Texas 3.5 Sectionals, Self-Rates, Rankings, Etc.

RedWeb

Semi-Pro
Several threads regarding sandbagging. etc. As sectionals are upon us here in Texas I did a little research at 3.5 level to analyze sandbagging with respect to self-rates. 3.5 made sense since from 4.0 on up self-rates aren't that impactful.

There are 1,260 3.5 players in Texas. Out of that there are 257 self-rated players. That is about 20.4%. Out of the 15 teams that are in sectionals there are 342 players. Of those 44 are self-rated. That is about 12.9%. So about ½ the “normal” rate. My theory is that the good teams don’t just let any newbie join their team and you have some talent/potential, or be friends with the captain.

Now let’s look closer at those 44 self-rated players. The average winning match percentage for all sectional players is 63.83% (2082-1181). For self-rated players it is 60.34% (199-91). Not much of a difference there. Looking at TLS and tennis record statistics the average dynamic rating for all sectional players is 3.29. For self-rates it is 3.33. A little bit higher.

Below are the self-rate breakdowns (Self column) by team. I did not show the team name, to avoid name calling noise, but that can be looked up easy enough. Top 8 is dynamic rating of top 8 players. Team is dynamic rating of entire team. TLS is tennis league rating and how many different line combinations have been used during course of season.

Code:
     Area              Roster  Self  Top 8   Team       TLS

1 1  Wild Houston        17     3      3.42   3.33    3.55 (21)

1 2  Dallas              18     5      3.41   3.29    3.45 (27)

1 3  Waco                13     4      3.33   3.25    3.31 (15)

1 4  TBD

2 1  Wild Austin         17    5      3.41   3.19    3.40 (25)

2 2  San Angelo         12    1      3.34  3.24    3.30 (20)

2 3  Amarillo           12    3      3.47  3.34    3.51 (23)

2 4  Houston             21    5      3.45   3.36    3.54 (30)

3 1  Wild San Antonio    15    4      3.38   3.29    3.39 (29)

3 2  Wild Dallas         24    2      3.53   3.37    3.46 (27)

3 3  Fort Worth          14    3      3.41   3.28    3.30 (23)

3 4  Austin              19    1      3.40   3.26    3.34 (31)

4 1  San Antonio        15     0      3.40  3.31    3.36 (26)

4 2  NETX                16     2      3.47   3.33    3.36 (13)

4 3  Wild Fort Worth     15     4      3.38   3.25    3.29 (26)

4 4  SETX                13     2      3.50   3.38    3.49 (17)

Additionally at this stage, captains for all the well-known stronger areas, have this information and everyone knows exactly who is doing what. Everyone knows that a high percentage of self-rates that join the teams with strong history will not be just some fill ins. Obviously a team that that has 25-30% of their roster as self-rates is doing some searching around and trying to get an advantage by finding players who have not been involved with USTA in the past.

So my conclusion is that self-rates have little or no impact on eventual 3.5 sectional champions. Experienced players who are good at managing their scores and results are much more important.
 

beernutz

Hall of Fame
If you could see what the top 8 average rating was with and without the self rates you'd have a better idea of their impact on the team.

Wouldn't the average winning match percentage for all sectional players have to be 50%?
 
If it's the average win percentage during the regular season, of players who went to sectionals, you would expect that to be over 50%.
 

wings56

Hall of Fame
Several threads regarding sandbagging. etc. As sectionals are upon us here in Texas I did a little research at 3.5 level to analyze sandbagging with respect to self-rates. 3.5 made sense since from 4.0 on up self-rates aren't that impactful.

There are 1,260 3.5 players in Texas. Out of that there are 257 self-rated players. That is about 20.4%. Out of the 15 teams that are in sectionals there are 342 players. Of those 44 are self-rated. That is about 12.9%. So about ½ the “normal” rate. My theory is that the good teams don’t just let any newbie join their team and you have some talent/potential, or be friends with the captain.

Now let’s look closer at those 44 self-rated players. The average winning match percentage for all sectional players is 63.83% (2082-1181). For self-rated players it is 60.34% (199-91). Not much of a difference there. Looking at TLS and tennis record statistics the average dynamic rating for all sectional players is 3.29. For self-rates it is 3.33. A little bit higher.

Below are the self-rate breakdowns (Self column) by team. I did not show the team name, to avoid name calling noise, but that can be looked up easy enough. Top 8 is dynamic rating of top 8 players. Team is dynamic rating of entire team. TLS is tennis league rating and how many different line combinations have been used during course of season.

Code:
     Area              Roster  Self  Top 8   Team       TLS

1 1  Wild Houston        17     3      3.42   3.33    3.55 (21)

1 2  Dallas              18     5      3.41   3.29    3.45 (27)

1 3  Waco                13     4      3.33   3.25    3.31 (15)

1 4  TBD

2 1  Wild Austin         17    5      3.41   3.19    3.40 (25)

2 2  San Angelo         12    1      3.34  3.24    3.30 (20)

2 3  Amarillo           12    3      3.47  3.34    3.51 (23)

2 4  Houston             21    5      3.45   3.36    3.54 (30)

3 1  Wild San Antonio    15    4      3.38   3.29    3.39 (29)

3 2  Wild Dallas         24    2      3.53   3.37    3.46 (27)

3 3  Fort Worth          14    3      3.41   3.28    3.30 (23)

3 4  Austin              19    1      3.40   3.26    3.34 (31)

4 1  San Antonio        15     0      3.40  3.31    3.36 (26)

4 2  NETX                16     2      3.47   3.33    3.36 (13)

4 3  Wild Fort Worth     15     4      3.38   3.25    3.29 (26)

4 4  SETX                13     2      3.50   3.38    3.49 (17)

Additionally at this stage, captains for all the well-known stronger areas, have this information and everyone knows exactly who is doing what. Everyone knows that a high percentage of self-rates that join the teams with strong history will not be just some fill ins. Obviously a team that that has 25-30% of their roster as self-rates is doing some searching around and trying to get an advantage by finding players who have not been involved with USTA in the past.

So my conclusion is that self-rates have little or no impact on eventual 3.5 sectional champions. Experienced players who are good at managing their scores and results are much more important.

Also, illegal self rates are easily busted and DQed.
 

TenS_Ace

Professional
Pffft Texas USTA..I used to go to NEWKS (John Newcombe Tennis Ranch) every year for 10 yrs..Anyways I was 3.5 from Canada (that's the big country north of the 49th for you "merricans" ) I digress, at Newks they have fun matches and the Pro's set up opponents. Well some dude comes into camp touting he's the Texas USTA champ. They put him up against me and he got DEMOLISHED ! I think he moved to Oklahoma after that :D I did have a USTA card and played my tournies in Hawaii, always came in runner up there :)
 

Moveforwardalways

Hall of Fame
Pffft Texas USTA..I used to go to NEWKS (John Newcombe Tennis Ranch) every year for 10 yrs..Anyways I was 3.5 from Canada (that's the big country north of the 49th for you "merricans" ) I digress, at Newks they have fun matches and the Pro's set up opponents. Well some dude comes into camp touting he's the Texas USTA champ. They put him up against me and he got DEMOLISHED ! I think he moved to Oklahoma after that :D I did have a USTA card and played my tournies in Hawaii, always came in runner up there :)

badass-advert.jpg
 

RedWeb

Semi-Pro
If you could see what the top 8 average rating was with and without the self rates you'd have a better idea of their impact on the team.

Good point. Here are some more statistics along that vein.

>>> 26 of the 44 self-rates are in top 8 players.
>>> 6 of the 16 teams highest rated player is a self-rate.
>>> The average rating of self-rates who are in the top 8 is 3.48. That is barely below the bump-up level to 4.0

>>> Below is team breakdown for self-rates and self-rates in top 8.
Code:
Area            Roster  Self  Self Top 8
Wild Houston      17      3      0
Dallas            18      5      4
Waco              13      4      2
NOHO              13      2      1
Wild Austin       17      5      0
San Angelo        12      1      1
Amarillo          12      3      3
Houston           21      5      2
Wild San Antonio  15      4      2
Wild Dallas       24      2      2
Fort Worth        14      3      1
Austin            19      1      1
San Antonio       15      0      0
NETX              16      2      2
Wild Fort Worth   15      4      2
SETX              13      2      1

Dallas and Amarillo stick out as teams who are top heavy with self-rates they have managed to pull into their teams just for this season.

Wild Houston, Wild Austin, Houston, Wild Fort Worth did a poor job picking their self-rates or a good job "hiding/protecting" them during the season.
 
Last edited:
Houston or Dallas win this pretty much every year. I know Houston is loaded at 4.5 this year but we will still play the matches and hope they stumble or at least have availability problems.
 
Top