#### ADuck

##### Hall of Fame

Rafa's winning percentage on clay is often shown in a way that doesn't give it as much praise as it should receive. To show you what I mean I've used the formula y = x/(1-x)

What this does is show how win percentage (x-axis) correlates with how many average wins/loss (y-axis)

What this shows is that when you approach 100% on the x-axis, the steeper the climb on the y-axis. Each loss weighs more than each win, assuming a player's win percentage is above 50%. A loss to a great player means they are rubberbanded back towards the 50% mark, a win for a terrible player means they are rubberbanded towards the 50% mark. This makes sense, since it is literally impossible to attain a 100% win/loss ratio after just one loss, and also impossible to attain a 0% win/loss ratio after one win. There is a monumental difference between just 95% and 99%, whereas there's practically no difference between 50% and 54%. That is why it's a mistake to look at two players and say x player is only 4% better than y player. Instead, it's better to look at the average amount of wins/loss each player has and find the difference. Bearing this in mind, let's compare Rafa on clay, to Roger on grass.

X-mark represents Career W%

O-mark represents Peak Career W%

Green = Roger

Orange = Rafa

Rafa's Career W% on clay = 11.527778 wins/loss

Roger's Career W% on grass = 6.833333 wins/loss

The difference between each player's wins/loss for their entire career: 11.527778 - 6.833333 = 4.694445 wins/loss

Rafa's Peak Career W% on clay = 14.285714

Roger's Peak Career W% on grass = 7.666667

The difference for when both player's career's hit their peak: 14.285714 - 7.666667 = 6.619047 wins/loss

The second greatest peak winning percentage of all time (In the open era) on any single surface belongs to Rod Laver on hardcourts: 91.00% = 10.111111 wins/loss

14.285714 - 10.111111 = 4.174603 wins/loss

Discuss

What this does is show how win percentage (x-axis) correlates with how many average wins/loss (y-axis)

What this shows is that when you approach 100% on the x-axis, the steeper the climb on the y-axis. Each loss weighs more than each win, assuming a player's win percentage is above 50%. A loss to a great player means they are rubberbanded back towards the 50% mark, a win for a terrible player means they are rubberbanded towards the 50% mark. This makes sense, since it is literally impossible to attain a 100% win/loss ratio after just one loss, and also impossible to attain a 0% win/loss ratio after one win. There is a monumental difference between just 95% and 99%, whereas there's practically no difference between 50% and 54%. That is why it's a mistake to look at two players and say x player is only 4% better than y player. Instead, it's better to look at the average amount of wins/loss each player has and find the difference. Bearing this in mind, let's compare Rafa on clay, to Roger on grass.

X-mark represents Career W%

O-mark represents Peak Career W%

Green = Roger

Orange = Rafa

Rafa's Career W% on clay = 11.527778 wins/loss

Roger's Career W% on grass = 6.833333 wins/loss

The difference between each player's wins/loss for their entire career: 11.527778 - 6.833333 = 4.694445 wins/loss

Rafa's Peak Career W% on clay = 14.285714

Roger's Peak Career W% on grass = 7.666667

The difference for when both player's career's hit their peak: 14.285714 - 7.666667 = 6.619047 wins/loss

The second greatest peak winning percentage of all time (In the open era) on any single surface belongs to Rod Laver on hardcourts: 91.00% = 10.111111 wins/loss

14.285714 - 10.111111 = 4.174603 wins/loss

Discuss

Last edited: