Reality Check on Thiem

[cc0509]

I see you did completely misunderstand what was being said. See difference between "predicting" and "not ruling out" success

Semantics. You can state it as "not ruling out" the success of a player all you want. At the end of the day you are getting excited over a player's future based on a few stats he has had bascially vs lower quality players. I think it's great that Thiem has done well the past few weeks and he appears to have a good attitude which is very important but I can't get too enthusiastic about any player until that player starts beating top five to ten players consistently. In my experience that's what matters most.

 

[falstaff78]

I think it's great that Thiem has done well the past few weeks and he appears to have a good attitude which is very important but I can't get too enthusiastic about any player until that player starts beating top five to ten players consistently.

So after making a series of incorrect, condescending statements about the discussion without having read the discussion, it turns out all you wanted to say was you are less excited about the player than other posters.

That's a valuable contribution. Thanks.

 

[cc0509]

Dude the least you can do is read what's written before forming egregiously incorrect opinions about what's written.

But you are still using these stats to get excited about a player in some way are you not? Does it really matter whether you are "not ruling out" a players's success or "predicting the success of a player?"

All I'm saying is that my way--i.e. whether a not a player can consistently beat the top five to ten players is a better way of "not ruling out" the success of a player.

 

[cc0509]

So after making a series of incorrect, condescending statements about the discussion without having read the discussion, it turns out all you wanted to say was you are less excited about the player than other posters.

That's a valuable contribution. Thanks.

You have this really bad habit of being overly sensitive and not being able to take any form of criticism about any of your posts. Weren't you the poster who was embarrassed off the forum for a while after your anti-Federer tirade when Federer showed his support for a certain Indian sports team a while back?

Just chill out. I''ll I'm suggesting is that your approach to looking at a few stats to "not rule out" the success of Thiem may not be as valuable as my approach to whether or not Theim can beat the top ten players day in and day out.

 

[Chanwan]

I disagree. I see no discipline in Kyrios (on or off court). He won't go far. Thiem is making steady progress and have the right attitude. My bet is Thiem's achievements will be greater than Mr HeadKase.

I'm with @Meles , Kyrgios seems to have gotten his act more together this year and seems to realize that tennis is also a job.
He'll probably never be as focused as say Coric and Thiem, but less will do if his tennis talent and tennis potential is greater (which i believe it is). See Safin for a (talented) guy who did fairly well for himself, while having a life outside of tennis, even during tournaments.

 

[falstaff78]

But you are still using these stats to get excited about a player in some way are you not?

Wrong for a third time.

Actually, I'm excited about the player because of what I've seen in his matches, as I've stated several times in match threads, and as I've alluded to in this thread. Yet again you have an opinion about something you haven't bothered to read

This thread is about OP using stats to say the player is overrated. And myself and other posters responding with "no you are misinterpreting the stats, the stats are agnostic about his future". And the OP later retracting from his initial position.

If you want to learn how to disagree with people with see how chanwan has been responding in this thread, making essentially the same argument as you. The man is a class act and his posts have substance. Yours are filled with misplaced condescension and false statements.

 

[Meles]

I mean several people on this forum seem to be going overboard and predicting Thiem will do this or do that based on a couple of solid wins he has had over the past few weeks or months and that is fine. This is something that goes on constantly on this forum whenever a player does something positive. However, IMO when somebody takes merely a statistical approach and looks at whether a player's first serve percentage has increased .02% or 10% or whatever other stats you want to look at in isolation and uses those stats to predict big things for a player it is a little shortsighted. For me what matters more is whether or not the promising player can beat the top ten players on a regular basis on the big stage. That has always been the superior guide IMO. If and when I see Thiem able to do that, I will believe he is the real deal, not until then.

I've been enjoying using the numbers to get out over my skis about Thiem and Kyrgios. Its very interesting to see Zverev and Coric's numbers. Coric is not going anywhere in my opinion from watching him play and the numbers back that up. Zverev looked pretty good and is improving, but his numbers are not stellar so you won't see me saying anything outlandish until he starts showing more results and better numbers.

Everything I'm seeing in the matches points to a great improvement in play from 2015 to 2016 for Thiem. But, Thiem's stats are just passable. On clay Thiem's stats from 2015 show him to be about the 8th best player on clay. Ferrer and Nadal stats have fallen off a cliff this year on clay and Thiem has wins over them. He's about 6th best by the numbers on clay, but I'd say he's very close to Wawa around 4 and a similarly dangerous player while more consistent. I've spoken of his points situation ad nauseum. If Thiem is not 8 in the world by the end of Rome, I'll sport a dunce cap avatar for the French Open. If he's not in the World Tour Finals another dunce cap.

 

[falstaff78]

Weren't you the poster who was embarrassed off the forum for a while after your anti-Federer tirade when Federer showed his support for a certain Indian sports team a while back?

Since you ask, I wasn't embarrassed off the forum. I left in disgust because of the knee jerk hatred and racism which I received

Oh by the way I'm also the poster whom Federer apologised to

And multiple people have said they are really glad I'm back on the forum

Ignore list for you buddy. Have a nice life.

 

[Chanwan]

You have this really bad habit of being overly sensitive and not being able to take any form of criticism about any of your posts. Weren't you the poster who was embarrassed off the forum for a while after your anti-Federer tirade when Federer showed his support for certain Indian sports teams a while back?

Just chill out. I''ll I'm suggesting is that your approach to looking at a few stats to "not rule out" the success of Thiem may not be as valuable as my approach to whether or not Theim can beat the top ten players day in and day out.

@falstaff78 @Meles
Allow me to be the middle man (as I also seem to be in the middle in terms of excitement).
I completely agree with cc that Thiem needs to start performing vs. the top-5 and top-10. We haven't seen that from him yet aside from the two matches vs. falling from a cliff Rafa and Ferrer.
However, clearly the guy has upside. Who else wins their first five finals? Who else can post similar sturdy clay results against good, but not great opposition? And we also need to look at his age a bit differently given he's been a pro for shorter than normal at this age and given how late players tend to find their best tennis these years.

All in all: Thiem still has a way to go to prove @Meles expectations in particular. But he has done enough to legitimately gather some hype.
I mean the guy has more titles than Dimitrov already (! @ArcspacE ) and around half of Raonic and Nishikori, who's been in and around the edges of top-10 for a few years now.

see how chanwan has been responding in this thread, making essentially the same argument as you. The man is a class act and his posts have substance.

Wow, you're being too kind. Much obliged!

 

[Meles]

Wrong for a third time.

Actually, I'm excited about the player because of what I've seen in his matches, as I've stated several times in match threads, and as I've alluded to in this thread. Yet again you have an opinion about something you haven't bothered to read

This thread is about OP using stats to say the player is overrated. And myself and other posters responding with "no you are misinterpreting the stats, the stats are agnostic about his future". And the OP later retracting from his initial position.

If you want to learn how to disagree with people with see how chanwan has been responding in this thread, making essentially the same argument as you. The man is a class act and his posts have substance. Yours are filled with misplaced condescension and false statements.

You.ve been very level headed. cc is just a skeptic by nature. Take him off your ignore list.

 

[cc0509]

Wrong for a third time.

Actually, I'm excited about the player because of what I've seen in his matches, as I've stated several times in match threads, and as I've alluded to in this thread. Yet again you have an opinion about something you haven't bothered to read

This thread is about OP using stats to say the player is overrated. And myself and other posters responding with "no you are misinterpreting the stats, the stats are agnostic about his future". And the OP later retracting from his initial position.

If you want to learn how to disagree with people with see how chanwan has been responding in this thread, making essentially the same argument as you. The man is a class act and his posts have substance. Yours are filled with misplaced condescension and false statements.

There's no misplaced condescension on my part.I think you tend to rely too heavily on stats which may not matter so much at the end of the day. Were you one of the posters who was doing the same thing about Dimitrov? I look at two things basically to determine "not ruling out" a player's success (as you delicately phrase it,lol):

1) How a player does vs the best players consistently and 2) how a player does at the most important events meaning slams first and then Masters 1000s. The rest means bupkis to me.

 

[cc0509]

Since you ask, I wasn't embarrassed off the forum. I left in disgust because of the knee jerk hatred and racism which I received

Oh by the way I'm also the poster whom Federer apologised to

And multiple people have said they are really glad I'm back on the forum

Ignore list for you buddy. Have a nice life.

I used that Federer incident to show that you tend to be a little bit too sensitive if somebody has a different outlook than you do and you have proved that by telling me you are putting me on ignore. Why? Because I said your use of pouring over often meaningless stats may not be the best indicator to "not rule out" a player's success?

You need to grow up and not throw your toys out of your pram if somebody has a different opinion. Ciao.

 

[Meles]

I'd like to thank the OP for stimulating all of this statistical excitement about Thiem and it certainly has stimulated my interest in these numbers. Sincerest thanks. Kudos to @falstaff78 and @Gary Duane for some awesome support and knowledge. But it has to be said:

@cc0509 is our resident Mark Twain.

 

[cc0509]

You.ve been very level headed. cc is just a skeptic by nature. Take him off your ignore list.

Nah, he can't handle any sort of inference which may claim that his precious stats may not always be what they are cracked up to be(or he can't handle any type of reaction which varies from his point of view. Just check out his thread when Federer supported another Indian sports team a while back,lol. It's good entertainment.) That often happens with "statisticians" who can have such a narrow scope of viewing the world. In tennis, stats are very important and they go hand in hand with big results but in this case the stats are being looked at primarily vs lesser players. Why not wait and see how Thiem's stats look vs the very best players at the biggest events over the long haul? That makes more sense to me.

 

[Meles]

Nah, he can't handle any sort of inference which may claim that his precious stats may not always be what they are cracked up to be(or he can't handle any type of reaction which varies from his point of view. Just check out his thread when Federer supported another Indian sports team a while back,lol. It's good entertainment.) That often happens with "statisticians" who can have such a narrow scope of viewing the world. In tennis, stats are very important and they go hand in hand with big results but in this case the stats are being looked at primarily vs lesser players. Why not wait and see how Thiem's stats look vs the very best players at the biggest events over the long haul? That makes more sense to me.

It makes sense, but that's not any fun. Hopefully the rubber hits the road for Thiem at Indian Wells. As 12th seed Thiem might get Murray or Djokovic in round of 16 (1 in 4 chance!).

 

[falstaff78]

You.ve been very level headed. cc is just a skeptic by nature. Take him off your ignore list.

I don't have an issue with a sceptical viewpoint. Or any viewpoint that is different from mine!

The poster in question made a series of incorrect statements, one after another without even bothering to read what had been discussed. He got called out, with supporting quotations, in perfectly polite language. Instead of backing down he went to the last resort of getting personal.

After the Federer incident, I realised the only way to make TT a tolerable place is to engage with people who are polite and knowledgeable and keep out the rest.

 

[Chanwan]

It makes sense, but that's not any fun. Hopefully the rubber hits the road for Thiem at Indian Wells. As 12th seed Thiem might get Murray or Djokovic in round of 16 (1 in 4 chance!).

Unless IW seedings are different from the slams, 9-12th meet 5-8th (and 1-4 vs. 13-16)

 

[Meles]

Yeah because I didn't continue the list below Thiem. My point was to show Thiem doesn't rank in top 10 in either serve or return. My point was not to comment on the other players in the list. But you're right, he's # 11 on combined list, not bad. Looking at the list, KG should start kicking serious -ss on hard this season
Best players when adding return and serve game stats on hard for 2016:

1- Djokovic: 127.5 (90.7 + 36.8)
2- Federer: 120.6 (89.1 + 31.5)
3- Murray: 119.3 (87.2 + 32.1)
4- Kyrgios: 117.3 (88.8 + 28.5)
5- Del Potro: 116.5 (85 + 31.5)
6- Wawrinka: 114.7 (88.9 + 25.8)
7- Nishikori: 113.7 (85.9 + 27.8)
8- Berdych: 112.2 (84.6 + 27.6)
9- Monfils: 111.2 (85.4 + 25.8)
10- Raonic: 110.7 (93.8 + 16.9)
11- Thiem: 109.5 (84.4 + 25.1)

Thiem's level of dominance against Dimitrov, Querrey, and Tomic this weekend:
42 26 61.8% 123.5%

Look out Djoko!

 

[Meles]

Unless IW seedings are different from the slams, 9-12th meet 5-8th (and 1-4 vs. 13-16)

I did not know that and had looked for that info on line. Too bad Thiem will be seed to high.

 

[thomasferrett]

All in all: Thiem still has a way to go to prove @Meles expectations in particular. But he has done enough to legitimately gather some hype.

How does winning a solitary ATP 500 by the age of 22 deserve any hype whatsoever?

Thiem is going to be a Zeballos or Berlocq type of player - everything about his career points towards that sort of outcome.

Fair enough, if a player wins 15 Slams in a row before his 20th birthday, he might deserve a bit of hype. But no-one at all in the game has deserved any hype for years.

 

[Chanwan]

How does winning a solitary ATP 500 by the age of 22 deserve any hype whatsoever?

Thiem is going to be a Zeballos or Berlocq type of player - everything about his career points towards that sort of outcome.

Fair enough, if a player wins 15 Slams in a row before his 20th birthday, he might deserve a bit of hype. But no-one at all in the game has deserved any hype for years.

high standards, no? go troll somewhere else.
Berlocq's never been better than 50 in the world, Zeballos never in top-30 and combined they have just as many titles as Thiem has now despite being at the end of their career, while Thiem is only at the beginning of his.
The end/

I did not know that and had looked for that info on line. Too bad Thiem will be seed to high.

On the contrary, this means he can test his form vs. a lower ranked top-10'er, before he tries out vs. the best of the best.

 

[Meles]

high standards, no? go troll somewhere else.
Berlocq's never been better than 50 in the world, Zeballos never in top-30 and combined they have just as many titles as Thiem has now despite being at the end of their career, while Thiem is only at the beginning of his.
The end/

On the contrary, this means he can test his form vs. a lower ranked top-10'er, before he tries out vs. the best of the best.

Its Berdy time!

 

[Sysyphus]

There's no misplaced condescension on my part.I think you tend to rely too heavily on stats which may not matter so much at the end of the day. Were you one of the posters who was doing the same thing about Dimitrov? I look at two things basically to determine "not ruling out" a player's success (as you delicately phrase it,lol):

1) How a player does vs the best players consistently and 2) how a player does at the most important events meaning slams first and then Masters 1000s. The rest means bupkis to me.

Meaning you're not really so much trying to be predictive as observing the obvious — if someone is tearing it up in slams and masters and "consistently" doing well against the best players, then he is already elite. What these guys are trying to do is look for predictive signs of who may do this in the future before it happens, something quite different.

Also, no need to try and introduce personal blows in the debate.

 

[cc0509]

Meaning you're not really so much trying to be predictive as observing the obvious — if someone is tearing it up in slams and masters and "consistently" doing well against the best players, then he is already elite. What these guys are trying to do is look for predictive signs of who may do this in the future before it happens, something quite different.

Also, no need to try and introduce personal blows in the debate.

The greatest predictive sign that I can see occurs when a player starts to have wins against the best players on the big stages. He doesn't have to be tearing it up at the slams and Masters right away. I'm talking about big wins vs elite players before he starts to win big at the slams and Masters. That is a better predictor than looking at fairly meaningless stats of a player who is beating any Tom,Dick and Harry at lesser tournaments IMO. All you have to do is look at the fuss that was made over a player like Dimitrov to know what I'm saying is true. People were going on and on about him and I kept saying, what has he done and which elite players has he defeated? Let Thiem beat the top guys repeatedly before we call him the next big deal. If you look at his stats vs a bunch of clown players you may as well use that as toilet paper. What does it really mean if he can't beat the top ten players?

As for introducing personal blows, it was falstaff78 who really started with the negative comments by telling me I misunderstood what was said after I very calmly posted in response to him that perhaps we should wait and see how Thiem does when it really matters against the better players rather than look at misguided stats vs lesser players. He couldn't accept that and then kept on telling me I misunderstood what he was saying as he was not "predicting" but merely "not ruling out"(which let's be honest comes down to the same thing.)

IMO that guy takes himself way too seriously. I mean all you have to do is look at his ludicrous anti-Federer thread and public outcry after Federer supported an Indian cricket team. Federer can support anybody he wants without having some fans lose their marbles as falstaff78 did. Then being the humourless statistician he is at heart he told me he would put me on ignore. Only immature babies who can't cope with the slightest criticism talk about putting you on ignore. Don't talk about putting somebody on ignore as it makes you look like a baby throwing toys out of his pram. Simply quietly ignore the posts like a mature adult.

 

[thomasferrett]

Berlocq's never been better than 50 in the world, Zeballos never in top-30 and combined they have just as many titles as Thiem has now despite being at the end of their career, while Thiem is only at the beginning of his.
The end/

But who says that just because you've won a few titles that you're automatically going to win more?

I don't think so and that is where the over-optimism comes from

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Which "better" players are we talking about? Querrey and Almagro? Did you see the Brisbane match earlier this year when Thiem played old man Federer?

He is beating better and better players. Its happening. Lets see what the next months will bring. Of the youngsters(and actually in general) I think he is the only one that has the game to beat players like Novak and Andy.

 

[Chanwan]

I did not know that and had looked for that info on line. Too bad Thiem will be seed to high.

But who says that just because you've won a few titles that you're automatically going to win more?

I don't think so and that is where the over-optimism comes from

Name me one male player who won 5 titles in 9 or so months around age 21-22 and stopped winning after that without being forced out by injury?

 

[thomasferrett]

Name me one male player who won 5 titles in 9 or so months around age 21-22 and stopped winning after that without being forced out by injury?

Why can't Thiem be the first? Sick of this optimism and hyping tbh.

 

[bjsnider]

@falstaff78
I appreciate the time and effort you put into that table. Having said that, I'm not convinced how much more useful that metric is than the basic ATP rankings. You're using it to predict future results, but the rankings can do that too. I'm really skeptical of how fungible the data is across seasons and especially generations. What does Agassi's 119 at age 23 tell us compared to Nadal's 118? It seems to me that dominance is often a result of the strength of the field at a given time, and this metric does not correct for that. Was the 2000 season as strong as 2011? I doubt it. Is the current women's field, in which the seedings seem to predict almost nothing, and most of the players seem to be equally good (or bad)as strong as it was 25 years ago? I have strong doubts. Strength of opposition would heavily influence this metric.

My mind is open to the possibility that this metric is more useful than it appears to me, but I'd need arguments to be convinced.

 

[falstaff78]

@falstaff78
I appreciate the time and effort you put into that table. Having said that, I'm not convinced how much more useful that metric is than the basic ATP rankings. You're using it to predict future results, but the rankings can do that too. I'm really skeptical of how fungible the data is across seasons and especially generations. What does Agassi's 119 at age 23 tell us compared to Nadal's 118? It seems to me that dominance is often a result of the strength of the field at a given time, and this metric does not correct for that. Was the 2000 season as strong as 2011? I doubt it. Is the current women's field, in which the seedings seem to predict almost nothing, and most of the players seem to be equally good (or bad)as strong as it was 25 years ago? I have strong doubts. Strength of opposition would heavily influence this metric.

My mind is open to the possibility that this metric is more useful than it appears to me, but I'd need arguments to be convinced.

Hey @bjsnider

I'll let @Gary Duane chime in here also as he's a great believer in this stat, and has if anything convinced me to start tracking it.

1. Essentially I could not agree with you more when you say that this metric is not all encompassing. I'd argue no single metric is. There are always twenty ways to cut the data. In fact if you look at some of my statistical previews for major finals and semifinals I use a wide variety of metrics. For example I'm a big believer in dominance ratio. And for what it's worth i think over time the ATP ranking has evolved into probably the most powerful metric.

2. As I took pains to point out to another poster on this thread, I'd like to clarify that I'm not actively predicting that Thiem will do well, based on his stats. I think the stats say that he's done enough to be a plausible 2-3 major winner some day, but there is no certainty. My excitement about his potential comes from watching him play and is based on a combination of his power, his shotmaking, his conditioning and what i like to call his X-factor, or the ability to conjure up winners from nowhere. I just don't think we have enough stats yet to gauge his ceiling, because he was a late starter with injury and military service. Unlike say Djokovic or Nadal, for whom early career stats almost unambiguously suggested greatness.

3. Having said all that, the percentage of games won is a very good metric. Intuitively it makes sense that a great player would win more games. So it's one (of many) ways to gauge how someone is doing

Hope that helps! Thanks again for this fantastic thread!

 

[mule250]

Thanks @falstaff78 for your efforts! With regards to Thiem it is definitely lacking sample size but I do believe it is one of the better predictive stats out there. By the end of the season we should have a better picture of how everyone sizes up.

 

[Chanwan]

Why can't Thiem be the first? Sick of this optimism and hyping tbh.

The better question is -> why should he be the first to not build on that base. You're sick of optimism. I'm sick of pessimism.
Give me one good reason why Thiem won't win any more titles/reach the top ten/double his title count etc.

 

[boramiNYC]

Why can't Thiem be the first? Sick of this optimism and hyping tbh.

Any specific reason for your dislike toward this Thiem kid?

 

[Gary Duane]

Hey @bjsnider

I'll let @Gary Duane chime in here also as he's a great believer in this stat, and has if anything convinced me to start tracking it.

1. Essentially I could not agree with you more when you say that this metric is not all encompassing. I'd argue no single metric is. There are always twenty ways to cut the data. In fact if you look at some of my statistical previews for major finals and semifinals I use a wide variety of metrics. For example I'm a big believer in dominance ratio. And for what it's worth i think over time the ATP ranking has evolved into probably the most powerful metric.

2. As I took pains to point out to another poster on this thread, I'd like to clarify that I'm not actively predicting that Thiem will do well, based on his stats. I think the stats say that he's done enough to be a plausible 2-3 major winner some day, but there is no certainty. My excitement about his potential comes from watching him play and is based on a combination of his power, his shotmaking, his conditioning and what i like to call his X-factor, or the ability to conjure up winners from nowhere. I just don't think we have enough stats yet to gauge his ceiling, because he was a late starter with injury and military service. Unlike say Djokovic or Nadal, for whom early career stats almost unambiguously suggested greatness.

3. Having said all that, the percentage of games won is a very good metric. Intuitively it makes sense that a great player would win more games. So it's one (of many) ways to gauge how someone is doing

Hope that helps! Thanks again for this fantastic thread!

I would say that games won and points won work very well for looking in that past and finding out some commonalities between great champions. For this reason I know that Sampras seldom made it to 60% of games, and he won slams with some of the lowest %. He was the absolute master of coasting, and he was super aggressive. From my own research I find that this is a pattern for very aggressive players.

The pattern for great receivers is to win with a higher % of games because they can't coast as much on serve. So they are ALWAYS looking to break, and in the category are Agassi, Nadal, Novak. Novak is presently becoming more aggressive, but he is still primarily defensive.

I would say that where Thiem is right now predicts future Masters 1000 wins, but not yet slams. To win a slam he needs to do something only Waw and Cilic have done in recent years - HUGELY pick up level in slams - and Cilic only did it only once.

When he hits above 110 and edges towards 115 he could grab a slam (which he COULD do this year), and if he heads towards 120 and stays there he will be a multi-slam winner, I think.

 

[tacou]

Semantics. You can state it as "not ruling out" the success of a player all you want. At the end of the day you are getting excited over a player's future based on a few stats he has had bascially vs lower quality players. I think it's great that Thiem has done well the past few weeks and he appears to have a good attitude which is very important but I can't get too enthusiastic about any player until that player starts beating top five to ten players consistently. In my experience that's what matters most.

If a player is consistently beating top 5 players ... that player is a top 2 or 3 player, right ?

 

[cc0509]

If a player is consistently beating top 5 players ... that player is a top 2 or 3 player, right ?

Not at first. A lower ranked player has to start somewhere and all greats both past and present started on the path to greatness by beating elite players in important matches. If and when Thiem starts to do that, then I will believe in his future as a top player rather than a player who may have some potential but may stall. Let him start by beating some of the top ten players at events which matter. He's on the right track but he has a ways to go to convince me he is a future slam winner.

 

[bjsnider]

I would say that games won and points won works very well for looking in that past and finding out some commonalities between great champions. For this reason I know that Sampras seldom made it to 60% of games, and he won slams with some of the lowest %. He was the absolute master of coasting, and he was super aggressive. From my own research I find that this is a pattern for very aggressive players.

The pattern for great receivers is to win with a higher % of games because they can't coast as much on serve. So they are ALWAYS looking to break, and in the category are Agassi, Nadal, Novak. Novak is presently becoming more aggressive, but he is still primarily defensive.

I would say that where Thiem is right now predicts future Masters 1000 wins, but not yet slams. To win a slam he needs to do something only Waw and Cilic have done in recent years - HUGELY pick up level in slams - and Cilic only did it only once.

When he hits above 110 and edges towards 115 he could grab a slam (which he COULD do this year), and if he heads towards 120 and stays there he will be a multi-slam winner, I think.

But the context of the numbers you're plugging in to the metric must be considered, so for instance, Djokovic, Federer et al. are playing the biggest tournaments, getting byes into the second rounds, and from there almost exclusively playing against the top 25 guys, and of them frequently just the ones who are playing particularly well, the others having been eliminated. Thiem did not do well at the year's biggest tournament so far (third round loss to Goffin), and did do well playing against many lesser guys* at smaller tournaments. Many advanced metrics by pro Sabermetric guys like Dave Berri. John Hollinger, and Dean Oliver -- not to mention all of the WAR-type stats the baseball guys use, do correct, or make efforts to correct, for strength of opponent. I have a lot more respect for guys like Djokovic, who go out and play Masters tournaments, taking 5 or 6 star players to the woodshed in the process. We need to wait until Thiem plays more big tournaments, right?

* For instance, at Buenos Aires, Thiem faced Lajovic and Elias -- the latter was a qualie. I've never heard of either.

 

[mellowyellow]

Hey @bjsnider

I'll let @Gary Duane chime in here also as he's a great believer in this stat, and has if anything convinced me to start tracking it.

1. Essentially I could not agree with you more when you say that this metric is not all encompassing. I'd argue no single metric is. There are always twenty ways to cut the data. In fact if you look at some of my statistical previews for major finals and semifinals I use a wide variety of metrics. For example I'm a big believer in dominance ratio. And for what it's worth i think over time the ATP ranking has evolved into probably the most powerful metric.

2. As I took pains to point out to another poster on this thread, I'd like to clarify that I'm not actively predicting that Thiem will do well, based on his stats. I think the stats say that he's done enough to be a plausible 2-3 major winner some day, but there is no certainty. My excitement about his potential comes from watching him play and is based on a combination of his power, his shotmaking, his conditioning and what i like to call his X-factor, or the ability to conjure up winners from nowhere. I just don't think we have enough stats yet to gauge his ceiling, because he was a late starter with injury and military service. Unlike say Djokovic or Nadal, for whom early career stats almost unambiguously suggested greatness.

3. Having said all that, the percentage of games won is a very good metric. Intuitively it makes sense that a great player would win more games. So it's one (of many) ways to gauge how someone is doing

Hope that helps! Thanks again for this fantastic thread!

I want to add to this, at his age and what we have seen for the age group, who is going to fill the voids that will ultimately crop up? He looks to be one of the guys comparatively to others. He has been in a semi or final in everything but the AusO this year, two titles on two different surfaces playing decent competition for the size of the events... Coupled with the stats suggest to me he has one of the better outlooks to win a mojor or multiples. Who else NickK? Please every time he looks good he is injured, he will be another Philipousis/Haas/Monfils type, never healthy long enough to be tour hardened to go the distance.

 

[falstaff78]

But the context of the numbers you're plugging in to the metric must be considered, so for instance, Djokovic, Federer et al. are playing the biggest tournaments, getting byes into the second rounds, and from there almost exclusively playing against the top 25 guys, and of them frequently just the ones who are playing particularly well, the others having been eliminated. Thiem did not do well at the year's biggest tournament so far (third round loss to Goffin), and did do well playing against many lesser guys* at smaller tournaments.

@bjsnider great post!!!

Please see what I posted on this topic on page 1:

average ranking of opponents....is an important factor, obviously. e.g. Djokovic was not just 43% better than his opponents, he was 43% better than opponents ranked 36 on average. Murray was 24% better than opponents ranked 53. Federer was 40% better than opponents ranked 46 on average etc. etc. Thiem's ave opp ranking before 2016 checks out with guys in the 20-30 range, and his ave opp ranking in 2016 checks out with guys in the 8-10 range. Can provide details if anyone is interested

I was trying to make the argument that Thiem's small sample in 2016 suggests he has risen from being the equivalent of a 20-30 ranked player, to the equivalent of a 8-10 ranked player. (And, to reiterate, I was not making a prediction that he will win majors etc....)

Anyway please see the completed table below. For guys with various year end ranks last year, it shows their dominance ratios, 2 x game w% (i.e. svc game w% + rtn game w%), and average opponent rank.

you will see two things in this table.

1. context matters, as you correctly pointed out. the guys at the top are achieving better numbers, but doing so against harder opposition. in fact, world number 50 and world number 100 achieved very similiar numbers. the only difference being the guys they played.

2. thiem has gone from being a 20-30 ranked player to an 8-10 ranked player. taking into account the strength of his opposition, his 2016 profile, small sample notwithstanding, is similiar to the guys who finished in the 8-10 range last year. (and I repeat my earlier disclaimer, all I am saying is he is playing like a top ten player, not that he will mop up 9 French titles)


(Thiem's 2016 calculation includes an adjustment for a match vs. world number 1050 which skews the average opponent ranking. on average you don't play world number 1000 in 5% of matches. it's more like 1%. when we make this correction, this one match reduces the average ranking of Thiem's opponents by 40)

 

[Gary Duane]

But the context of the numbers you're plugging in to the metric must be considered, so for instance, Djokovic, Federer et al. are playing the biggest tournaments, getting byes into the second rounds, and from there almost exclusively playing against the top 25 guys, and of them frequently just the ones who are playing particularly well, the others having been eliminated.

I'm a bit confused. Both Novak and Fed won more than 20% of games all of 2015 on HCs

Thiem did not do well at the year's biggest tournament so far (third round loss to Goffin), and did do well playing against many lesser guys* at smaller tournaments.

I'm not on the Thiem bandwagon yet. As I said, we have to see how he does leading up to RG, and afterwards. He is not "there" yet. He has win some 1000s.

Many advanced metrics by pro Sabermetric guys like Dave Berri. John Hollinger, and Dean Oliver -- not to mention all of the WAR-type stats the baseball guys use, do correct, or make efforts to correct, for strength of opponent. I have a lot more respect for guys like Djokovic, who go out and play Masters tournaments, taking 5 or 6 star players to the woodshed in the process.

Novak's stats are excellent. His record in all ways is just fine.

 

[Gary Duane]

Not at first. A lower ranked player has to start somewhere and all greats both past and present started on the path to greatness by beating elite players in important matches. If and when Thiem starts to do that, then I will believe in his future as a top player rather than a player who may have some potential but may stall. Let him start by beating some of the top ten players at events which matter. He's on the right track but he has a ways to go to convince me he is a future slam winner.

I agree with this. However, a win over Nadal, even this year, on clay, is nothing to scoff at. Now we have to watch how he does against the others at the very top.

Also, we can't simply dismiss the stronger current play of older players. We need more time to find out if this is going to be a somewhat permanent change in tennis.

 

[bjsnider]

I'm a bit confused. Both Novak and Fed won more than 20% of games all of 2015 on HCs

I was responding specifically to this:

When [Thiem] hits above 110 and edges towards 115 he could grab a slam (which he COULD do this year), and if he heads towards 120 and stays there he will be a multi-slam winner, I think.

Thiem could get those numbers while playing against journeymen in small tournaments, because the stat doesn't correct for strength of opponent. He could lose early in the big tournaments while cruising in the small ones. That would mean most of the data being plugged into the metric you're using would be achieved against who-dats. It's not likely, but it's possible.

 

[Gary Duane]

I was responding specifically to this:

Thiem could get those numbers while playing against journeymen in small tournaments, because the stat doesn't correct for strength of opponent.

If he gets above 55% he won't stay there long if he is only playing weak players. I can't find anyone who did that for a year going back 25 years who was not a top 10 player, and usually top 5.

He could lose early in the big tournaments while cruising in the small ones. That would mean most of the data being plugged into the metric you're using would be achieved against who-dats. It's not likely, but it's possible.

It won't hold up for a year, and it likely won't hold up for 6 months. I've never seen it happen before. It could hold up for a tournament, but that would mean bagels and breadsticks along the way. There is no convenient way to track this for all players because the ATP does not add up both % stats. You are left looking at a list of people who win the most service games, and those who win the most return games. You can't eye-ball the sums.

Again, if Thiem gets up to 55% on any surface for a number of months, it will be different. He is not yet there. And look for something higher to rank really high and have a chance at a slam.

Here is an example:

Fed, 2001:
#13 Federer: 76/20 96
:::::: Grass: 83/23 106
:::::: HC:
:::::: Clay:

Fed 2002:
#6 Federer 86/25 111
:::::: Grass: 86/21/107
:::::: HC: 87/25/112
:::::: Clay: 76/32/108

Fed 2003:
#2 Federer 87/29 116
:::::: HC 87/28 115
:::::: Grass 92/31 123 -------------------------------WIMBLY
:::::: Clay 83/37 120

Fed 2004:
#1 Federer 92/30 122
:::::: Grass 95/35 130 -------------------------------WIMBLY
:::::: HC 92/29 121 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
:::::: Clay: 88/30 118.31

Thiem is just not there yet. And if he gets there, to the top, winning against top players, his % of games won will go up with his ranking, not down.

 

[bjsnider]

If he gets above 55% he won't stay there long if he is only playing weak players. I can't find anyone who did that for a year going back 25 years who was not a top 10 player, and usually top 5.

OK, but in falstaff's table on page 2 of the comments, he includes someone named "Chung", a young player at this point, who achieved a 110 last year. Chung must have played at least 20 ATP matches or he wouldn't have been included.

 

[Gary Duane]

OK, but in falstaff's table on page 2 of the comments, he includes someone named "Chung", a young player at this point, who achieved a 110 last year. Chung must have played at least 20 ATP matches or he wouldn't have been included.

He was sort of on the edge. He played a total of around 200 games in 2015. So far he has played around 100 this year and is at 68/16 84.

Because he has played perhaps 300 games total better to use his career stats:

76/26 102, about right for his ranking of #63. And right now that total of games is going DOWN by %. Expect that to continue until breaks through to a much higher ranking.

 

[gn]

I think Thiem can get close to No#10 Rankings since 4/6 tournaments for him will be on Clay before. Currently he won't be able to trouble Top 4 enough. But he definitely has a chance to beat No.4 to 10 players. He needs to try his best to reach No.8 so he can delay BIG players until QF.

Regarding him being a Future Majors contender, I think he has the ideal height, fitness, movement for a Top Player. May be not naturally gifted like Kyrgios.
If Novak can improve his serve later in his career, why not Thiem?

 

[thomasferrett]

Good job, OP, this thread was needed.

Thiem and all of his obnoxious supporters need to crash back down to earth ASAP.

 

[ArcspacE]

You wish

Young Artist is only making a move now

 

[Meles]

Not at first. A lower ranked player has to start somewhere and all greats both past and present started on the path to greatness by beating elite players in important matches. If and when Thiem starts to do that, then I will believe in his future as a top player rather than a player who may have some potential but may stall. Let him start by beating some of the top ten players at events which matter. He's on the right track but he has a ways to go to convince me he is a future slam winner.

Don't read the following if watching FO on tape.

Spoiler

Time to bump this thread and its two Thiem skeptics since Thiem is in route to being six in the world.
From my signature:
"Thiem is currently ranked 14. The numbers really don't say he can get much higher than that -- in fact it looks to me like he'll sink down into the 25-35 range at some point this season" (That's the OP's original post which he updated on March 1 and backed off of his prediction.)
"I don't think I've seen such a young generation of incompetents in all of the years I've been watching tennis." cc.
And of course CC, he probably missed the two incompetents battling today in an epic match. Goffin came back and took 1st set from Thiem. Thiem turned the tables in sets 2 and 3. Monumental tiebreaker and staggering set point save by Thiem (3 Goffin shots should have been enough to finish the point) to avert a 2 sets to 0 deficit. CCs "pitch black horse" is making his move on the field at the French Open.

 

[thomasferrett]

This thread needed a bump.

Thiem and all his supporters are going to be sent crashing down to Earth in spectacular fashion soon.

And btw, Thiem is NEVER making it this far in a Slam ever again in his career. Look at the ridiculous draw he got in this Slam, and look at how many times he's lost sets even then. And this is supposedly his best surface. He's never going to get that lucky ever again.