mixed doubles shouldn't affect NTRP rating

[rod99]

could someone please explain to me why mixed doubles affects someone's yearly NTRP rating? several players only played mixed doubles and their results in mixed doubles bumped their rating down from a 5.0 to a 4.5. they then dominate the league/playoffs in 4.5 b/c they should have never been a 4.5 to begin with. i don't understand why combo matches don't count for your rating but mixed does. a 4.5 man/4.0 man is more comparable than a 4.5 man/4.5 woman. it's ridiculous.

also, there needs to be something to change the way a rating is affected when a player plays a lower rated opponent at the higher level. for example, i know someone who generally wins his 5.0 matches but last year half of his 5.0 matches were played against 4.5 guys who were playing up. he won those matches fairly easily, but the computer penalized his rating simply b/c he played against guys playing up. if a guy is winning all his matches at a certain level, then he shouldn't get bumped down (regardless of the rating of his opponent).

 

[JavierLW]

could someone please explain to me why mixed doubles affects someone's yearly NTRP rating? several players only played mixed doubles and their results in mixed doubles bumped their rating down from a 5.0 to a 4.5. they then dominate the league/playoffs in 4.5 b/c they should have never been a 4.5 to begin with. i don't understand why combo matches don't count for your rating but mixed does. a 4.5 man/4.0 man is more comparable than a 4.5 man/4.5 woman. it's ridiculous.

also, there needs to be something to change the way a rating is affected when a player plays a lower rated opponent at the higher level. for example, i know someone who generally wins his 5.0 matches but last year half of his 5.0 matches were played against 4.5 guys who were playing up. he won those matches fairly easily, but the computer penalized his rating simply b/c he played against guys playing up. if a guy is winning all his matches at a certain level, then he shouldn't get bumped down (regardless of the rating of his opponent).

Ah I see we're going to have our fun for the day.

- You are right it is strange combo doesnt count but mixed does. But that just means Combo should count.

- If they didnt count Mix at all, then what is to keep someone who's really a 5.0 from playing 7.0 mixed every single year? That wouldnt be fair.

- If they dominate the 4.5 for a year, then they will then get moved back up to 5.0. (mixed wont count for that year)

Mixed is just weird, if you dont count it all it creates anamollys as well, it's never going to be perfect.

I TOTALLY disagree with you that somehow someone who wins every match shouldnt get moved down regardless of who they play. Whether you won everytime is meaningless, even if it looks to the layperson that somehow it's significant.

Besides it's not true, if you play someone a level below you and you win 6-0, 6-0 then you likely wont get moved down much. But if you drop a ton of games to them, then guess what? They probably are not really a level below you on that day then. (either they are not really where they are supposed to be, or you are over rated)

 

[rod99]

i guess what i should have said is that mixed should count if you only play mixed. however if you play regular league (spring season - 2 singles/3 doubles) then mixed shouldn't count. i've seen too many ridiculous situations where a very good player gets moved down b/c of a couple of losses in mixed doubles (which may or may not be due to his skill, since the abilities of the players in a mixed doubles match vary widely).

regarding the second scenario, this guy was winning all of his 5.0 matches like 3 and 3 or 4 and 3. the problem is that they were mainly against 4.5 players who were playing up. of course he gets bumped down to 4.5 and was one of the best 4.5 players in the state, as was proven at the recent state tournament (where he led his team to sectionals). plus, by just playing a player at a lower level (i.e. a 5.0 playing a 4.5) the computer somewhat penalizes (slightly lowers the rating) the higher rated player regardless of what the score is.

 

[JavierLW]

i guess what i should have said is that mixed should count if you only play mixed. however if you play regular league (spring season - 2 singles/3 doubles) then mixed shouldn't count. i've seen too many ridiculous situations where a very good player gets moved down b/c of a couple of losses in mixed doubles (which may or may not be due to his skill, since the abilities of the players in a mixed doubles match vary widely).

regarding the second scenario, this guy was winning all of his 5.0 matches like 3 and 3 or 4 and 3. the problem is that they were mainly against 4.5 players who were playing up. of course he gets bumped down to 4.5 and was one of the best 4.5 players in the state, as was proven at the recent state tournament (where he led his team to sectionals). plus, by just playing a player at a lower level (i.e. a 5.0 playing a 4.5) the computer somewhat penalizes (slightly lowers the rating) the higher rated player regardless of what the score is.

It's already like that.

Mixed only counts if you ONLY play mixed in that season.

It does determine what level you can play in for the regular season in the following year, but who cares? It's not like self rating yourself is all that much better or somehow more accurate. (at least it's based on something....)

Combo doesnt count at all. I agree with your very good point that if they count mixed, they should count combo. Im not sure what the difference is between say 6.5 Men's Combo versus a doubles match in 3.5 Men's where you could happen to have a 3.0 with a 3.5 on both teams.

The bottom line is someone probably complained about mixed at one time or another because some people ONLY play mixed and they didnt see it as fair back in the day when Mixed didnt count at all. So now they count mixed.

The right people probably haven't complained about combo yet. Nobody probably ONLY plays combo, so not too many people really care.

That's how these decisions are really made sometime, a bunch of people get together in a meeting and if the right people scream the most they change the rules, it's not like they necessarily put a whole lot of thought or logic into it. (the problem is no system is perfect and no matter what they do someone will whine about it as well)

 

[kylebarendrick]

Combo leagues aren't national leagues, which is why they aren't used to calculate national ratings.

 

[raiden031]

The following year a Mixed Exclusive rating is treated exactly the same as a self rating, so it doesn't hurt to get an M rating unless you get bumped up too high for whatever reason.

 

[JavierLW]

Combo leagues aren't national leagues, which is why they aren't used to calculate national ratings.

Mixed are not really National either. They have Eastern Sections and Western Sections. (at least that's what they did last year)

And tournaments are not always "National" and they may count toward ratings.

And there are several "Non Progressive" leagues (leagues where you play but you dont go anywhere for playoffs but you play the same players from the regular league), and those count toward the ratings as well.

So I dont think that really explains it. I just think they did it because they want more people play combo and tri-level and because nobody complained that they werent.

 

[rod99]

It's already like that.

Mixed only counts if you ONLY play mixed in that season.

It does determine what level you can play in for the regular season in the following year, but who cares? It's not like self rating yourself is all that much better or somehow more accurate. (at least it's based on something....)

Combo doesnt count at all. I agree with your very good point that if they count mixed, they should count combo. Im not sure what the difference is between say 6.5 Men's Combo versus a doubles match in 3.5 Men's where you could happen to have a 3.0 with a 3.5 on both teams.

The bottom line is someone probably complained about mixed at one time or another because some people ONLY play mixed and they didnt see it as fair back in the day when Mixed didnt count at all. So now they count mixed.

The right people probably haven't complained about combo yet. Nobody probably ONLY plays combo, so not too many people really care.

That's how these decisions are really made sometime, a bunch of people get together in a meeting and if the right people scream the most they change the rules, it's not like they necessarily put a whole lot of thought or logic into it. (the problem is no system is perfect and no matter what they do someone will whine about it as well)

perhaps i'm wrong but i was under the impression that mixed counts towards your rating no matter if you only play mixed or if you play regular usta leagues and mixed. the problem i've seen is that (for example) a 4.5 player gets bumped to 5.0 after dominating the regular usta league. in the following year he only plays mixed and doesn't play the 5.0 usta league. due to his results in mixed (i've seen situations where the player wins nearly all his matches in mixed and somehow the computer bumps him back down), the computer bumps him down to a 4.5, where he again dominates the 4.5 league. that's the situation that i have a real problem with.

for example, a 4.5 guy i know got bumped to 5.0. he only played 10.0 mixed the following year and went 2-0 in the regular season (no sets lost), went 3-0 at the state tournament (no sets lost), and went 4-1 at the sectional tournament (lost his only match in a superbreaker to two 5.0s). when the end of year ratings came out, he got bumped down to a 4.0!! and his partner that he played with all year got bumped up to a 5.5. several people appealed his rating but the state only bumped him up to a 4.5. he then dominates the 4.5 league the next year and again gets bumped to a 5.0. can someone explain that to me??!!

 

[Gh0st]

That's how these decisions are really made sometime, a bunch of people get together in a meeting and if the right people scream the most they change the rules, it's not like they necessarily put a whole lot of thought or logic into it. (the problem is no system is perfect and no matter what they do someone will whine about it as well)

Are we talking about the USTA or the US Government?

 

[cak]

perhaps i'm wrong but i was under the impression that mixed counts towards your rating no matter if you only play mixed or if you play regular usta leagues and mixed.

You are wrong, mixed ratings are only given to those that only play mixed, or play regular season so sparsely they aren't able to rate them in those leagues. (Usually less than 2 matches a season.) The upside of people with M ratings deciding to play regular season is their ratings are the equivalent of S ratings, so if they are playing out of range they can be DQ'd by the computer. While those with C or B ratings cannot.

 

[GeoffB]

I agree that it's really strange how mixed counts toward ratings but combo doesn't. I actually *do* think that mixed should count, since an out of level player can screw up mixed just as much as anything else. But I'd imagine that combo would give a more accurate reflection of player's ability than mixed would.

In my last tournament, I played someone who had a 4.0M rating, and it really wasn't fair. I won it 6-1, 6-0, and I'm only a middling 4.0 (actually, I'm currently a 3.5, and I only went 3-2 in singles in my most recent 4.0 adult league). It wasn't the score that was the problem, it was the absolute uncompetitiveness of the match. We barely played points. My opponent was a nice guy, and I'm really not trying to put him down or be condescending here. It's pretty rough that he isn't allowed to play 3.5, or even 3.0.

 

[duketennisgal]

My understanding has always been that mixed only counts if you don't play any other leagues.

In that case I think it should count, you have to have a base rating somewhere b/c you could have a guy that's never played league before but is at a 5.0 level, self rate as a 3.5 to play mixed. If mixed doesn't count then that guy gets to stay at a 3.5 rating and play league the next year.