I don't actually have full career records for guys like Mac, Connors and Lendl. Tennis Base might. The career records I have -- and even these are not 100% complete, more like 99% -- are for three players, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver.I don't have the full list for any of these players, but I know that when you include invitationals and such the numbers go down. That's pretty clear. For instance, if I take all your matches in the OE for guys like Mac and Connors and compare them with all matches counted by the ATP, your list will be lower in match% and game%. It's pretty clear why that is - fewer rounds.
I have not seen a full record of all the non-sanctioned matches that Connors and Lendl played. Their non-sanctioned titles have been counted, and that work was done some years ago, but that was relatively simple compared to the task of getting all the activity in all rounds of these events. For example finding Lendl's non-sanctioned titles is one thing, but finding every non-sanctioned event that he played, including the ones he lost, and documenting every match in which he participated (including perhaps elusive third-place matches), is something else together.
But Tennis Base might have, by now, a reasonably complete record of all that, I'll have to look through their data.
That's a really complex question. We've had threads on the topic before, and all we can ever agree on is that there are no black-and-white rules. What we can say with certainty is that exos today count for virtually nothing whereas the non-sanctioned activity of greats like Lendl and Connors was for big money and for real titles, albeit non-sanctioned titles. But within that non-sanctioned activity there was a range of importance (just as there is with sanctioned activity!). Some events were huge while others seemed to be regarded more as real exos.But I'm also very iffy about the importance of those invitationals. If they paid a lot of money AND had a huge amount of press, then I would tend to think they were important. However, today we know that guys get matches that are more or less expos. There may be a lot of money involved, but does anyone take them seriously?
The difference to me is that in the 50s and 60s there may not have been huge crowds at almost any given event, and we more or less have to take them into consideration.
I'm not sure if their importance diminished quickly, nor do I know at what point we could consider them no longer important. I'm guess that over time they were more or less phased out so far as importance is concerned.
In the amateur game there were matches that were understood to be exos, and understood clearly to be less important. I've kept track of such matches but I have not included them in win/loss totals (and I believe that Andrew did not count pure exos either, in his great career records for Laver and Rosewall). On the old pro tour, it was an entirely different story, and all historians have always counted every single match played. For the old pro tour you just have to throw out the rule book. There were matches that were more important than others, obviously, but it's not possible to make a category of meaningless "exos" because nothing was so clearly defined in the old pro tour environment; so we count everything.
I'm sure that's a factor as well.The only surprise there is that the non-majors are not a bit lower, but then again we might not expect very young players to be marshaling their strength and energy for majors, much more likely and common for aging players, I think.