Official 2022 ratings thread.

Vox Rationis said:
In my experience almost none of the ones rated between 3.9 and 4.0 will get bumped down. I’ve found TR to underrate players more often than not.
Click to expand...
Definitely true about TR underrating players. TR shows 20 4.5 rated players with 4.0 current rating in my local league. I’ll be surprised if more than 5 or 6 4.5 players are bumped down at year end. The last time year-end ratings came out end of 2019 not a single 4.5 player was bumped down. We have about 100 or so 4.5s in our local league.
 
ncgator said:
Definitely true about TR underrating players.
Click to expand...

Yeah, something is going on there. On my main screen is says I played just 5 of the 7 matches I have played, but clicking on this year NO match data is shown. Now sure what is up there.
 
ChaelAZ said:
Yeah, something is going on there. On my main screen is says I played just 5 of the 7 matches I have played, but clicking on this year NO match data is shown. Now sure what is up there.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you're clicking on this year? The top of the list of years is 2022 as some weirdo places have early start leagues right now.
 
OnTheLine said:
Are you sure you're clicking on this year? The top of the list of years is 2022 as some weirdo places have early start leagues right now.
Click to expand...
Humph, you’re just jealous that we get to play matches almost all year round. :) But there is an issue with TR right now; my win-loss record for 2022 is correct, not counting this past weekend, but all the specific match data is missing.
 
time_fly said:
Humph, you’re just jealous that we get to play matches almost all year round. :) But there is an issue with TR right now; my win-loss record for 2022 is correct, not counting this past weekend, but all the specific match data is missing.
Click to expand...

Until I moved to NM, we played USTA matches from the Saturday after Jan 1 until Mid June. Started again Mid August through 2nd week of December. And none were early start.

Now in NM it seems they have early start for Mixed ... And no leagues otherwise from Mid-July until I think February. So yes, I will be jealous.

My current match history is there with full detail ... maybe it is just the early start league stuff that is missing .... who knows ...
 
Aw, my team played this weekend, but then the other team contested one of the scores this morning. Do you know if the results will still count for our year end ratings since it was played before November 14, although the scores won't be finalized until maybe November 16?
 
silverwyvern4 said:
Aw, my team played this weekend, but then the other team contested one of the scores this morning. Do you know if the results will still count for our year end ratings since it was played before November 14, although the scores won't be finalized until maybe November 16?
Click to expand...
Good question, and one I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to. The cut-off date could be matches entered by the date, or it could be matches played by the date but with an allowance of a day or two for entry before the door is closed.
 
time_fly said:
Humph, you’re just jealous that we get to play matches almost all year round. :) But there is an issue with TR right now; my win-loss record for 2022 is correct, not counting this past weekend, but all the specific match data is missing.
Click to expand...

for some reason the matches for the 2022 season are appearing within the 2021 year right now. My 2022 W/ L info is correct on the main page ( ie the yearly overview) but those matches are missing on the 2022 season page
 
I self rated 3.0 and played five mixed doubles matches. In 4 of the matches my partner was also a self rate with only 5 matches. In the one match I played with a partner that had more rated match experience we played against a self rate that will only have two mixed doubles matches in before the cut off. I wonder if I will even get a mixed rating. Is a mixed rating treated like a computer rating for mixed leagues? For same gender leagues would I need to self rate again - with the floor being my mixed rating?
 
Moon Shooter said:
I self rated 3.0 and played five mixed doubles matches. In 4 of the matches my partner was also a self rate with only 5 matches. In the one match I played with a partner that had more rated match experience we played against a self rate that will only have two mixed doubles matches in before the cut off. I wonder if I will even get a mixed rating. Is a mixed rating treated like a computer rating for mixed leagues? For same gender leagues would I need to self rate again - with the floor being my mixed rating?
Click to expand...

The last sentence is correct. You will have to self rate if you want to play the adult (same gender) league with your M rating being the minimum so you'll be subject to strikes. You should get a M rating with the amount of matches you've played.
 
oodlesoftennis said:
for some reason the matches for the 2022 season are appearing within the 2021 year right now. My 2022 W/ L info is correct on the main page ( ie the yearly overview) but those matches are missing on the 2022 season page
Click to expand...
Interesting. Speculating as a software engineer, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a flaw in their architecture which makes it hard for them to calculate a 2021 rating using matches that are labeled as part of the "2022 season" so these matches have temporarily been re-labeled as 2021 matches. Of course I could be wrong ...
 
leech said:
I don't think it's a recent change. Here is a document from another section circa 2008 that explains the weighting: http://assets.usta.com/assets/558/Microsites/dps/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_90_106.pdf

Also, @BallBag said his losses were at Regionals, not after.
Click to expand...
I saw that same doc from 2008. The link you put in doesn’t go there. I’ve found docs about ratings over the years and they seem to take them down eventuall. So i screen shot them. I can’t figure out how to post a photo here but it says any player who advances beyond local league is assigned a rating which is an average of their final dynamic rating and their match rating at the championship event to which they progressed. 1 match at the championship 80% the final dynamic rating and 20% the rating from the one match 2 matches 60% final dynamic and 40% the match ratings from the championship. 3 or more matches 50% dynamic rating and 50% for the match ratings at the championship.
 
Tthcr said:
Looks like your right. On the USTA site is says there are no statistical differences in this this years, year end ratings patterns to past years. https://www.usta.com/en/home/play/adult-tennis/programs/national/usta-league-faqs.html
Click to expand...
Interesting. I'm not sure when that page was written, but it is written like the calculation is done and occurred in the past. But supposedly the cut-off date was only two days ago. So either this is just a boilerplate answer anticipating everything will be done normally, or the cut-off date really was two weeks ago and they have done the calculations already and can comment on how they were done.
 
It probably means that the calculation has been done in real time as it has been and they haven't seen anything screwed up enough to change the final procedure.

Or it's just garbage and they don't know what they are talking about. That's always a possibility.
 
schmke said:
Interesting. I'm not sure when that page was written, but it is written like the calculation is done and occurred in the past. But supposedly the cut-off date was only two days ago. So either this is just a boilerplate answer anticipating everything will be done normally, or the cut-off date really was two weeks ago and they have done the calculations already and can comment on how they were done.
Click to expand...
Are the calculations for determining YE rating computationally challenging? (involving iterations, convergence required, etc.) I have no idea.

If not, USTA might have run the calculations as soon as the last match of Mixed Nationals was entered in tennislink on Sunday. Sorted the results for validity check and wrote up a quick paragraph already in Sunday afternoon. But if so, why do they have to wait until Dec 1 to publish?
 
Last edited:
BallChaser said:
Are the calculations for determining YE rating computationally challenging? (involving iterations, convergence required, etc.) I have no idea.

If not, USTA might have run the calculations as soon as the last match of Mixed Nationals was entered in tennislink on Sunday. Sorted the results for validity check and wrote up a quick paragraph already in Sunday afternoon. But if so, why do they have to wait until Dec 1 to publish?
Click to expand...
I don't know exactly what they do, but understand it isn't just push a button and spit out the final year-end ratings. There very well may be iterations and convergence, and certainly there is review of the results that may lead to recalculations with some changes, or a determination about regional adjustments that may be required.

While the USTA at times I think has said it is all objective, it is pretty clear that there have been subjective adjustments (perhaps made in consultation with the data) made in certain years when there has been mass re-distributions of players, or certain sections get an abnormally large number of bumps up.

I mentioned the 11/14 date that has been shared with folks by some LC's with someone I know at the USTA and their response was it would be a quick turn-around to get it all done by 12/1, which also supports the notion there is iterations and review.
 
J011yroger said:
Wait, what?

J
Click to expand...
Creighton said:
Are you sure you're not just looking at your 2022 season?
Click to expand...
OnTheLine said:
The little 2021 next to the Blue circle with the i is just the drop down to select what matches you want to look at in the app.

If you click the info cicrle, mine still says 12/31/2019
Click to expand...


Yeah, too many beers last night. Captain said last night the ratings were out on the app and when I looked I saw the 2022 season mark, thinking that was the year/rating (never checked in the USTA app before). Did the double click and saw the blue box still showing the 2019 rating is there. Thanks for clarifying. But still...not really hopeful.

3.5C be like dis fer meh...

apino9qnq__76871.1626469639.jpg
 
schmke said:
I don't know exactly what they do, but understand it isn't just push a button and spit out the final year-end ratings. There very well may be iterations and convergence, and certainly there is review of the results that may lead to recalculations with some changes, or a determination about regional adjustments that may be required.

While the USTA at times I think has said it is all objective, it is pretty clear that there have been subjective adjustments (perhaps made in consultation with the data) made in certain years when there has been mass re-distributions of players, or certain sections get an abnormally large number of bumps up.

I mentioned the 11/14 date that has been shared with folks by some LC's with someone I know at the USTA and their response was it would be a quick turn-around to get it all done by 12/1, which also supports the notion there is iterations and review.
Click to expand...
 
Tthcr said:
This doc from 2018 says the matches counting towards year end generally goes from Nov 1 through Oct 31st. Adult nationals are done by then. Mixed nationals run into November. They already know by then who has played 3 or more matches in adult leagues and if they would qualify for a mixed only rating. so they can start then. Makes sense to me. https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/pdfs/20181129_USTA_League_Nationals_FAQ.pdf
Click to expand...
USTA already said this year they are including matches until November 14th
 
I wrote several articles yesterday on my blog looking at the results of Nationals by section, Southern, SoCal, and Florida did well, and this morning just posted another discussing why that might have been and also what it might mean for year-end ratings.

In the past, the USTA has, whether as a result of normal year-end calculations, or due to some other adjustment, had wildly varying bump rates by section, general those that do well at Nationals getting higher bump rates. PNW and Texas were hammered several years ago, Caribbean has been as well, and Southern had the great bump of 2019 for the men (only to have mysterious appeals granted after folks complained). Will Southern, SoCal, and Florida see abnormally high bump rates this year?

See my blog for more details, but here is the overall semi-finalist appearances and points (4,3,2,1 for placement in top-4) by section:

2021NationalsSummary.png


Southern men again did well, perhaps the great bump of 2019 was justified and didn't go far enough? And Florida women did well. SoCal's good results came in part from Mixed so perhaps they avoid a big bump, but they still did quite well in men's and women's too.
 
Last edited:
schmke said:
I wrote several articles yesterday on my blog looking at the results of Nationals by section, Southern, SoCal, and Florida did well, and this morning just posted another discussing why that might have been and also what it might mean for year-end ratings.

In the past, the USTA has, whether as a result of normal year-end calculations, or due to some other adjustment, had wildly varying bump rates by section, general those that do well at Nationals getting higher bump rates. PNW and Texas were hammered several years ago, Caribbean has been as well, and Southern had the great bump of 2019 for the men (only to have mysterious appeals granted after folks complained). Will Southern, SoCal, and Florida see abnormally high bump rates this year?

See my blog for more details, but here is the overall semi-finalist appearances and points (4,3,2,1 for placement in top-4) by section:

2021NationalsSummary.png


Southern men again did well, perhaps the great bump of 2019 was justified and didn't go far enough? And Florida women did well. SoCal's good results came in part from Mixed so perhaps they avoid a big bump, but they still did quite well in men's and women's too.
Click to expand...
If men's 55+ does amazing at nationals, do you think that would affect the ratings bump for that sections 18+ men or that section's women?
 
schmke said:
Southern men again did well, perhaps the great bump of 2019 was justified and didn't go far enough? And Florida women did well. SoCal's good results came in part from Mixed so perhaps they avoid a big bump, but they still did quite well in men's and women's too.
Click to expand...

I didn’t pay attention to all of the venues used for the different leagues, but weren’t a lot of the matches played in Florida and Arizona this year? I’d expect Florida, Southern, Texas, and possibly California teams to do well since in many cases they had the shortest travel distances and are playing in conditions similar to their normal matches. Of course it’s not feasible, but I’d be curious if the some of the consistent regional bias in Nationals would decrease if there were a playoff series using courts of different types all over the country.
 
Here are some the blogs:

computerratings.blogspot.com

2021 USTA League Nationals Summary - Southern, SoCal, and Florida Dominate

2021 USTA League Nationals ended this past Sunday with 40 & Over Mixed, which means we can look at a summary of all of the events. For this ...
computerratings.blogspot.com computerratings.blogspot.com

computerratings.blogspot.com

A finer grained look at 2021 USTA League Nationals results by section - Who did the best in each division?

I wrote earlier today a high level summary of how the different sections did at Nationals , and it certainly wasn't balanced. Southern, SoC...
computerratings.blogspot.com computerratings.blogspot.com

computerratings.blogspot.com

What might the results from 2021 USTA League Nationals mean for year-end bumps? And why did some sections do so well?

I took a look at how each section did at Nationals, both at a high level and by division , and several sections did very well, Southern, So...
computerratings.blogspot.com computerratings.blogspot.com

I think that is important information but I would hope USTA does a deeper dive into this.

I know UTR ratings can vary especially when a UTR involves mixed doubles matches. But when the UTR involves primarily same gender ratings we shouldn't see too much variation between parts of the country. I would think some of that data would be helpful since in some ways UTR has a larger and therefore more accurate data pool.
 
silverwyvern4 said:
If men's 55+ does amazing at nationals, do you think that would affect the ratings bump for that sections 18+ men or that section's women?
Click to expand...


I think the most important sections would be the sections with the most players. The exception might be 3.0 players since they are rapidly advancing - so I would say for men the 3.5 18+ and 4.0 18+ sections would be the most important. Plus I think it is important to focus on teams with c rated players. Intermountain 4.0 was full of self rates managed by a crafty captain. It is hard to say their success is an indicator or deflated ratings. ******* men 3.5 is a different matter.
 
Tthcr said:
Looks like your right. On the USTA site is says there are no statistical differences in this this years, year end ratings patterns to past years. https://www.usta.com/en/home/play/adult-tennis/programs/national/usta-league-faqs.html
Click to expand...


I am not sure how to interpret what they are saying - other than they are clearly trying to communicate - oh no we didn't screw up by not rating after 2020. Here is what they said:

"The 2021 year end algorithm ran as it typically does in any given year. The difference was a longer date range of two years, to include matches since the 2019 publish. Due to the impact of Covid-19, there were substantially fewer matches played in 2020. The algorithm ran in standard fashion, utilizing roughly 20% more matches than in an average year, but with no statistically significant variation in typically tracked year end rating patterns. There were no exceptions with the performance and outcomes from this year’s USTA NTRP year-end run."

So are they saying the two years combined had no more bumps up or down per match played than a typical year? Or are they saying that there are more bumps, but considering it was over two years this is what they would expect? In other words it would seem to be a "variation" or an "exception" if there were not more bumps up and down over a longer time period.
 
time_fly said:
I didn’t pay attention to all of the venues used for the different leagues, but weren’t a lot of the matches played in Florida and Arizona this year? I’d expect Florida, Southern, Texas, and possibly California teams to do well since in many cases they had the shortest travel distances and are playing in conditions similar to their normal matches. Of course it’s not feasible, but I’d be curious if the some of the consistent regional bias in Nationals would decrease if there were a playoff series using courts of different types all over the country.
Click to expand...
That is well thought out and logical if it were a tournament of legitimate computer rated players that didn't tank to get their C rating. The self rates will trump any less significant variances in weather and travel.
 
My friend has only played mixed matches and lost a lot as a 4.0 (only 1 win) then lost a close men's 4.5 for this fall season. Since he only played 1 men's match he wont be a computer rated 4.0? just a mixed?
 
FuzzyYellowBalls said:
That is well thought out and logical if it were a tournament of legitimate computer rated players that didn't tank to get their C rating. The self rates will trump any less significant variances in weather and travel.
Click to expand...

I agree. But would add it is not all illegitimate tactics though. Those areas where the weather is nice for tennis year round will naturally have more players per mile. That means they will have an easier time filling their teams with players that are at the very top of the rating level.

Consider this UTR chart.




TCEedNjIzpT46fGF4YA67YmCN_Gu-Ra6_g.png


If you have a 4.0 team and can pack it full of 7.5ish players you are of course going to beat teams that must fill some spots with players that are near the middle (let alone the bottom) of that huge range.
 
FuzzyYellowBalls said:
A PSA from USTA Texas lol, get in before you are correctly rated! " Adult Tournaments Players: To sign up for any December Tournaments under your CURRENT 2021 rating, you MUST register BEFORE the end of year ratings are published. At this time, they are scheduled to be published on December 1st, 2021. "
Click to expand...
You're making it sound more sinister than it is. Texas has always allowed players to finish out the year at the rating they held that year. The new garbage software TD's have been stuck with just won't allow the proper adjustments to be made. This is why players have to register before that deadline, wherein the past, TD's could just adjust it for that particular tournament.
Why shouldn't players be able to finish playing 2021 with their 2021 rating?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
A 4.5 sandbagger in 3.5 city league - What would you do?
Replies
38
Views
2K
TennisCJC
T
C
TennisRecord EOY Accuracy for year end 2022
Replies
6
Views
2K
jm1980
jm1980
navigator
Observations on Universal Tennis Ratings
2
Replies
56
Views
8K
time_fly
time_fly
D
How much access do League Coordinators have to detailed USTA ratings?
Replies
20
Views
1K
J_R_B
J
time_fly
Early ratings: surprised I didn't get bumped up?
Replies
17
Views
1K
NTRPolice
N
Back
Top