Predicting the Nationals winners 18 & over 3.5 men and women

schmke

Legend
I just posted my 3.5 predictions, and interestingly for these, the top teams are expected to advance. In some of the other events/levels, weaker teams had easy schedules or top teams tough schedules and a few surprises were predicted. But not here.

For the women, the top-4 teams are all the picks to advance, and in fact there is a virtual tie for the 3rd thru 5th picks between teams in the top-5.

For the men, 3 of the top-4 are picked, the #4 team dropping to just the #6 pick due to a tougher schedule, and the team filling their spot was T6 based on top-10 averages.

It will be interesting to see if it plays out this way or some teams surprise.
 

schmke

Legend
I promise you the Intermountain team is no joke on the women's side. Captain hand picked players and heavily recruited (resulting in some imploded teams elsewhere in the district after losing their top players). And, I don't think there is an S rate on the roster.

link: http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2018/10/predicting-2018-usta-league-nationals_44.html
#2 thru #5 are really close, should be fun to see what happens and if any of the teams that surprise Texas.
 

Tiafoe

Rookie
I promise you the Intermountain team is no joke on the women's side. Captain hand picked players and heavily recruited (resulting in some imploded teams elsewhere in the district after losing their top players). And, I don't think there is an S rate on the roster.

link: http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2018/10/predicting-2018-usta-league-nationals_44.html
Well if they are anything like the Intermountain men, they might not have S rated players but that just means they are really working the system.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
Well if they are anything like the Intermountain men, they might not have S rated players but that just means they are really working the system.

No, I really know these players ... and a female thing: they all try to get bumped up.

If you look at their court scores from regular season league, you will see lots of bagels and breadsticks. A really solid, if hand-picked, team.
 

schmke

Legend
Early upset for the 3.5M. Florida beats Texas 3-2. But with the new format, Texas not out of it, although they play a tougher (on paper) Intermountain team next.
 

schmke

Legend
Early upset for the 3.5M. Florida beats Texas 3-2. But with the new format, Texas not out of it, although they play a tougher (on paper) Intermountain team next.
Texas out of it now, lost 4-1 to Intermountain. Well, the simulation says they have a 1% chance of getting into a tie for 4th in that rare scenario where 4th is a tie at 2-2.
 

coyote

Semi-Pro
I know a little bit about that Texas team. I was shocked they were rated so high. Texas is down across the board this year.

That InterMountain Captain appears to have been a fixture at Nationals the last several years.
 

Tiafoe

Rookie
I know a little bit about that Texas team. I was shocked they were rated so high. Texas is down across the board this year.

That InterMountain Captain appears to have been a fixture at Nationals the last several years.
4 years in a row. Dynasties make you wonder and then you look at the utter dominance throughout their seasons each year and at Sectionals and it makes you wonder even more. I don't have any connection to the Intermountain section and never played them the year I went to Nationals, but it is interesting to watch them pull it off year after year, blowing everyone out. There was a poster on here that said when they played them at Sectionals a year or 2 ago, a bunch of their players started throwing games later in the matches.
 

schmke

Legend
I know a little bit about that Texas team. I was shocked they were rated so high. Texas is down across the board this year.

That InterMountain Captain appears to have been a fixture at Nationals the last several years.
The Texas team did lose only 3 courts in 10 team matches in the regular season. Then three 4-1 wins in local playoffs and two 5-0 wins to go with a 3-2 win in their flight at Sectionals, and a 5-0 win in the semis. So relative to the rest of Texas they were very strong it appears.
 

leech

Semi-Pro
Nice Second Match Dub. i see you @leech
Thanks! Needed to sweep Northern to give us a chance to make it as the best 3-1 team. Now we “just” need to beat 2-0 PacNW and 2-0 NorCal, ha. At least we control our own destiny, which is more than we could have hoped for after starting out with a loss to Caribbean (who were a LOT better than on paper).
 

schmke

Legend
Thanks! Needed to sweep Northern to give us a chance to make it as the best 3-1 team. Now we “just” need to beat 2-0 PacNW and 2-0 NorCal, ha. At least we control our own destiny, which is more than we could have hoped for after starting out with a loss to Caribbean (who were a LOT better than on paper).
Caribbean always is better than on paper ... Although they lost to Southern, but just beat Florida. Could be a log jam at 3-1.
 

leech

Semi-Pro
Intermountain 3-2 over Florida, and NorCal (a team comprised completely of self-rated players!) 3-2 over Southern in the semis.

Intermountain 4-1 over NorCal in the finals to take the 18+ 3.5 men's National Championship!
 

schmke

Legend
Intermountain 3-2 over Florida, and NorCal (a team comprised completely of self-rated players!) 3-2 over Southern in the semis.

Intermountain 4-1 over NorCal in the finals to take the 18+ 3.5 men's National Championship!
Something like 75+% of the players who played on the semi-finalist teams were self-rated. Intermountain only had a few, but the other teams were or were nearly all self-rates.
 

Tiafoe

Rookie
I'm pretty sure a few of the Intermountain and Southern singles players would have gone undefeated at 4.0 nationals... jeez.
Probably a good question is what's worse,
1) being obvious by having mostly self rated players that sandbag their way through the season, or
2) being sneaky by getting people computer rated that are almost 4.5 talent-wise playing 3.5 so you can get to Nationals year after year
 

schmke

Legend
Probably a good question is what's worse,
1) being obvious by having mostly self rated players that sandbag their way through the season, or
2) being sneaky by getting people computer rated that are almost 4.5 talent-wise playing 3.5 so you can get to Nationals year after year
Good question. But I'd add a #3

3) Getting a group of legit C rated players to commit to practicing and improving and getting their ability to a similar level as #1 and #2

Note that is #3 happens a lot more easily at the 3.0 and 3.5 levels where there is more room for improvement. And arguably #1 happens with this group more too as players may self-rate "correctly" and over the course of a year naturally improve.

In all 3 cases, players are playing at a level above their rating and they often end up being similar so in a way it is "fair" competition between them. So perhaps it all works it way out in the wash?

But there is I think a perception issue with especially #1, and #2 as well if it is clear there have been shenanigans going on to get to the lower level. #3 in theory any computer rated player could do, although some clearly have more upside and untapped potential to result in the improvement.

The challenge is differentiating between these scenarios and determining how or where to draw the line. Some propose not allowing self-rates in playoffs, or limiting their number, others propose lowering the strike thresholds so the way above self-rates are weeded out earlier, but none of these are perfect.
 

mvashist

New User
Good question. But I'd add a #3

3) Getting a group of legit C rated players to commit to practicing and improving and getting their ability to a similar level as #1 and #2

Note that is #3 happens a lot more easily at the 3.0 and 3.5 levels where there is more room for improvement. And arguably #1 happens with this group more too as players may self-rate "correctly" and over the course of a year naturally improve.

In all 3 cases, players are playing at a level above their rating and they often end up being similar so in a way it is "fair" competition between them. So perhaps it all works it way out in the wash?

But there is I think a perception issue with especially #1, and #2 as well if it is clear there have been shenanigans going on to get to the lower level. #3 in theory any computer rated player could do, although some clearly have more upside and untapped potential to result in the improvement.

The challenge is differentiating between these scenarios and determining how or where to draw the line. Some propose not allowing self-rates in playoffs, or limiting their number, others propose lowering the strike thresholds so the way above self-rates are weeded out earlier, but none of these are perfect.
Its clearly demoralizing for people picking up option #3, working your ass off all year and thinking you will get a somewhat of a fair competition and then seeing the composition of "cheating teams" making finals of nationals.
 
Top