The dreaded EOY Rating thread

Purestriker said:
Do you consider playing out of level cheating?
Click to expand...
Sometimes it happens. But when it’s clear and getting help from the local office then yes. Same people. Same team. Over and over. There is a guy here that beats D2 college guys play 4.0 lol. Hasn’t been moved up. But computer says. Yea right.
 
Purestriker said:
Tell me your a sandbagger without actually saying it.
Click to expand...

Sandbagger means you lose on purpose. I would never do that. But I don’t see any issues with guys throwing a game or two in spring league (not costing a team win, of course) so they can keep their same combo and mixed set ups later in the year.
 
Purestriker said:
Tell me your a sandbagger without actually saying it.
Click to expand...

I see both sides. But its sad to say, for rec tennis, unless you're a young buck, you aren't actually winning anything. You're spending your weekend playing a sport you enjoy (I hope). Might as well be winning at the level. I know spending your weekends getting dogged would be way less fun.
 
Moveforwardalways said:
Sandbagger means you lose on purpose. I would never do that. But I don’t see any issues with guys throwing a game or two in spring league (not costing a team win, of course) so they can keep their same combo and mixed set ups later in the year.
Click to expand...
Throwing games to make sure you stay at a level is sand bagging. No different than missing a few putts on purpose in golf so your handicap stays higher than actual so you can crush dreams in a tournament.
 
Purestriker said:
Do you consider playing out of level cheating?
Click to expand...
It depends on how they got there. If the computer just whiffs on a C-rating and the player takes advantage of a free year at a lower level, then, no, that's not cheating. If a player rates at the correct level and then improves significantly during the season to where he is no longer competitive at that level (which is more likely at lower levels, of course), then, no, that is not cheating.

Cheating is falsifying self-rating or creating new accounts to avoid past history or throwing matches or "managing" scores or entering incorrect scores or something like that that is intentionally depressing a rating through dishonesty. Anyone who rates themselves in good faith and plays all of their matches in good faith and doesn't manipulate scores in any way is not cheating, even if they end up significantly better than their rating level.
 
J_R_B said:
It depends on how they got there. If the computer just whiffs on a C-rating and the player takes advantage of a free year at a lower level, then, no, that's not cheating. If a player rates at the correct level and then improves significantly during the season to where he is no longer competitive at that level (which is more likely at lower levels, of course), then, no, that is not cheating.

Cheating is falsifying self-rating or creating new accounts to avoid past history or throwing matches or "managing" scores or entering incorrect scores or something like that that is intentionally depressing a rating through dishonesty. Anyone who rates themselves in good faith and plays all of their matches in good faith and doesn't manipulate scores in any way is not cheating, even if they end up significantly better than their rating level.
Click to expand...
Curious about your take on self rating at a level that while is completely legit based on answering all the questions honestly etc, is lower than the level that the player thinks they can be competitive at.
So no dishonesty or falsification involved, but is that self rating in good faith?
Cheating, legit, or somewhere in a gray area for you?
 
Chalkdust said:
Curious about your take on self rating at a level that while is completely legit based on answering all the questions honestly etc, is lower than the level that the player thinks they can be competitive at.
So no dishonesty or falsification involved, but is that self rating in good faith?
Cheating, legit, or somewhere in a gray area for you?
Click to expand...
This is a grey area. The UT guy who has been advertising himself as a 5.0 level player who self-rated at 4.0 just because he could is clearly cheating, but there is a lot of uncertainty about rating levels with new players. The system should work to DQ the player if he self-rates in good faith and plays without managing scores, but when you see guys who self-rate then play a bare minimum of line 3 doubles and then suddenly are winning #1 singles in the playoffs, that is suspicious to say the least.
 
J_R_B said:
It depends on how they got there. If the computer just whiffs on a C-rating and the player takes advantage of a free year at a lower level, then, no, that's not cheating. If a player rates at the correct level and then improves significantly during the season to where he is no longer competitive at that level (which is more likely at lower levels, of course), then, no, that is not cheating.

Cheating is falsifying self-rating or creating new accounts to avoid past history or throwing matches or "managing" scores or entering incorrect scores or something like that that is intentionally depressing a rating through dishonesty. Anyone who rates themselves in good faith and plays all of their matches in good faith and doesn't manipulate scores in any way is not cheating, even if they end up significantly better than their rating level.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. I actually had that happen to myself. To me the issues is knowingly manipulating/throwing games to maintain a rating.
 
Moveforwardalways said:
Sandbagger means you lose on purpose. I would never do that. But I don’t see any issues with guys throwing a game or two in spring league (not costing a team win, of course) so they can keep their same combo and mixed set ups later in the year.
Click to expand...
I don't get it either. As a captain, I would definitely say something if one of my players was throwing games on purpose. Not fair to the team and definitely not fair to the doubles partner. I suppose every team is different, but we're looking for folks who give their best, play with good sportsmanship and let the results be what they are. Never apologize for losing and never feel pressure to win. If you move up the next season, congrats to you and enjoy the competition!
 
romano said:
…we're looking for folks who give their best, play with good sportsmanship and let the results be what they are. Never apologize for losing and never feel pressure to win. If you move up the next season, congrats to you and enjoy the competition!
Click to expand...

We are looking for guys who deliver wins, feel pressure to win, know they won’t be called for the next match if they don’t win, write an apology text to the team if they lose, pay the court fees and league fees of their doubles partner if they are the weak link one night, and sign a commitment letter that they will represent at districts, sectionals, and nationals. At the beginning of the season, I collect $500 from each player on the team. If they get called up to play and they win, I pay them back a portion for each win. If they go undefeated in regular season, they get all their money back. If they win in postseason, they get paid the left over fees of the guys that didn’t win. So you better win. But if you win by enough to get bumped, well that ruins my team for next year, so any wins by 6-2 or worse get you no money back. Guys figure it out. They’re not stupid. That’s how I field an entire team of post season veterans at top of level each year. These other scrub teams don’t stand a chance. They’ll never have the basement full of banners and USTA medals that we have.
 
Ratings never matter.
I never move.
In my best years, worse years and everything in between.
Nuttin'.
Ironically I continue to compete well where I am and like, so in the end it doesn't matter.
 
Purestriker said:
I agree with that. I actually had that happen to myself. To me the issues is knowingly manipulating/throwing games to maintain a rating.
Click to expand...

I’m probably a bigger skeptic than most, but my issue is if it was a good faith lack of understanding of the rating system then these players would be equally distributed across the league. In fact you would probably expect them to be more concentrated in the worst teams because those captains tend to be the least invested in the system.

Instead, you seem to have these out of level self rated players on the same teams who win the league year after year. It’s hard to give these players the benefit of the doubt because it’s almost impossible to just be a coincidence. While these players may not know they’re out of level at first, the captains of these teams who are heavily invested in the league certainly know their true rating.
 
Last edited:
mikej said:
Is there any 'decay' in USTA rating - ie, if I was bumped to 5.0 in Florida at the end of 2020, played matches at 5.0 in 2021 and unsuccessfully appealed down at the end of 2021, then played zero USTA matches in 2022, is there any chance my computer appeal would be more successful this year? or guaranteed to be just as unsuccessful as a year ago since no new match data?

basically asking because I'm probably not going to waste the money renewing my USTA account if I'm just going to fail another computer appeal and not have many USTA leagues / matches available to play
Click to expand...
Don’t play below your rating!!!! Your 5.0 don’t be one of those guys!!! Play at your 5.0 rating or don’t play at all!!! This is what I hate about the USTA ratings!!!
 
Lord Of The Strings said:
Anybody taking bets on the current line for TR's average margin of error? I'm thinking TR is gonna be off by somewhere around 0.09 this year.
Click to expand...
Tennis record missed a trilevel league from earlier this year in my area. None of the results are included on tennis record. Too bad there's nowhere I can notify them
 
PK6 said:
Don’t play below your rating!!!! Your 5.0 don’t be one of those guys!!! Play at your 5.0 rating or don’t play at all!!! This is what I hate about the USTA ratings!!!
Click to expand...

you’re an idiot. as described in the thread above, I cannot play at 5.0 where I live because such a league doesn’t exist most years. would simply like to be back at 4.5 where I never once had an undefeated season and frequently had matches that split sets.

far different scenario being a borderline 4.5-5.0 and playing your best every time you take the court and one day getting bumped out of the USTA system entirely than sandbagging to try to be some 3.5-4.0 ‘national champion.’ would happily never go to nationals again for the chance to play more structured matches under the USTA umbrella.
 
mikej said:
you’re an idiot. as described in the thread above, I cannot play at 5.0 where I live because such a league doesn’t exist most years. would simply like to be back at 4.5 where I never once had an undefeated season and frequently had matches that split sets.

far different scenario being a borderline 4.5-5.0 and playing your best every time you take the court and one day getting bumped out of the USTA system entirely than sandbagging to try to be some 3.5-4.0 ‘national champion.’ would happily never go to nationals again for the chance to play more structured matches under the USTA umbrella.
Click to expand...

How often do you play in the postseason?
 
Creighton said:
How often do you play in the postseason?
Click to expand...

probably made it to sectionals 60% of the time (out of a small region that usually only had 2 teams, sometimes 3) and hadn’t made it to nationals in several years when I was bumped

now don’t play in the season or postseason or keep an active USTA membership
 
mikej said:
you’re an idiot. as described in the thread above, I cannot play at 5.0 where I live because such a league doesn’t exist most years. would simply like to be back at 4.5 where I never once had an undefeated season and frequently had matches that split sets.

far different scenario being a borderline 4.5-5.0 and playing your best every time you take the court and one day getting bumped out of the USTA system entirely than sandbagging to try to be some 3.5-4.0 ‘national champion.’ would happily never go to nationals again for the chance to play more structured matches under the USTA umbrella.
Click to expand...
That's a big problem in a lot of areas. IMO 4.5 should be 4.5+. You could make teams with 5.0s and above ineligible to advance and require 5.0s to play on ct 1. This would still give a fair chance to teams of 4.5s to advance and give 5.0s somewhere to play.
 
Creighton said:
That makes sense, they're constantly trying to adjust their formula to make it more accurate.
Click to expand...
TR's basic formula is wrong. They base your match rating off your opponent's starting rating. Therefore, if you are a 3.80 and you're opponent is a 3.60 and you win 6-2 6-2 or something and that margin constitutes a 0.25 differential, then your TR match rating is 3.85 (i.e. 3.60+0.25=3.85) and your opponent's TR match rating is 3.55 (=3.80-0.25). The USTA algorithm takes the average starting rating and adjusts both the winner and loser halfway off that. In this case, the average starting point is 3.70 and half the difference is 0.125, so you get 3.825 and he gets 3.575, so they are relatively close in this case. OTOH, TR comes up with some nonsensical results, too. A friend of mine played a match where they "tied" 2-6 6-3 1-0 (or 9-9 in games). His starting rating was 3.40 and his opponent 3.60. His match rating for the match was 3.60 (i.e. the opponent's starting rating with no adjustment since the match was a "tie") and his opponent's match rating was 3.40. This is a stupid result. The two opponents tied, or played at exactly the same level in the match, so they should have the same match rating. The USTA would assign 3.50 to each player.
 
J_R_B said:
TR's basic formula is wrong. They base your match rating off your opponent's starting rating. Therefore, if you are a 3.80 and you're opponent is a 3.60 and you win 6-2 6-2 or something and that margin constitutes a 0.25 differential, then your TR match rating is 3.85 (i.e. 3.60+0.25=3.85) and your opponent's TR match rating is 3.55 (=3.80-0.25). The USTA algorithm takes the average starting rating and adjusts both the winner and loser halfway off that. In this case, the average starting point is 3.70 and half the difference is 0.125, so you get 3.825 and he gets 3.575, so they are relatively close in this case. OTOH, TR comes up with some nonsensical results, too. A friend of mine played a match where they "tied" 2-6 6-3 1-0 (or 9-9 in games). His starting rating was 3.40 and his opponent 3.60. His match rating for the match was 3.60 (i.e. the opponent's starting rating with no adjustment since the match was a "tie") and his opponent's match rating was 3.40. This is a stupid result. The two opponents tied, or played at exactly the same level in the match, so they should have the same match rating. The USTA would assign 3.50 to each player.
Click to expand...
But they didn’t tie. One player won, one player lost. The winner got a higher match rating, as he should have.
 
J_R_B said:
TR's basic formula is wrong. They base your match rating off your opponent's starting rating. Therefore, if you are a 3.80 and you're opponent is a 3.60 and you win 6-2 6-2 or something and that margin constitutes a 0.25 differential, then your TR match rating is 3.85 (i.e. 3.60+0.25=3.85) and your opponent's TR match rating is 3.55 (=3.80-0.25). The USTA algorithm takes the average starting rating and adjusts both the winner and loser halfway off that. In this case, the average starting point is 3.70 and half the difference is 0.125, so you get 3.825 and he gets 3.575, so they are relatively close in this case. OTOH, TR comes up with some nonsensical results, too. A friend of mine played a match where they "tied" 2-6 6-3 1-0 (or 9-9 in games). His starting rating was 3.40 and his opponent 3.60. His match rating for the match was 3.60 (i.e. the opponent's starting rating with no adjustment since the match was a "tie") and his opponent's match rating was 3.40. This is a stupid result. The two opponents tied, or played at exactly the same level in the match, so they should have the same match rating. The USTA would assign 3.50 to each player.
Click to expand...
You know the USTA formula? Where can I see it?
 
J_R_B said:
TR's basic formula is wrong. They base your match rating off your opponent's starting rating. Therefore, if you are a 3.80 and you're opponent is a 3.60 and you win 6-2 6-2 or something and that margin constitutes a 0.25 differential, then your TR match rating is 3.85 (i.e. 3.60+0.25=3.85) and your opponent's TR match rating is 3.55 (=3.80-0.25). The USTA algorithm takes the average starting rating and adjusts both the winner and loser halfway off that. In this case, the average starting point is 3.70 and half the difference is 0.125, so you get 3.825 and he gets 3.575, so they are relatively close in this case. OTOH, TR comes up with some nonsensical results, too. A friend of mine played a match where they "tied" 2-6 6-3 1-0 (or 9-9 in games). His starting rating was 3.40 and his opponent 3.60. His match rating for the match was 3.60 (i.e. the opponent's starting rating with no adjustment since the match was a "tie") and his opponent's match rating was 3.40. This is a stupid result. The two opponents tied, or played at exactly the same level in the match, so they should have the same match rating. The USTA would assign 3.50 to each player.
Click to expand...

First, how do you know what match ratings the USTA algorithm would assign to those examples? Unless you are claiming to have inside knowledge, for all we know, TR has that part of the formula exactly right. There are many other reasons why the TR year-end estimates could be incorrect.

Second, I don't think the TR way of calculating the match rating is nonsensical. In your 9-9 "tie" example, imagine if the 3.60 played an additional opponent on the same day with the exact same 9-9 score result. Both of his opponents would get a 3.60 match rating, which makes sense - they performed exactly the same against the same opponent on the same day. But by your proposed method, they could get very different match ratings depending on their pre-match value, which to me would not makes sense.

TR's match ratings are nice in that they act as sort of a "pure" one-match estimate of your performance that day, based only the score and your opponents history and ignoring your own history, as if this was your first-ever match. Then it gets averaged in to your history, if you have one, which is a separate part of the algorithm that TR may or may not have correct.
 
unexpected said:
Let me be as annoying as possible: are we talking 12:01 ET on Thursday? So those of us in different parts of the country will be able to get them on Wed?
Click to expand...
If it’s released right at midnight ET on December 1st, then that would be November 30th for Pacific, Mountain, and Central time zones.
 
Lord Of The Strings said:
Anybody taking bets on the current line for TR's average margin of error? I'm thinking TR is gonna be off by somewhere around 0.09 this year.
Click to expand...
Last year, TR had me .01 below the bump-up threshold. When the year-end NTRP was released, I wasn't bumped. I immediately appealed (online) and the appeal was granted. Thus, TR was rather accurate (within the appeal threshold).

But, since the NTRP is only stated in 0.50 increments, how do you how accurate TR estimates are? I was only able to gauge it because I was on the threshold. Even then, TR could have been 0.03 points off but I would never know.
 
Last edited:
Moveforwardalways said:
We are looking for guys who deliver wins, feel pressure to win, know they won’t be called for the next match if they don’t win, write an apology text to the team if they lose, pay the court fees and league fees of their doubles partner if they are the weak link one night, and sign a commitment letter that they will represent at districts, sectionals, and nationals. At the beginning of the season, I collect $500 from each player on the team. If they get called up to play and they win, I pay them back a portion for each win. If they go undefeated in regular season, they get all their money back. If they win in postseason, they get paid the left over fees of the guys that didn’t win. So you better win. But if you win by enough to get bumped, well that ruins my team for next year, so any wins by 6-2 or worse get you no money back. Guys figure it out. They’re not stupid. That’s how I field an entire team of post season veterans at top of level each year. These other scrub teams don’t stand a chance. They’ll never have the basement full of banners and USTA medals that we have.
Click to expand...

This sounds transparent and players who sign up for this know what they're getting into. That being said the only thing that seems wrong is fixing/losing games. I was once part of a sectional team and it was a blast, but I remember at our celebration explaining it to our waitress and it sounded pretty unimpressive. A basement full of banners :) I think it's smart though to get a committment about going to sectionals or nationals...
 
BustedString said:
I trust the computer to put me at a competitive level and not let me ego put me in a higher level where I may bore my opponents.
Click to expand...
How altruistic of you! Sorry to hear that you bore your slightly higher-rate opponents. But, I don't have that problem. Fortunately, the NTRP offers a very narrow appeal range for those who desire more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wuornos
A volume based rating system
Replies
0
Views
2K
Wuornos
Wuornos
FiguringItOut
5 Months Off - Becoming Bionic
Replies
6
Views
700
FiguringItOut
FiguringItOut
Grafil Injection
Dunlop MaxPower vs MAX-150G
Replies
4
Views
961
Grafil Injection
Grafil Injection
NonP
Introducing True Groundstroke-Winning Percentage
Replies
46
Views
2K
NatF
NatF
Winner Sinner
Sinner Case; The president of the panel has been chosen: the judge for Sinner will be the former tennis player Radoux
Replies
2
Views
571
Oval_Solid
O
Back
Top