Nadal Federer slam multiplier

[ledwix]

Here is what I have perceived based on people's opinions on this forum. When Nadal beats Federer in a grand slam final (5 times), it tarnishes Federer's achievements and therefore is effectively worth more than just a grand slam victory in the GOAT discussion.

So let's quantify this result. On average, how many regular grand slams is a grand slam effectively worth when Nadal beats Federer in the final? Let's assume that the H2H stays around a 2:1 ratio in favor of Nadal.

1 slam
1.1 - 1.4 slams
1.5 - 1.9 slams
2.0 - 2.4 slams
2.5 - 2.9 slams
3 slams or more

What this basically means is that if the multiplier is anything greater than 1, then Nadal can get away with being GOAT even if he ends up with fewer than 16 slams, and if the multiplier is exactly 1, then the Fed legacy isn't tarnished one bit by getting beat by his rival in a slam final. So for instance, if the multiplier is 2, then Nadal effectively gets 10 GOAT discussion slams for beating Federer in 5 slams. Thus if Federer ends with 18 slams and Nadal ends with 14, then Nadal's 5 extra slams would push him over Federer in the GOAT discussion, giving him 19 effective slams.

I apologize for the highly theoretical and speculative post, but I'd like to see people's opinions on this.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

I apologize for the highly theoretical and speculative post, but I'd like to see people's opinions on this.

 

[ledwix]

I see........

 

[bethany]

Multipliers are definitely fine for Nadal beating Fed. But you also have to factor into your calculation a negative multiplier for when Nadal loses to someone other than Fed at a slam. After all that's much worse right?

 

[kishnabe]

one slam is allways a slam...doesn't matter who you win it over...even if it is a GOAT!

 

[nikdom]

What kind of stupid logic is this? -

When Nadal beats Federer in a grand slam final (5 times), it tarnishes Federer's achievements and therefore is effectively worth more than just a grand slam victory in the GOAT discussion

 

[aceX]

This is like post-doc level fedalness

 

[Bobby Jr]

I think the multiplier is an interesting idea.. one which I thought about a few weeks ago - although from a different calculation point.

Mine was more a holistic head-to-head calculator for Nadal and Federer regarding surfaces etc ... basically something like this:

To do a holistic H2H debate about slams I'd add an extra 'win' for each time a player wins a slam but the other player doesn't get to the final and and extra 1/4 slam every time a player wins a slam final by beating the player that beat the other earlier in the draw.

To even it up in regards to stage of each person's career it starts from when each player had won at least 1 slam to start their slam 'career' and also ignores slams where either player didn't play at all (injury or whatever)

It'd look like something like this: (current Grand Slam H2H stat: 6-2 in Nadal's favour)

Then: extra points awarded when a player wins and the other didn't make the final (i.e. they played the tournament but weren't worthy so why should the other player be denied a 'win' based solely on the other's poor showing?).

Nadal: +1 Wimbledon (2010)

Federer: +8 (AO 2010, FO 2009, USO 2008, USO 2007, AO 2007, USO 2006, USO 2005, Wim 2005)

= 10-7 in in Federer's favour.

Then: add 0.25 per time a person won a slam final by beating the player who knocked the other person out earlier (surely extra kudos is due when you beat the person who your rival couldn't overcome?):

Occasions where Federer beat, in the final, the person who knocked Nadal out = 4 >>>> x0.25 = 1.

Occasions where Nadal beat, in the final, the person who knocked Federer out = 0 >>>> x0.25 = 0.

= Total holistic head to head is 11=7 in Federer's favour.

(yes, this was only partly serious but shows how easily you can make an argument if you used cunning think)

 

[bethany]

^^^ DIdn't Nadal beat Berdych at W10, when Berdych knocked out Fed?

 

[Bobby Jr]

^^^ DIdn't Nadal beat Berdych at W10, when Berdych knocked out Fed?

Yep, that's why Nadal got a +1 in the calculations.

 

[bethany]

Yep, that's why Nadal got a +1 in the calculations.

Yeah but Nadal should get some points for this part of your scenario:

"Occasions where Nadal beat, in the final, the person who knocked Federer out = 0 >>>> x0.25 = 0."

Since Nadal beat in the final (Berdych), the person who knocked Federer out.

 

[aldeayeah]

Soderling this FO, too.

Also Nadal +1 FO 2010 (Fed not in final)

Using that system it'd be Fed 10-8.5 Nadal

 

[ledwix]

What kind of stupid logic is this? -

Lots of people say the worth of a slam victory for Nadal over Fed is worth more than just a slam victory for Nadal in the absence of Fed. Thus if we collapse the GOAT candidacy into a simple function of effective slams (whoever has more effective slams is automatic GOAT), we can quantitatively gauge the slam worth of beating Federer.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Yeah but Nadal should get some points for this part of your scenario:

"Occasions where Nadal beat, in the final, the person who knocked Federer out = 0 >>>> x0.25 = 0."

Since Nadal beat in the final (Berdych), the person who knocked Federer out.

Nadal won and Federer didn't make the final he already got an extra 'win' for that. Once that happened I wasn't adding extras again. I can see the point though. Like I said, it was more a light-hearted attempt to show the utter silliness of debating whether some wins means more than others when, looking back historically, those details are basically ignored. I.e. No matter how many times Nadal beats Federer if he doesn't end up with more slams than him, period, he simply wont be considered the GOAT when people look back at it in 2020 or 2030.

Soderling this FO, too.

Also Nadal +1 FO 2010 (Fed not in final)

Ooops. Yes, you're right. I didn't have Wimbledon as I did the original calculations right after the French Open.

 

[cueboyzn]

Each victory in a slam final is worth exactly 1 title.

How many slams should we add on to Del Potro's Slam total because he beat Federer in the final?

Typical ******** logic once again in a thead relating to Nadal.

 

[cueboyzn]

When Nadal beats Federer in a grand slam final (5 times), it tarnishes Federer's achievements and therefore is effectively worth more than just a grand slam victory in the GOAT discussion.

How exactly does Federer showing up on his worst surface to play prime Nadal in the final on the surface on which he is or will be the GOAT, make Federer any less of a player, when Nadal failed to show up for any US Open or AO finals when Fed was in his prime. Nadal lost to all sorts of players, yet Federer was there nearly every single time waiting. Nadal lost to Ferrer, Murray, Del Potro, and others.

Using similar logic, this then tarnishes Nadal's achievements because he couldn't even beat these players to make it far enough.

Fail thread.

 

[Sarc]

I think that as long as Nadal finishes within 3 Slams of Federer, he will have a claim to GOAT due to his H2H record against him.

 

[ledwix]

How exactly does Federer showing up on his worst surface to play prime Nadal in the final on the surface on which he is or will be the GOAT, make Federer any less of a player, when Nadal failed to show up for any US Open or AO finals when Fed was in his prime. Nadal lost to all sorts of players, yet Federer was there nearly every single time waiting. Nadal lost to Ferrer, Murray, Del Potro, and others.

Using similar logic, this then tarnishes Nadal's achievements because he couldn't even beat these players to make it far enough.

Fail thread.

No, I am simply asking people how much they are willing to say a Nadal slam over Fed is worth in order to expose their effective logistics. I am making no kind of argument in favor or against Nadal's potential GOAThood, and in fact I absolutely hate the idea of Nadal ever being considered GOAT.

People like the above person say that given 3 slams less than Federer, Nadal would still be GOAT. That's a multiplier of greater than or equal to 1.6, which means 5 slam victories over Fed make up for the 3 slam margin. It makes people wonder about how they legitimately count individual head-to-head matches almost as much as ENTIRE SLAM victories, which I believe is insane.

 

[Sarc]

No, I am simply asking people how much they are willing to say a Nadal slam over Fed is worth in order to expose their effective logistics. I am making no kind of argument in favor or against Nadal's potential GOAThood, and in fact I absolutely hate the idea of Nadal ever being considered GOAT.

People like the above person say that given 3 slams less than Federer, Nadal would still be GOAT. That's a multiplier of greater than or equal to 1.6, which means 5 slam victories over Fed make up for the 3 slam margin. It makes people wonder about how they legitimately count individual head-to-head matches almost as much as ENTIRE SLAM victories, which I believe is insane.

I said he has a claim, not that he would be.

 

[wozwoz]

[...skip...]

I apologize for the highly theoretical and speculative post, but I'd like to see people's opinions on this.

Multiply those 5 Nadal's slams by 0. That's the multiplier that equals to the relevance they has. Same procedure applies to the rest of his slams, btw. Hope this helps.

 

[edmondsm]

Wow. It's been a while since I lurked about the forums. I hope this thread, and the subsequent posts, are a joke.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Wow. It's been a while since I lurked about the forums. I hope this thread, and the subsequent posts, are a joke.

mine was 100% serious.

 

[Cyan]

Nadal won 6 of his 8 slams by beating Fed. Those slams are worth more than beating players like Gonzo and Baghdatis in the final for sure.

 

[cknobman]

Multipliers are definitely fine for Nadal beating Fed. But you also have to factor into your calculation a negative multiplier for when Nadal loses to someone other than Fed at a slam. After all that's much worse right?

There will be no hypothetical logic in this thread that can in any way diminish Nadal theoretical claim to GOAT because of his record against Fed!!!

Only theoretical logic that reinforces Nadals claim as GOAT and being superior to Fed!!!!!

 

[cknobman]

Nadal won 6 of his 8 slams by beating Fed. Those slams are worth more than beating players like Gonzo and Baghdatis in the final for sure.

I guess you need to subtract major points for beating guys like Berdych, Solderling and (LMAO) Puerta in major finals then!!!

 

[aphex]

Pete's 14 slams are worth about 1.3 TRS (True Rafa Slams)