Rating Appeals (Down)

[winchestervatennis]

Before anybody jumps my case, I understand there could be legitimate reasons to appeal a rating and I suppose it's good to have an avenue to appeal - giving reasons, evidence, documentation, and so forth. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the folks that get bumped up and they use the automated/automatic appeal button (or whatever it is, I'm really not familiar with it).

It's my understanding that each level has a range and if a player's year end rating is above that range they get bumped up. For example the 4.5 range covers players with a rating of 4.00 to 4.49. If a player finishes the year at 4.50 or above they get bumped up to 5.0 (assuming they don't get a double bump). This makes sense.

But it's also my understanding that if the bumped player chooses to use the automated/automatic appeal, it can be granted, depending on how much the rating exceeds the upper boundary and/or how many matches that player has played in the year. I'm having trouble making sense of this concept.

I'm pretty sure I've read on these boards, and more importantly in USTA published literature, that a player that has played more than 10 matches is ineligible for the automated/automatic appeal. And I believe I've read on these boards that appeals are granted when a player's delta in their year end rating from the upper boundary is within a certain range and that delta decreases as the number of matches increases from 3 to 10. So for example a player with a 4.54 and 3 matches may have an appeal granted or a player with a 4.52 and 6 matches may have an appeal granted or a player with a 4.50 may have an appeal granted. I guess that means the concept is they allow for some kind of statistical error with smaller sample sizes.

I just don't understand why a player that gets a year end rating that exceeding the maximum of a certain range has the ability to appeal. In my opinion, if a year end rating exceeds the maximum, the player is bumped up - case closed. I really can't think of a good reason to say, "your rating exceeded the maximum, but not by much and you didn't play many matches so we don't have any confidence in the rating we've assigned you, so sure you can appeal back down to your previous level."

 

[schmke]

Yeah, I received an e-mail or saw something from the USTA a few years ago describing the varying threshold for appeals like you describe and wrote it all up on my blog.

I "think" the idea is that the USTA allows that the rating they calculate is not perfect, particularly for players with fewer matches. For those with more matches or that went to Nationals they are more confident in the rating they calculate, so these players cannot appeal, but for those with fewer matches, they are appeasing those players that feel the system isn't accurate and should have bumped them down.

For example, say you have an older 4.5 who is getting slower and probably should be bumped down to 4.0. But if they can only get 3-4 matches in a year (because they aren't a very strong 4.5 and so they don't get put in the line-up much) their rating may not drop enough to be bumped down even if their trend is that they'd get there, as the dynamic rating is a trailing indicator, e.g. it takes a few matches to catch up to where the player is now. So if they get their rating down from 4.15 to 4.05 by playing just 4 matches, they are allowed to appeal down.

Yes, my example is tailored to being a somewhat reasonable case for the appeal, there are others where the appeal would be more questionable. But I "think" the reasoning for it is as I describe above.

One might also question why players should be allowed to appeal up. Appealing up may not seem like a bad thing, after all, these players aren't going to dominate at their new level like one who appeals down, but it doesn't change the competitive balance and oftentimes creates lopsided matches for the true at-level players. And it is worse when someone appeals up just so they can play up, e.g. a 3.0 appealing up to 3.5 so they can play up at 4.0 ...

Whether or not appealing up should be allowed, I would certainly support a rule that doesn't allow a player who appealed up to play up.

 

[OnTheLine]

I believe there is a difference between appealable UP and appealable DOWN. That 10 match "rule" may not be a "rule"

I know of 2 players (one from 2016 and one from 2017) that appealed UP and had it automatically granted with well more than 10 matches.
In the case of this year, a total of 43 matches, plus an additional 16 tournament matches. Didn't get bumped, hit that appeal button UP and got it granted.

Is now an A rating. Not a big deal as she will always play at the new level and is unlikely to get a DQ

But, the appeal down, attaches that A rating on the appeal and now that person can get dynamically DQ'ed.

To refer to @schmke comment about not being competitive at the new level ... can't say I have seen that. The ladies I know who appealed up last year from 3.5 to 4.0 all played a very strong 2017 season at the new level ... one ended 23-12, others more 50/50.

Those that appeal UP successfully are usually very driven to play well and improve, they usually have strong records at their current level ... those are the players that will figure out how to be competitive and how to dominate at the new level. The problems are the ones that are playing up but are actually low at their own level.

I think the bigger problem is USTA not bumping down enough C rates. Folks who have been hanging around at that level for years with mediocre or losing records.

I do agree that if you have appealed up, don't then play up yet another level.

 

[winchestervatennis]

Yeah, I received an e-mail or saw something from the USTA a few years ago describing the varying threshold for appeals like you describe and wrote it all up on my blog.

I "think" the idea is that the USTA allows that the rating they calculate is not perfect, particularly for players with fewer matches. For those with more matches or that went to Nationals they are more confident in the rating they calculate, so these players cannot appeal, but for those with fewer matches, they are appeasing those players that feel the system isn't accurate and should have bumped them down.

For example, say you have an older 4.5 who is getting slower and probably should be bumped down to 4.0. But if they can only get 3-4 matches in a year (because they aren't a very strong 4.5 and so they don't get put in the line-up much) their rating may not drop enough to be bumped down even if their trend is that they'd get there, as the dynamic rating is a trailing indicator, e.g. it takes a few matches to catch up to where the player is now. So if they get their rating down from 4.15 to 4.05 by playing just 4 matches, they are allowed to appeal down.

Yes, my example is tailored to being a somewhat reasonable case for the appeal, there are others where the appeal would be more questionable. But I "think" the reasoning for it is as I describe above.

One might also question why players should be allowed to appeal up. Appealing up may not seem like a bad thing, after all, these players aren't going to dominate at their new level like one who appeals down, but it doesn't change the competitive balance and oftentimes creates lopsided matches for the true at-level players. And it is worse when someone appeals up just so they can play up, e.g. a 3.0 appealing up to 3.5 so they can play up at 4.0 ...

Whether or not appealing up should be allowed, I would certainly support a rule that doesn't allow a player who appealed up to play up.

I understand your example and do not disagree this could be a valid reason to appeal a rating downward. However, in such a circumstance surely the player would be able to give some evidence to support such a claim. And okay, that makes sense for the 18+ leagues, but couldn't the player play 40+ and 55+? Again, I'm not saying a player shouldn't get bumped down in such a scenario, but maybe that player should have to put a little thought into it and build a case for themselves rather than clicking a button?

As it is right now, any player that didn't go to nationals or play 10 matches can appeal for any reason - he changed his forehand grip, his partner missed easy floaters, matches started at 9:00pm, his lucky underwear was dirty...

 

[winchestervatennis]

I believe there is a difference between appealable UP and appealable DOWN. That 10 match "rule" may not be a "rule"

I know of 2 players (one from 2016 and one from 2017) that appealed UP and had it automatically granted with well more than 10 matches.
In the case of this year, a total of 43 matches, plus an additional 16 tournament matches. Didn't get bumped, hit that appeal button UP and got it granted.

Is now an A rating. Not a big deal as she will always play at the new level and is unlikely to get a DQ

But, the appeal down, attaches that A rating on the appeal and now that person can get dynamically DQ'ed.

To refer to @schmke comment about not being competitive at the new level ... can't say I have seen that. The ladies I know who appealed up last year from 3.5 to 4.0 all played a very strong 2017 season at the new level ... one ended 23-12, others more 50/50.

Those that appeal UP successfully are usually very driven to play well and improve, they usually have strong records at their current level ... those are the players that will figure out how to be competitive and how to dominate at the new level. The problems are the ones that are playing up but are actually low at their own level.

I think the bigger problem is USTA not bumping down enough C rates. Folks who have been hanging around at that level for years with mediocre or losing records.

I do agree that if you have appealed up, don't then play up yet another level.

Wait a second, are you sure a player that successfully appeals down is subject to dynamic disqualification. I did not think that was true, but I could be wrong. @schmke do you know?

 

[kevrol]

Little know fact is that if you can get your hands on someone's USTA # you can actually do an appeal up/down on that person without them even knowing if you know what you're doing.

Edited to add: You can't do this anymore. Kudos to USTA for fixing a glaring weakness on their website

 

[OrangePower]

I just don't understand why a player that gets a year end rating that exceeding the maximum of a certain range has the ability to appeal. In my opinion, if a year end rating exceeds the maximum, the player is bumped up - case closed. I really can't think of a good reason to say, "your rating exceeded the maximum, but not by much and you didn't play many matches so we don't have any confidence in the rating we've assigned you, so sure you can appeal back down to your previous level."

In addition to what other have already mentioned, I think the ability to appeal does reflect that there are some arbitrary boundaries in play here, so some wiggle room makes sense.
Not only are the boundaries between the levels arbitrary, but the timing of getting your year end rating is also arbitrary.
What I mean by that is, imagine a player who goes through ups and downs, like most of us do. Now imagine this player's dynamic rating naturally fluctuates between 4.35 and 4.55 during the course of the year... up for several matches, down for a few, etc. Then it's just a matter of luck whether the player is on a 'high' or a 'low' at the end of the year.

 

[OnTheLine]

Wait a second, are you sure a player that successfully appeals down is subject to dynamic disqualification. I did not think that was true, but I could be wrong. @schmke do you know?

Yes, I am certain. See here from 2018 League Rules:

Who can be NTRP dynamically disqualified?
Participants in the Adult Division:

NTRP Level followed by the letter below:
A Appealed – all granted appeals including Medical and Promoted Players 60 or Over
S Self-rated Players
D Dynamic or NTRP Grievance Disqualified Players
* Players participating in the Adult Division who are promoted as a result of NTRP dynamic disqualification will be immediately required to participate at their new NTRP level in all USTA League Programs.

link to USTA Rules: https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/pdfs/2018NationalRegulations_10_18_2017.pdf#

 

[schmke]

Wait a second, are you sure a player that successfully appeals down is subject to dynamic disqualification. I did not think that was true, but I could be wrong. @schmke do you know?

Yep, if you appeal down you are subject to a 3-strike DQ.

 

[badmice2]

Yep, if you appeal down you are subject to a 3-strike DQ.

Confirming this as well. However "A" player are not subject to grievances filed - another words, USTA will let the match scores speak for itself...