Points Per Position Survey for USTA League

[storypeddler]

Or one solution would be for players to stop crying and whining and complaining about how they were unfairly matched against a team they perceived as somehow better than them, and just simply bear down, dig in, play hard, and find a way to compete and win a few of those matches. Geez---tennis players can sometimes be such babies! If you are rated 4.0 and your opponent is rated 4.0, then you are in the same general level and your match should be competitive. No player plays his best (or his worst) tennis every time out, so you don't know at which line you are going to be most tested anyway. Just grow a pair and play the competition you face across the net---the ones who have the same rating as you---and stop bellyaching.

 

[spot]

I really think that they should make it simpler and determine playoffs based on total lines taken rather than individual wins. Give a team incentive to take all 5 points and have teams know if they throw a line away that it will cost them something and a team that takes 3 points every week very well may miss out on playoffs to a team that takes 4 and 5 more often. Still use head to head record as a tiebreaker but that is all.

Currently teams have so much incentive to throw away lines and concentrate the best players together. If you go off of total lines won then captains would have more incentive to put out 5 competitive lines.

 

[Mongolmike]

If you are rated 4.0 and your opponent is rated 4.0, then you are in the same general level and your match should be competitive.

That sounds good in theory, but it is definitely not real world. Especially at levels 4.0 and under, there can be a significant difference between equal rated players.... 6-0 6-1 differences.

In fact, there can be less difference between a high 3.5 and a low 4.0 then there is between two 3.5s. Lots of players don't understand this, so they complain that so and so is sandbagging... when in fact they might be on the low end of their rating and they played someone on the high end.

 

[J_R_B]

Or one solution would be for players to stop crying and whining and complaining about how they were unfairly matched against a team they perceived as somehow better than them, and just simply bear down, dig in, play hard, and find a way to compete and win a few of those matches. Geez---tennis players can sometimes be such babies! If you are rated 4.0 and your opponent is rated 4.0, then you are in the same general level and your match should be competitive. No player plays his best (or his worst) tennis every time out, so you don't know at which line you are going to be most tested anyway. Just grow a pair and play the competition you face across the net---the ones who have the same rating as you---and stop bellyaching.

I think at least as much of the "bellyaching" is coming from the other side. The top players consider it a waste of time and money to come and walk through a match in a half hour because the other team is afraid to put a top guy against them.

But whatever, I agree with you. Just play who you're lined up against and do your best for your team.

 

[floridatennisdude]

If the courts number has no meaning, than there can be no "stacking".
In which case adding meaning to the courts would then create the situation to stack which is what is being argued they are trying to correct. This makes no sense.

Quite frankly I don't care about stacking bc we struggle just to fill five matches anyway. and on any day anyone can beat someone else if they are of relative skill and "rated" properly

That's how I've always viewed it. I captained once and I set my lineups as even as possible (based on availability). Apparently, other captains still believe in top-bottom as we rarely won at 1, rarely lost at 3, and pretty much split line 2.

I think I'm indifferent on the issue. I'm not sure if there's enough positives to implement it, but it would create a buzz and fire up some competitive juices

 

[anubis]

I think at least as much of the "bellyaching" is coming from the other side. The top players consider it a waste of time and money to come and walk through a match in a half hour because the other team is afraid to put a top guy against them.

But whatever, I agree with you. Just play who you're lined up against and do your best for your team.

I agree. If I play singles or doubles 1, I'm expecting good competition.

 

[g4driver]

Except as I understand it, "winning" a team match doesn't matter, it is the cumulative points that matters. See the example I gave where a team with 3 ringers that wins just court 1s and "wins" each team match could still lose the sub-flight.

Don't fix something that isn't broken USTA! Fix the self-rating abuse instead.

What if each court 1 was worth 3 points, court 2 worth 2 points and the 3rd doubles court worth 1 point?

There would be 11 points per match and no ties.

Would a team with four ringers be more likely to play both court 1 positions, and court 2 singles ? They could take 8 points per match with four dominate players.

Or maybe they go for court 1 and 2 singles and court 3 doubles to ensure winning 6 points?

Seems like their would also be a great opportunity to have three ringers win both court 1 positions, take 6 points, and lose everything else.

I tend to agree that the USTA is trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing.

Do like others have suggested if you have people playing up on your team, don't allow a 3.5 on a higher position than a 4.0 on a 4.0 team. similar to what they do with 40+ 4.5 in they make the 5.0s play at 1. This should ensure at least another 4.0 match for the opponents at position 1 singles and doubles, and hopefully at positions 2 singles / doubles.

Banning self-rated players in the playoffs seems like a more pressing issue, but the USTA seems to let those complaints fall on deaf ears.

 

[J_R_B]

Don't fix something that isn't broken USTA! Fix the self-rating abuse instead.

What if each court 1 was worth 3 points, court 2 worth 2 points and the 3rd doubles court worth 1 point?

There would be 11 points per match and no ties.

Would a team with four ringers be more likely to play both court 1 positions, and court 2 singles ? They could take 8 points per match with four dominate players.

Or maybe they go for court 1 and 2 singles and court 3 doubles to ensure winning 6 points?

Seems like their would also be a great opportunity to have three ringers win both court 1 positions, take 6 points, and lose everything else.

I tend to agree that the USTA is trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing.

Do like others have suggested if you have people playing up on your team, don't allow a 3.5 on a higher position than a 4.0 on a 4.0 team. similar to what they do with 40+ 4.5 in they make the 5.0s play at 1. This should ensure at least another 4.0 match for the opponents at position 1 singles and doubles, and hopefully at positions 2 singles / doubles.

Banning self-rated players in the playoffs seems like a more pressing issue, but the USTA seems to let those complaints fall on deaf ears.

Your system would make it possible for a team to win every match with just TWO ringers, as long as one was good enough to carry the 1st doubles team. That's the kind of thing that would definitely encourage sandbagging.

And banning self-rates from playoffs is never going to happen. The USTA is never going to tell people to sign up and play in these wonderful tennis leagues, but, oh yeah, you can't play in the important matches if your team gets there. I understand and agree that it would encourage rating at the correct level and encourage people to sign up only if they are playing for the long run and not just a pawn for a captain to win a title, but it's not going to happen.

 

[g4driver]

And hopefully the USTA gets the message - the questions could have certainly be written a little better- especially question 7- leading question, with no questions suggesting "stacking doesn't exist"

The Only Thing That Is Constant Is Change - Heraclitus

 

[wings56]

Because even middling or weak teams want to win a few matches. It's not all about the post-season. Most players won't make the playoffs, after all, so they don't care much about advancing.

The strongest teams will blow through the weaker teams. Stack, don't stack, makes no difference.

But if you are in the basement, you can pick off a slightly stronger opponent by stacking. So it makes sense.

This problem eliminates itself the higher you go in the rating system. It gets to a point where no matter how good the "ringer" players might be, the other team will have strong enough competition to eliminate what would be a potential stack. The best teams will beat whatever "stacked" team plays them. This is definitely something that effects only the weaker teams in a division. With that being said, I wouldn't like a change in scoring.

At the sectional and national level, the teams who win would be the ones who happened to win the highest weighted line. There typically isn't any significant difference from top to bottom of the lines at sectionals/nationals unless you're in a 4.5+ or 5.0+ league where the + player is clearly better.

 

[kylebarendrick]

I agree. If I play singles or doubles 1, I'm expecting good competition.

Then that is your mistake - and it is that expectation that USTA needs to fix. If their statement is that the numbers do not represent order of strength, they need to emphasize this to everyone so that people can stop expecting "better" opponents on line 1.

And to Cindy...

You must see a lot more defaults than we do. I think I've come across 2 of them in the last 2 years. That is a low enough risk that I don't mind putting my best players on line 3 (which I do early in the season so other captains know I will). Worst case they get an easy (default) win, which is what I wanted anyway. As my best players, I'll have no problem getting them plenty of matches during the season so it doesn't hurt that bad.

They have to define an order for defaulting in order to prevent arguments. If you think of line numbers as "order of play" rather than "order of strength" then the default rule means "last line on takes the default" instead of your interpretation which is "weakest line defaults".

 

[Cindysphinx]

Then that is your mistake - and it is that expectation that USTA needs to fix. If their statement is that the numbers do not represent order of strength, they need to emphasize this to everyone so that people can stop expecting "better" opponents on line 1.

And to Cindy...

You must see a lot more defaults than we do. I think I've come across 2 of them in the last 2 years. That is a low enough risk that I don't mind putting my best players on line 3 (which I do early in the season so other captains know I will). Worst case they get an easy (default) win, which is what I wanted anyway. As my best players, I'll have no problem getting them plenty of matches during the season so it doesn't hurt that bad.

They have to define an order for defaulting in order to prevent arguments. If you think of line numbers as "order of play" rather than "order of strength" then the default rule means "last line on takes the default" instead of your interpretation which is "weakest line defaults".

Yes, we probably do see more defaults. Folks claim defaults when the 15-minute default period is up and that's that.

In addition to folks getting stuck in traffic or going to the wrong facility, the teams that aren't in playoff contention sometimes struggle to field a full line-up toward the end of the season.

Regarding the idea that all you have to do is trick your brain into thinking the line numbers are meaningless, the best way to achieve this is make them meaningless. So long as the league makes a distinction for any purpose, there is a distinction.

Around here, the idea that court assignments means something will not die easily. If I need to do a quick check on the strength of a new prospect, I will look up their tennislink record. If I don't know their opponents, I will look at their court assignment. If I see they played Court One routinely, I will assume they are stronger than if they played Court Three routinely.

And I am usually right.

 

[JoelDali]

Can a rising 4.0 with Wilson sneakers beat a falling 4.5 with generic socks consistently?

 

[coyote]

I agree. If I play singles or doubles 1, I'm expecting good competition.

This is directly from the USTA FAQs on NTRP. As a result, matches within the same level may not be competitive. If you are a lower rated player in the same level and you get thumped by a higher rated level, it is expected. This is where the USTA does a poor job of communicating that players within the same rating are not necessarily close to the same ability. This is also why people think sandbagging is so far out of control.

Are all players in a given NTRP level equal in ability?
No: The NTRP system identifies general levels of ability, but an individual will be rated within those levels at 50 different hundredths of a point. For example, a 3.5 player can fall anywhere between a 3.01 and a 3.50. That is the reason many people feel they are playing sandbaggers – they are closer to the bottom of that range while their opponents are closer to the top of the range.

A typical match result for a player, for example, with a 3.01 rating versus a 3.49 player, both of whom are 3.5s, would be 6-0, 6-0 in favor of the higher rated player.


http://www.usta.com/Adult-Tennis/USTA-League/Information/ntrp_frequently_asked_questions/#4395

 

[Mongolmike]

Can a rising 4.0 with Wilson sneakers beat a falling 4.5 with generic socks consistently?

If you are wearing these sneakers... you are going to lose on the court... but be a winner in the lounge area. Choose.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...r3Ci2VW4wSauO3bV4aGwS6eT_8FiD6SbbNkYUJqdMFzUQ

 

[kylebarendrick]

This is also why people think sandbagging is so far out of control.

Yeah, I know this is what the USTA says. It is bunk though. When a player goes 12-1 during the season you know they aren't at the bottom of their level. When they then lose a match to a self-rated player 0-1 and can't make any headway against their game, then you know that player is a sandbagger.

 

[coyote]

Yeah, I know this is what the USTA says. It is bunk though. When a player goes 12-1 during the season you know they aren't at the bottom of their level. When they then lose a match to a self-rated player 0-1 and can't make any headway against their game, then you know that player is a sandbagger.

I don't disagree that it happens but it is far less prevalent than many think. Most just have an inflated opinion of their own game and if someone can handle them, then they must be out of level.

 

[lostinamerica]

I don't disagree that it happens but it is far less prevalent than many think. Most just have an inflated opinion of their own game and if someone can handle them, then they must be out of level.

I have to agree with this statement. I've been around leagues a long time and have seen my fair share of sandbaggers. With that, they are fairly rare. It is not easy to get people to sandbag. Do some do it? Yes, absolutely but it is 1%. Maybe the complainer crowd could start an occupy USTA movement.

 

[dizzlmcwizzl]

It is a funny thing that the issue most of us get hot about is people self rating improperly for engraved pen glory. What we hear from the USTA .... nothing.

The issue of stacking, which cannot possibly exist under the current rules, this gets attention from the USTA.


__________________________________________________________________

As a side note .... Sandbagging is a curious thing. I believe sandbagging to be purposely losing matches so that you can arbitrarily keep your rating low.

I have never played against someone with a computer rating that I thought was clearly to high for the level. So in that sense, in over 250 matches at the local, state and sectional level ... I have never played a sandbagger.

However, I have played against many players with self ratings that were clearly out of level ... while they do not fit the definition of sandbagger ... I would classify most of them as cheaters.

 

[kylebarendrick]

I've played a computer rated player that was clearly out of level. He was clearly going at 1/2 speed during the match. He self rated at 4.0 and played a season there. I am friends with his captain who acknowledged telling him to throw games to avoid a DQ. I guess he threw enough (even though he was undefeated) that he earned a 4.0C rating the following year - where he again went undefeated and finally earned a 4.5 rating. I really loved hearing people say "he's not a sandbagger, he's computer rated".

That said, I agree that it isn't as common as most people think.

 

[tennixpl]

people also don't understand what the ratings are, they are an effective average of wins...not skill.

If one day I just barely lose a 4.0 player 6-7,6-7 but the next day struggle to beat a 3.0 more than 6-4, 6-4. aside from wildly inconsistent I am a 3.5 player by average. so if you are the 3.5 who meets me on a day I am playing at that 4.0 level you will call me sandbagging. no i am just an inconsistent 3.5 player

I have been called a sandbagger in a 3.5 tournament bc my serve and forehand were "too good" for a 3.5. and I summarily lost 4-6, 6-2, 2-6.

Just get out and play tennis is fun and we are lucky to play it

 

[gameboy]

Also, just due to sheer number of players involved, you will see occasional 12-1 records, even if that player is a mid-range player. Sometimes you flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row.

 

[asimple]

people also don't understand what the ratings are, they are an effective average of wins...not skill.

If one day I just barely lose a 4.0 player 6-7,6-7 but the next day struggle to beat a 3.0 more than 6-4, 6-4. aside from wildly inconsistent I am a 3.5 player by average. so if you are the 3.5 who meats me on a day I am playing at that 4.0 level you will call me sandbagging. no i am just an inconsistent 3.5 player

I have been called a sandbagger in a 3.5 tournament bc my serve and forehand were "too good" for a 3.5. and I summarily lost 4-6, 6-2, 2-6.

Just get out and play tennis is fun and we are lucky to play it

I think this is actually really common. Guys at the 4.0 level and below seem to fall into 2 categories either bangers or pushers. I've seen a lot of cases where people have awesome strokes but can't make more than 3 balls in a row. These guys look great and on certain days against certain players might play great but are generally in the right level.

I think there are very few people that intentionally lose matches to keep their rating low, but there are quite a few people that are out of level. There were a bunch of guys (including myself) that were out of level but rated properly based on last year's honest performance. We just improved over the year. I'm sure some of us looked like sandbaggers especially me, but it was not in the quest of a "national championship" but more just to play tennis and in my case at the end of the year to support teams where I had friends.

 

[schmke]

I think this is actually really common. Guys at the 4.0 level and below seem to fall into 2 categories either bangers or pushers. I've seen a lot of cases where people have awesome strokes but can't make more than 3 balls in a row. These guys look great and on certain days against certain players might play great but are generally in the right level.

I think there are very few people that intentionally lose matches to keep their rating low, but there are quite a few people that are out of level. There were a bunch of guys (including myself) that were out of level but rated properly based on last year's honest performance. We just improved over the year. I'm sure some of us looked like sandbaggers especially me, but it was not in the quest of a "national championship" but more just to play tennis and in my case at the end of the year to support teams where I had friends.

Agree on both points.

And on the second, particularly at lower levels, there are times a player simply begins to play more or gets lessons and improves significantly from one year to the next. They will be carrying a C rating from the prior year but effectively have a game a level higher because of their improvement. This may happen as someone's priorities or available time changes and isn't an indication that they are sandbagging. It is simply the timing of their improvement vs when leagues are played and year-end or early start ratings calculated that allow for this temporary "out of level" play to be legal.

 

[JoelDali]

I think this will hurt the rising 3.5 type player the most causing him to kill the game, and not "grow" the game.

He sucks in the grand scheme of things but to a regular person who doesn't play tennis he is an exceptional player. Thus, if he plays #2 he will be paired with wrinkled spider veined 55+ seniors and never make it to 4.0.

Sadness all around. Devastated.

 

[wrxinsc]

I think this will hurt the rising 3.5 type player the most causing him to kill the game, and not "grow" the game.

He sucks in the grand scheme of things but to a regular person who doesn't play tennis he is an exceptional player. Thus, if he plays #2 he will be paired with wrinkled spider veined 55+ seniors and never make it to 4.0.

Sadness all around. Devastated.

every post you post makes me feel like this...

first escalator in <insert place>

 

[JoelDali]

Every poast I poast is constructed with care, thought, elegance, abstraction, sensuality and GOATworthiness.

 

[Edberg's Iceburg]

I think that USTA league would be more fun if every team put their best singles player at 1, and their best doubles team at 1 and their second best at 2. That way you have the highest liklihood of having competitive matches. Does anyone disagree with this?

Unfortunately it is hard to force people to do this because it is not always obvious which doubles team is the best. If they just made a rule that you had to put your best team at #1, there would be a lot of arguments. "no way that #1 team is better than the #2 team"

A system that the USTA proposes encourages teams to put their best teams at #1 without creating arguments about who is better. Seems reasonable to me.

My 4.5 team this past year had 1 really good singles player and 1 really good doubles team. initially we put our best guys at #1. Then other teams started stacking a lot and the #1 guys won several blowout matches that were boring. Then we started moving our top guys around and it was a total crapshoot who was playing who. This again led to a lot of matches where our best team played a weaker team from our opponents.

 

[schmke]

A system that the USTA proposes encourages teams to put their best teams at #1 without creating arguments about who is better. Seems reasonable to me.

It seems reasonable on the surface, but it really depends on what the weighting is per position. Any weighting at all begins to puts more pressure on teams to get the top studs to improve their chances of winning the higher weighted courts. And if a lot more weight is put on court 1s, this becomes even more important, perhaps to the point that captains become more likely to sandbag with self-rates or get players to manipulate their ratings down.

It also doesn't solve the stacking issue. If manages to get 3 great players (fairly or not, doesn't matter) to play court 1 and their opponent knows it, the opponent may still stack so as to avoid the high likelihood of not getting any points from their best players.

 

[sam_p]

It seems reasonable on the surface, but it really depends on what the weighting is per position. Any weighting at all begins to puts more pressure on teams to get the top studs to improve their chances of winning the higher weighted courts. And if a lot more weight is put on court 1s, this becomes even more important, perhaps to the point that captains become more likely to sandbag with self-rates or get players to manipulate their ratings down.

It also doesn't solve the stacking issue. If manages to get 3 great players (fairly or not, doesn't matter) to play court 1 and their opponent knows it, the opponent may still stack so as to avoid the high likelihood of not getting any points from their best players.

This is exactly true. A PPP system will make stacking worse. It will be even easier to know where the strongest players will be for every match, so stackers will just stack more aggressively to try to overcome the point deficit and get as many points as possible against a stronger team and slide into playoffs at the end of the season.

 

[Edberg's Iceburg]

It seems reasonable on the surface, but it really depends on what the weighting is per position. Any weighting at all begins to puts more pressure on teams to get the top studs to improve their chances of winning the higher weighted courts. And if a lot more weight is put on court 1s, this becomes even more important, perhaps to the point that captains become more likely to sandbag with self-rates or get players to manipulate their ratings down.

It also doesn't solve the stacking issue. If manages to get 3 great players (fairly or not, doesn't matter) to play court 1 and their opponent knows it, the opponent may still stack so as to avoid the high likelihood of not getting any points from their best players.

I think there is always pressure to get top studs for teams that want to make it to sectionals/nationals. Not sure this system would change that too much.

In this system a team that successfully stacks may only get a tie instead of a win. At least this system gives a captain some incentive to shoot for the top lines. Would you agree that this system would make it more likely to have each teams top doubles pair on line 1, and each teams top singles player on line 1, than the old system? If so I think it is a good thing.

 

[schmke]

I think there is always pressure to get top studs for teams that want to make it to sectionals/nationals. Not sure this system would change that too much.

In this system a team that successfully stacks may only get a tie instead of a win. At least this system gives a captain some incentive to shoot for the top lines. Would you agree that this system would make it more likely to have each teams top doubles pair on line 1, and each teams top singles player on line 1, than the old system? If so I think it is a good thing.

But what about the effect of increasing the pressure to find, recruit, or create the ringers and sandbaggers you need to win with this format?

And if a team does recruit a solid team, won't their opponents know it and still avoid the likely loss from putting their best team on court 1?

See http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2013/12/usta-league-points-per-position-survey.html for more thoughts on the subject.