injury) is suspect.

Especially for a captain, I can see either situation happening because of the particulars of that match [ie who is available, who absolutely can't play singles, etc.]. The only way to get a good handle on the sandbagging is looking at a pattern over many matches.

But on the other hand, being a captain myself I know that sometimes you have to put yourself in less than ideal positions in the lineup, in the interests of keeping the peace. In a perfect world other team-members would be accommodating such that the captain does not have to take the short straw, but not all team-members are like that. Sometimes the captain bites the bullet rather than having to deal with unhappy team-mates.

I accept that. I know some captains who will inconvenience themselves much more than other teammates, not because they are trying to sandbag but because that's the type of person they are. In everyday life, that's usually a positive quality; in a competitive one, some people view that suspiciously.

I have no idea who Jim A is and have no idea if he deliberately manipulates or not. And since I don't know, I'd rather presume innocent until proven guilty, rather than the other way around.

I too like to presume innocence. I was taking the opposite side of the argument to try and think from a different angle.

 

[schmke]

Hadn't thought about it that way, schmke; valid point.

One is probably stuck between a rock and a hard place: if you manipulate things to get bumped down, people accuse you of sandbagging. If you do the opposite, people will complain you are ruining it for the next level players because they'll crush you. Possibly even the same person will accuse you of both.

Yep, players getting bumped up that perhaps shouldn't, either because they manipulate things to move up or just play up a lot and get "hoovered" up, can result in non-competitive matches, just like players that have sandbagged and win easily. If the goal is to have competitive matches, both are equally bad. People just don't mind winning easily, they do mind losing badly so that is what they complain about.

And while we are on the subject, IMHO, letting anyone play up results in just as many non-competitive matches as sandbagging does. I'll find some way to do some analysis at some point, but in most areas any player can play up (there may be team/club limits, or a section may have some limits on the number of players that must be at level) and unfortunately it isn't just borderline players that do it. Consider a low-end 3.5 (3.01-3.25) playing up in a 4.0 league and playing mid to good 4.0s (3.7-4.0). These are clearly non-competitive (rating diff of 0.5+), less so than a sandbagger (4.1-4.2) playing the same opponent (rating diff of 0.4-). So if our goal is for there to be competitive matches, we should complain more about bad players playing up than sandbaggers.

 

[Startzel]

Yep, players getting bumped up that perhaps shouldn't, either because they manipulate things to move up or just play up a lot and get "hoovered" up, can result in non-competitive matches, just like players that have sandbagged and win easily. If the goal is to have competitive matches, both are equally bad. People just don't mind winning easily, they do mind losing badly so that is what they complain about.

And while we are on the subject, IMHO, letting anyone play up results in just as many non-competitive matches as sandbagging does. I'll find some way to do some analysis at some point, but in most areas any player can play up (there may be team/club limits, or a section may have some limits on the number of players that must be at level) and unfortunately it isn't just borderline players that do it. Consider a low-end 3.5 (3.01-3.25) playing up in a 4.0 league and playing mid to good 4.0s (3.7-4.0). These are clearly non-competitive (rating diff of 0.5+), less so than a sandbagger (4.1-4.2) playing the same opponent (rating diff of 0.4-). So if our goal is for there to be competitive matches, we should complain more about bad players playing up than sandbaggers.

The goal is fair matches as opposed to competitive matches. The USTA itself acknowledges a 3.49 playing a 3.01 will not be competitive.

 

[schmke]

The goal is fair matches as opposed to competitive matches. The USTA itself acknowledges a 3.49 playing a 3.01 will not be competitive.

I have not see the word "fair" used in any of the NTRP guidelines/FAQs when talking about the goals of the NTRP system. They do use the words "competitive" and "compatible", see https://www.usta.com/Archive/League...ons_About_the_National_Tennis_Rating_Program/.

To be fair (pun intended), you are right and they do not say that matches between players at level are expected to be "competitive" but they are expected to be "compatible".

So I'll change my statement to be, if the goal is to have "compatible" matches, we should complain more about bad players playing up than sandbaggers.

 

[OrangePower]

For the record I don't think he threw doubles. I think jt was the singles matches.

Something we can all agree on is that ideally there would be a different rating for singles and for dubs. It's not uncommon to have players with a legitimate 0.5 difference between their actual abilities in singles and dubs.
Of course that would introduce logistical issues (team composition rules, etc), so maybe it will never actually happen.

 

[Startzel]

I have not see the word "fair" used in any of the NTRP guidelines/FAQs when talking about the goals of the NTRP system. They do use the words "competitive" and "compatible", see https://www.usta.com/Archive/League...ons_About_the_National_Tennis_Rating_Program/.

To be fair (pun intended), you are right and they do not say that matches between players at level are expected to be "competitive" but they are expected to be "compatible".

So I'll change my statement to be, if the goal is to have "compatible" matches, we should complain more about bad players playing up than sandbaggers.

"If you are unsure of your level, choose the higher level of play."

It seems pretty straightforward the USTA would rather you play above your level than below your level.

 

[Jim A]

This is great, I feel like I'm trapped in circular logic of "Prove you aren't a hairy gorilla who should be a 4.0" as I'm neither hairy, a gorilla or a 4.0. If I were sandbagging I definitely would not be on an random internet message board bringing up my play and record. We have teams that do/have done this stuff and the manipulation. One will be a force next year at Nationals and the other did very well this year, good for them. I know I'm not a sandbagger because I can't compete with those guys, ha-ha!
We are questioning my partner because he went 5-1 and had a heart procedure after 18+ and we worked him to the last matches of 40+ after we were eliminated in a side eye sort of way. Are you guys really that life or death about your team/league?

S&V - IT was easiest for me to partner with him as my normal partner was not on the 40+ roster and no one anticipated it being such a problem. By the time he came back we were already eliminated in our Flight and he and I have played quite a bit over the years and he was the first captain to take a chance on me back in the 3.0 days as a newbie. Lost both in a MTB, first one was an epic comeback going and kicked off court, went to their club and then partner split his head open on the fence and on blood thinners so bleeding everywhere....we lose. 2nd one was just awful and going through the motions in final league match.

I'm flattered that you think I threw singles matches when I'm playing at like 230lbs. The first guy is a classic retriever, beat some players who moved up to 4.0 and lost to some decent 3.5's. The second moved up this year and I rant out of gas after getting broken at 5-4 in the first and then losing the first set. I guess being a captain I should have just defaulted a line so I could move up to 4.0, shows pretty good leadership and commitment eh? We had a considerable amount of rainouts last year, 6 of my 9 played matches in 18/40+ were makeups so we had to get creative at times. Again the record looks gaudy because of the players it is against. I'm 8-5 in tournaments and 0-1 in the match that mattered most. Won nearly all our playoff matches (all but 1) by a 3-2 or 2-1 score. Coin flips all around.

Our area is very strict with their roster rules. A team cannot have more than 20% of it's roster outside of level (i.e.. maybe 2 3.5 players on a 4.0 team) and seasons are short without any early start etc. our 18+ runs from mid April through early June, 40+ through June/July and Twilight goes from Aug-mid-Sept. Can't play in different areas within the section,etc so you live and day based on who is around 2-3 weeks per season.

Everything is 6-8 ,matches and outside of that we only have Mixed which is on the weekends. Most teams would rather have 10-12 players and regardless of how great of 3.5 I am, I'm here for a reason (no volley). A week or two of people going on vacation etc. can be utter chaos even before the eventual rainouts that come with the territory in our area that time of year. That also makes it hard to get a spot playing up. I was planning on it but it was pulled in February, no worries.

I'll try to avoid getting too deep in this rabbit hole until they are posted but again Startzel you are going to be disappointed when I stay at 3.5 for another year and just about our entire team as well. Still won't get past a couple teams in our state/section though....

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I'm flattered that you think I threw singles matches when I'm playing at like 230lbs.

BTW: It was Startzel who thought you threw singles matches, not me.

The first guy is a classic retriever, beat some players who moved up to 4.0 and lost to some decent 3.5's. The second moved up this year and I rant out of gas after getting broken at 5-4 in the first and then losing the first set. I guess being a captain I should have just defaulted a line so I could move up to 4.0, shows pretty good leadership and commitment eh? We had a considerable amount of rainouts last year, 6 of my 9 played matches in 18/40+ were makeups so we had to get creative at times. Again the record looks gaudy because of the players it is against. I'm 8-5 in tournaments and 0-1 in the match that mattered most. Won nearly all our playoff matches (all but 1) by a 3-2 or 2-1 score. Coin flips all around.

As I originally posted, I accepted your explanation at face value. And now that you've provided detail to my Devil's Advocate questions, your actions seem reasonable to me.

 

[Startzel]

This is great, I feel like I'm trapped in circular logic of "Prove you aren't a hairy gorilla who should be a 4.0" as I'm neither hairy, a gorilla or a 4.0. If I were sandbagging I definitely would not be on an random internet message board bringing up my play and record. We have teams that do/have done this stuff and the manipulation. One will be a force next year at Nationals and the other did very well this year, good for them. I know I'm not a sandbagger because I can't compete with those guys, ha-ha!
We are questioning my partner because he went 5-1 and had a heart procedure after 18+ and we worked him to the last matches of 40+ after we were eliminated in a side eye sort of way. Are you guys really that life or death about your team/league?

S&V - IT was easiest for me to partner with him as my normal partner was not on the 40+ roster and no one anticipated it being such a problem. By the time he came back we were already eliminated in our Flight and he and I have played quite a bit over the years and he was the first captain to take a chance on me back in the 3.0 days as a newbie. Lost both in a MTB, first one was an epic comeback going and kicked off court, went to their club and then partner split his head open on the fence and on blood thinners so bleeding everywhere....we lose. 2nd one was just awful and going through the motions in final league match.

I'm flattered that you think I threw singles matches when I'm playing at like 230lbs. The first guy is a classic retriever, beat some players who moved up to 4.0 and lost to some decent 3.5's. The second moved up this year and I rant out of gas after getting broken at 5-4 in the first and then losing the first set. I guess being a captain I should have just defaulted a line so I could move up to 4.0, shows pretty good leadership and commitment eh? We had a considerable amount of rainouts last year, 6 of my 9 played matches in 18/40+ were makeups so we had to get creative at times. Again the record looks gaudy because of the players it is against. I'm 8-5 in tournaments and 0-1 in the match that mattered most. Won nearly all our playoff matches (all but 1) by a 3-2 or 2-1 score. Coin flips all around.

Our area is very strict with their roster rules. A team cannot have more than 20% of it's roster outside of level (i.e.. maybe 2 3.5 players on a 4.0 team) and seasons are short without any early start etc. our 18+ runs from mid April through early June, 40+ through June/July and Twilight goes from Aug-mid-Sept. Can't play in different areas within the section,etc so you live and day based on who is around 2-3 weeks per season.

Everything is 6-8 ,matches and outside of that we only have Mixed which is on the weekends. Most teams would rather have 10-12 players and regardless of how great of 3.5 I am, I'm here for a reason (no volley). A week or two of people going on vacation etc. can be utter chaos even before the eventual rainouts that come with the territory in our area that time of year. That also makes it hard to get a spot playing up. I was planning on it but it was pulled in February, no worries.

I'll try to avoid getting too deep in this rabbit hole until they are posted but again Startzel you are going to be disappointed when I stay at 3.5 for another year and just about our entire team as well. Still won't get past a couple teams in our state/section though....

If you stay a 3.5 congrats on figuring out how to cheat the system yet again. Good luck, hopefully you won't choke in your team's big match like you've done the last two years.

 

[Startzel]

BTW: It was Startzel who thought you threw singles matches, not me.



As I originally posted, I accepted your explanation at face value. And now that you've provided detail to my Devil's Advocate questions, your actions seem reasonable to me.

Can we agree that someone that goes 16-1 should be bumped up?

 

[MathGeek]

Can we agree that someone that goes 16-1 should be bumped up?

Wouldn't that depend on the quality of the competition?

Just because someone is playing in a 3.5 league doesn't mean they are 3.5. They could be a 3.0 playing up, or they could be a self-rated 3.5 who overestimated their rating, or they could be a computer rated 3.5 at the low end of the range (3.01) or in steep decline.

Also, the rating system does not just consider the match won-lost record, it considers details of the games won and lost in each match. Concluding that a 16-1 should be bumped is more reasonable if most of the matches were 6-0 or 6-1 as opposed to if most of the matches saw the losing competitor take 8+ games from the winner.

It is deceptive and manipulative to attempt to press for decisions based on limited information.

 

[Jim A]

If you stay a 3.5 congrats on figuring out how to cheat the system yet again. Good luck, hopefully you won't choke in your team's big match like you've done the last two years.

Losing and choking are two different things - didn't even deserve the match tie break in the first one, those guys won again this year and probably go to 40+ next year when they get everyone back after the split up/break up ends this go around. Those are the droids you are looking for...

S&V wasn't talking about you in the singles - should have clarified ...

MathGeek - I've long thought about giving an overview to Startzel - but much like two people with different political ideologies, there is no way to change the mind. I'm a good player in an overall low ranked region. If I could devote more than 1 hour on Sat for practice and the occasional drill with our match days and get in shape I'd probably be a middle of the road 4.0 once I learned how to volley.

 

[Startzel]

Wouldn't that depend on the quality of the competition?

Just because someone is playing in a 3.5 league doesn't mean they are 3.5. They could be a 3.0 playing up, or they could be a self-rated 3.5 who overestimated their rating, or they could be a computer rated 3.5 at the low end of the range (3.01) or in steep decline.

Also, the rating system does not just consider the match won-lost record, it considers details of the games won and lost in each match. Concluding that a 16-1 should be bumped is more reasonable if most of the matches were 6-0 or 6-1 as opposed to if most of the matches saw the losing competitor take 8+ games from the winner.

It is deceptive and manipulative to attempt to press for decisions based on limited information.

If you had a rough guess, what percentage of players win at least 94% of their 18+ and 40+ league matches?

 

[Startzel]

Losing and choking are two different things - didn't even deserve the match tie break in the first one, those guys won again this year and probably go to 40+ next year when they get everyone back after the split up/break up ends this go around. Those are the droids you are looking for...

Your last line highlights my argument of the problem. When you allow people to cheat others start falling back on the, "we aren't cheating as bad as the other guys."

It's just an inevitable race to the bottom.

That's why this forum has changed my opinion and I'm now on board with cheating as much as possible.

 

[damazing]

In looking at some of the people that played at 4.0 nationals a question came up - how does someone get a dynamic up-rating to 4.5 and not have their matches DQed?

This player only played one valid match during the season which he lost and also got a forfeit during the league season to be eligible for post season. He proceeded to almost win everything at districts, sectionals and then nationals.

 

[MathGeek]

If you had a rough guess, what percentage of players win at least 94% of their 18+ and 40+ league matches?

It is precisely the rarity of occurrence which makes it hard to attribute with any degree of certainty to sandbagging or a particular (but unlikely) combination of weak opponents, luck, and improvement over the season.

If it happened all the time, one could probably say that many occasions are due to sandbagging, because all the other factors aligning to produce the outcome without sandbagging is a rare event. But a rare occurrence aligns well with the likelihood of all the other factors aligning to produce that outcome in the absence of sandbagging.

It is still manipulative and deceptive to press for a conclusion with limited information. In the case of a 16-1 match record, what were the ratings of the 17 opponents, what were their records that season, and how many games did each of the opponents take from the party who finished 16-1? If they beat most opponents in the higher end of the classification range closer to 6-4, 6-4 than 6-0, 6-1, you have no evidence of sandbagging.

 

[Startzel]

It is precisely the rarity of occurrence which makes it hard to attribute with any degree of certainty to sandbagging or a particular (but unlikely) combination of weak opponents, luck, and improvement over the season.

If it happened all the time, one could probably say that many occasions are due to sandbagging, because all the other factors aligning to produce the outcome without sandbagging is a rare event. But a rare occurrence aligns well with the likelihood of all the other factors aligning to produce that outcome in the absence of sandbagging.

It is still manipulative and deceptive to press for a conclusion with limited information. In the case of a 16-1 match record, what were the ratings of the 17 opponents, what were their records that season, and how many games did each of the opponents take from the party who finished 16-1? If they beat most opponents in the higher end of the classification range closer to 6-4, 6-4 than 6-0, 6-1, you have no evidence of sandbagging.

But we aren't making the conclusion of sandbagging.

We are trying to conclude whether someone that wins 94% of his matches should be bumped.

He's given us the reason why his 40+ results in 2015 weren't reflective of his abilit. So I'm assuming it's safe to say you don't mind excluding them?

So that puts him at 5-0 in 18+ in 2015 then 8-0 (5-0 in playoffs) in 18+ in 2016. Just seems off you would be reluctant to think maybe he needs a little tougher competition.

 

[OrangePower]

We are questioning my partner because he went 5-1 and had a heart procedure after 18+ and we worked him to the last matches of 40+ after we were eliminated in a side eye sort of way.
I'm flattered that you think I threw singles matches when I'm playing at like 230lbs.

For what it's worth, my view is that as long as you are not deliberately throwing matches, then you are playing fair.

However, the system is set up such that if you play with a partner coming back from injury, or singles when you are actually a dubs player, it can have the effect of depressing your rating.

So some people hold the view that players coming back from injury should not play USTA matches until they have fully recovered, and dubs players should not play singles. And they will say that doing so is equivalent to cheating since it causes one's rating to be kept lower. Not a view that I agree with, but there is a certain logic to it.

Problem is really with USTA and the way the system is set up. It's not a perfect system, and for those of us who prioritize just getting out there and playing over worrying over the exact impact on ratings, it's going to lead to a few anomalies here and there. But overall it does lead to mostly competitive matches and really that's its main purpose.

 

[Startzel]

For what it's worth, my view is that as long as you are not deliberately throwing matches, then you are playing fair.

However, the system is set up such that if you play with a partner coming back from injury, or singles when you are actually a dubs player, it can have the effect of depressing your rating.

So some people hold the view that players coming back from injury should not play USTA matches until they have fully recovered, and dubs players should not play singles. And they will say that doing so is equivalent to cheating since it causes one's rating to be kept lower. Not a view that I agree with, but there is a certain logic to it.

Problem is really with USTA and the way the system is set up. It's not a perfect system, and for those of us who prioritize just getting out there and playing over worrying over the exact impact on ratings, it's going to lead to a few anomalies here and there. But overall it does lead to mostly competitive matches and really that's its main purpose.

My opinion is instead of trying to discern which ones are cheating and which ones are inadvertent, it's better to just group them all together because the outcome is the same.

 

[OrangePower]

My opinion is instead of trying to discern which ones are cheating and which ones are inadvertent, it's better to just group them all together because the outcome is the same.

Perhaps, but I think you are thinking of the outcome as win-loss percentage, right?
Which I think is a very blunt measure. A player who goes 10-0 with all the wins being close three set affairs vs weak/middling players is probably too weak to be viable at the higher level.

 

[kylebarendrick]

Since the USTA algorithm does not (directly) account for wins and losses, a player's record is irrelevant. As others have pointed out, if you happen to have one of those seasons where by luck of the draw you end up playing weak players, your record can look stellar even if you aren't a top-line player at your level. That gets statistically less likely the more matches you play (eventually you should get a strong opponent) but it can happen.

That said, there is something to be said for the intangible qualities associated with an ability to win. I'd love to see USTA incorporate W/L into their ratings algorithm to account for it. If shouldn't be a dominant factor (as a 4.0 I shouldn't get bumped to 4.5 because I can beat a steady string of 3.5s playing up), but it would be nice for it to be included.

 

[Jim A]

It is precisely the rarity of occurrence which makes it hard to attribute with any degree of certainty to sandbagging or a particular (but unlikely) combination of weak opponents, luck, and improvement over the season.

If it happened all the time, one could probably say that many occasions are due to sandbagging, because all the other factors aligning to produce the outcome without sandbagging is a rare event. But a rare occurrence aligns well with the likelihood of all the other factors aligning to produce that outcome in the absence of sandbagging.

It is still manipulative and deceptive to press for a conclusion with limited information. In the case of a 16-1 match record, what were the ratings of the 17 opponents, what were their records that season, and how many games did each of the opponents take from the party who finished 16-1? If they beat most opponents in the higher end of the classification range closer to 6-4, 6-4 than 6-0, 6-1, you have no evidence of sandbagging.

This was a good exercise, I took a look at my opponents via TLS (gain of salt) which has me at 3.58 while Schmke has me at a mid range 3.4 - None of our TLS players who were 3.5x were bumped last year. My tournament results are worse and will bring me down a touch as well. Most of the better teams in our region comparing TLS to flight reports from Schmke are in the high 3.2x to low 3.3x range

Out of 38 players, 36 had ratings.
Overall rating of players across all matches - 3.27
# of players with a 3.4 or higher - 10
# of times played together (3.4 or higher) - 2
# of times in a higher/lower pairing - 8
# of players under a 3.2 - 10
# of players below a 3.1 - 5
Lines played
#1 - 13
#2 - 5
#3 - 1 (where we played one of the two pairings of 3.4 or higher!)

Here is the data
3.00 3.20
3.35 3.35
3.40 3.33
3.35 3.35
3.17 3.20
3.20 3.24
3.14 3.24
3.21 2.89
2.83 2.85
3.54 3.40
3.50 3.25
3.34 3.33
3.43 3.34
3.30 3.32
3.25 3.11
3.48 no data
3.23 3.44
3.43 no data
3.41 3.54

3.29 3.26 overall average

 

[Startzel]

Perhaps, but I think you are thinking of the outcome as win-loss percentage, right?
Which I think is a very blunt measure. A player who goes 10-0 with all the wins being close three set affairs vs weak/middling players is probably too weak to be viable at the higher level.

Maybe. The reality is the chances of that happening are pretty slim. Especially when you're including playoff results.

When you start talking about 10+ matches you should start seeing a variety of skill level in opponents.

 

[jm1980]

And while we are on the subject, IMHO, letting anyone play up results in just as many non-competitive matches as sandbagging does. I'll find some way to do some analysis at some point, but in most areas any player can play up (there may be team/club limits, or a section may have some limits on the number of players that must be at level) and unfortunately it isn't just borderline players that do it. Consider a low-end 3.5 (3.01-3.25) playing up in a 4.0 league and playing mid to good 4.0s (3.7-4.0). These are clearly non-competitive (rating diff of 0.5+), less so than a sandbagger (4.1-4.2) playing the same opponent (rating diff of 0.4-). So if our goal is for there to be competitive matches, we should complain more about bad players playing up than sandbaggers.

Good luck getting into a team if you are a bad player at that particular level

 

[Startzel]

Good luck getting into a team if you are a bad player at that particular level

Why not just get better instead of sandbagging so you can win at a lower level ?