The dreaded EOY Rating thread
- Thread starter Brilliant
- Start date
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
That's true when you did your ratings report you had him at a 3.38 when he was 4-1. His other loss was at state 1-6, 2-6 but one of the guys he played is now a 4.0 the other is still 3.5 (but high rated according to tr a 3.43). His partner was a strong player had to appeal down to 3.5 but he is now a 3.5c.
Yes that is true. I see he also played some combo games which I didn't originally recognize. He won 61.9 percent of his games in his one 3.0 match. He won 57% of his games in his 8 matches at 3.5. But he only won 50.8% of games from his 3 6.5 combo matches.
It's just hard for me to say what a 3.0 is supposed to be since it is all the way to beginner.
TennisManiac
Hall of Fame
Posers
How about the 7 men and 2 women who have appealed from 4.5 up to 5.0, according to @schmke? Hard to imagine the thinking there. Possibly long-time 4.5's who just really wanted to finally achieve 5.0 as a trophy, or maybe long-time 5.0's who couldn't stand the ego blow of getting bumped down?
I'm curious what magnitude of denominator these are associated with. About how many men and women had a computer rating on December 1?
I always hit the appeal button every year including this year, even though I knew the odds of an appeal being granted were almost nil. Why not? If there is a rating anomaly that gifts you a free year as the best player in the league, why not take it?
GrassCourtFan
Legend
This is obvious nonsense. Of course it doesn't work.
If someone has a winning record while beating up on players at the bottom of their level, or even against players one level below playing up, that doesn't mean they should move up. If someone has a losing record while facing the best players in the league that doesn't mean they should be moved down.
This is doubly true for players that might have only 3-4 rated matches in a year, which might be in doubles.
This is me - I have been stuck at 4.5 for a decade and so want to appeal up, but never do it as it seems like cheating way of making it.
Do you have a 5.0 league in your area?
Yes, my area has a few 5.0 teams - some really solid players and thankfully some still will hit with 4.5 lifer on a regular basis
Jack the Hack
Hall of Fame
In past years, I have seen two local teaching pros that appealed up to 5.0 in order to keep it in their resume. Both were long time 5.0s that had gotten bumped down to 4.5. It wasn't about USTA League play as much as it was to market themselves.
We had the opposite in my area. We had a teaching pro who would beat you as a 3.0 then give you his business card for lessons.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
They don’t care about winning state or nationals in a skill limited league. In my own area the ratings are not really the best indicator of what group of players you fit in with.
for me at 3.0im not sure I want to spend a season trying to prove I am better then some guys that may have picked up a racquet for the first time a week ago. Life is short. I will play 3.0 and play up on my 3.5 team but I would rather play on 3.5 and play up with some better competition.
Just because tennis record or other rating systems don’t give the same predictions of skill as ntrp that doesn’t mean they are wrong. Ntrp has some big issues.
E.T.
Rookie
The USTA rating system isn’t some holy grail. It groups players together into levels to try and keep matches competitive. For players who play a lot of USTA sanctioned matches year round, with only low to moderate changes in playing level over the course of the year, it seems to do a reasonable job of determining what level is appropriate. There are also outliers and circumstances, especially when very few matches are played, that the computer can be off by .05-1.0 levels. This is why the appeal process exists. Sometimes even with appeals it doesn’t get corrected. It’s not a perfect system.
Additionally, some clubs are particular about grouping adult drills by level. If you are playing at a level above what a computer spits out based on old matches, and still actively improving rapidly, getting stuck in a lower level drill with no competition for another calendar year is a set back and a waste of time/money.
Last edited:
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
And of course just because a player has a certain rating, it doesn’t mean that he can’t produce a wide variance in level on the court.
I have a 4.5 rating. When I’m bad, I can lose to a 4.0. When I’m at my best, I can beat a 5.0. If I happen to beat up on a 5.0 in a league match, it doesn’t mean I’m sandbagging at 4.5, it just means I had a good day.
bobbybob14
Rookie
This makes total sense. I've been told by some teaching pros that they won't play USTA because if they were to get bumped down to say a 4.0 that it would be bad for business.
That’s why ratings need to have complete makeover!!! How do you get promoted with 2-18 record???? It’s reason USTA is a joke and glad I’m playing. Waste of time
Counts as 1 game (like it's listed in the results).
I'm sure you're not alone, but I think most of us have no way of knowing for sure how many people try the appeal button and fail vs. people who never try. And among those who never try, how many would be auto-accepted if they did? USTA must have those numbers, but the rest of us can only make educated guesses at best.
Borrowing data from @schmke blog, there are around 250,000 league players per year. I'll take that as a rough estimate of how many people have a rating that could be appealed in a given year. @schmke also says that in 2021, 4,107 people successfully appealed down and 2,335 successfully appealed up, so that's about 2.6% of players total who became A-rated up or down. Note this includes not only auto-appeals but also medical- or age-related appeals, written requests, etc.
But how many would be A-rated if every one of the 250,000 clicked the appeal button? We don't know the thresholds, but at a minimum we can assume that anyone whose to-the-hundredth year-end rating ends in .00, .01, .50, or .51 would definitely be granted an auto-appeal, because those would be right at the low-end or high-end border of a level. That's 4 of the 100 possible two-digit endings. If we assume each ending is about equally distributed, then about 4% of C-rated people could definitely auto-appeal successfully, which is already more than the 2.6% estimated above.
The auto-appeal thresholds are probably a bit wider than that, though. I think it's reasonable to assume that it's more like 10% of C-rated people who are in auto-appeal range (5% down and 5% up). That 10% eligible vs. 2.6% actual would mean there are thousands and thousands of players out there who could successfully auto-appeal their rating but never click the button. So I'd guess that people like me, who never hit the appeal button, are more common than people like @J_R_B who click it every year. Thoughts?
NumbersGuy
Rookie
You would also have to exclude from the denominator those players with 10 or more counted matches, as they are ineligible for appeal
silverwyvern4
Semi-Pro
???
NumbersGuy
Rookie
My understanding is that the appeal threshold shrinks by about 10% with the number of counted matches played, until at 10 matches played it has shrunk to zero. I think their theory is, the more matches played, the more accurate the rating.
I think the threshold could shrink with more matches played, but I doubt it ever goes to zero. It definitely doesn't go to zero at 10 matches played - I can see multiple guys in my area who successfully appealed down after playing more than 10. One of them played 27.
E.T.
Rookie
I had 10 matches and successfully appealed. I think it has more to do with the threshold of the dynamic rating (maybe .05, no idea of the actual number variance they use to grant auto appeals) than the amount of matches, although it’s possible they consider both. I also think singles are weighted more heavily into the dynamic rating than doubles.
NumbersGuy
Rookie
You sure they were 10 counted matches? Some won't count because they're in non-counted leagues, or because they're against self-rates who didn't receive a year-end rating, or Mixed league and it's a C rating being appealed, etc. I checked the 25 guys in my area who have successfully appealed so far, and all had fewer than 10 counted matches, except for 3 guys who are over 65 and get automatic appeals no matter how many matches.
Anyone else have insight to this question?
Anyone else have insight to this question?
I see a guy in his 40's who successfully appealed down, and he played 13 matches this year that were all in Adult 18+ and Adult 40+ leagues, including several District and Sectional playoff matches.
Found another couple of examples:
Guy in his 50's who got a 4.0C at year-end 2021 after playing 27 eligible matches that year, and he successfully appealed down to 3.5.
Guy in his 40's got a 3.5C at year-end 2019 after playing about 45 eligible matches, and he successfully appealed up to 4.0.
I think it's safe to say that you always have a nonzero chance of successful appeal no matter how many eligible matches you played, unless you are ineligible for some other reason (e.g. if you played at Nationals you might be ineligible to appeal down).
Guy in his 50's who got a 4.0C at year-end 2021 after playing 27 eligible matches that year, and he successfully appealed down to 3.5.
Guy in his 40's got a 3.5C at year-end 2019 after playing about 45 eligible matches, and he successfully appealed up to 4.0.
I think it's safe to say that you always have a nonzero chance of successful appeal no matter how many eligible matches you played, unless you are ineligible for some other reason (e.g. if you played at Nationals you might be ineligible to appeal down).
Moveforwardalways
Hall of Fame
The problem with appealing up is that it’s not all about you. Imagine you are the opponent. Let’s say you are a 4.0 player and you clear an already busy weeknight schedule for USTA league this week. You arrange childcare, put off other activities, etc, and drive 30 minutes to the courts for a fun tennis match. And you get there and wind up playing a 3.0 who appealed up to 3.5 and now is playing up at 4.0. This opponent cannot even hit match-level rally balls with you. Every time you hit a quality ball, they miss wildly. They cannot return your serve. Sure, you get an easy win. But it wasn’t fun, you got worse while playing the match, and it was a waste of your weeknight schedule.
You are correct. Life is short. Too short in fact for a 4.0 to spend time playing a sanctioned league match with a 3.0. As far as guys who just picked up a racquet a week ago, you need to prove you can beat them before you have the right to waste other people’s time. Here is some tennis truth - you are not the first person to think “I am truly better than my rating because I can hit practice ground strokes with better players at my club. No need to learn the match skills necessary to win at my current level.” Contrary to what you may think, ratings are very much an indicator of the group you fit in with.
The 10 match rule was the old rule which was replaced with a more dynamic rule maybe 5(?) years ago where there was one threshold and if your rating was within the threshold and you had <10 matches and you weren't B rated, you could appeal. Now, the threshold shrinks as you play more, but it appears that it never goes away completely with number of matches. Official B ratings were also eliminated, but I do think that if you played at nationals, you still cannot appeal down.
As per usual, there are head scratching decisions all over the place. A 4.0C guy (on a good team) who went 6-2 (40+) at 1D and 7-1 (18+) at 1S/2S AND 3-2 at 4.5 (40/18+) doesn't get moved up. Different 4.0s guy on a different (bad) team, goes 3-2 (40+) at 1S and 2-1 (18+) at 1S and gets moved up. The opponents 4.0s guy played (except one) all very low 4.0 or borderline 3.5 bump down types. His loss during 18+ was 2/3 to a guy who got bumped up to 4.5. Doesn't quite make sense.
5sets
Hall of Fame
Last edited:
!<-_->!
Hall of Fame
Mixed starts at the beginning of '23 and I have potential people for my roster that have a 2019 rating. LLC is saying these individuals should be able to self-rate again now, but they're getting an error message prompting them they already have a rating. Anyone able to shed some light on this? My understanding is that these folks won't be able to self rate again till Jan 1 since their 2019 ratings will remain active till the end of the year. Is this a correct understanding? Thanks.
time_fly
Hall of Fame
In our area, the established ladies‘ teams tend to be bigger than the mens’ teams and therefore there are fewer opportunities to play up than for the guys. When I talk to ladies who appeal up, they almost always feel that they won’t be allowed to play up on their home clubs’ teams.
E.T.
Rookie
Leave it up to the discretion of the captains to decide who is at an appropriate level to play on their teams. Here, the rosters are very full at both the 3.5 and 4.0 levels, and you aren’t getting asked to join teams unless a captain thinks you can win a court. Also, I have played against 4.0C players in house leagues and some of them have what I would consider dinker serves. Some of them have trouble getting a racquet on MY serves. Additionally, a low level 4.0 and a high level 3.5 are very close to the same level. There is a wide spectrum even within the same rating level. You talk about having to clear your schedule, getting bored etc., but often times a strong 4.0C team will blow out a low level 4.0C team and the match will be what some would consider boring and non competitive. That’s just the reality and something you have to accept when playing USTA.
To reiterate my original point, the rating system doesn’t always work for new and rapidly improving players with few USTA matches in their first year. Yes, if someone is truly a 3.0 in terms of actual ability then playing up in a 4.0 league doesn’t make sense. But the USTA rating algorithm is a computer and has its limitations when providing year end ratings. Sometimes appeals up move players into the level they should ACTUALLY be playing at. Same with appeals down.
Moveforwardalways
Hall of Fame
I have no problem with a high 3.5 playing up at 4.0 to get experience. But appealing up so you can then play up 2 levels is a different story.
E.T.
Rookie
But you are assuming that the year end ratings are always accurate to begin with, which they are not.
silverwyvern4
Semi-Pro
If my self rated player only played two matches before October 31, and he plays his 3rd match in January, will he have a dynamic rating? Or was he reset since he didn't play 3 matches in one season. Also, are his strikes reset to 0?
NumbersGuy
Rookie
I took a look at a broader swath of data and I think you're right. If you plot the number of successful appeals vs. number of matches played, it looks like the threshold shrinks linearly down to about 20% of its initial value once you get to 8 or 10 matches, then stays flat thereafter, or possibly declines very slowly.
He's not complaining when someone appeals up properly. He's clearly complaining bout people who do it improperly. Which is what happens more often than not with appeal ups.
Moveforwardalways
Hall of Fame
Agree. Are there rare cases of players who are inappropriately rated too low temporarily because they are improving quickly? I’m sure there are. But these are taken care of in the next rating cycle. And almost no one will complain about playing up 1 level for experience. But appealing up so you can play up 2 levels? I just don’t think A rated players should be allowed to play up.
Again, just imagine you are the opponent. Maybe the true 4.0 opponent is trying to get bumped up, but even by beating a true 3.0 by a score of 6-0 6-0 it tanks the 4.0’s dynamic rating.
dsp9753
Semi-Pro
In most of my USTA career I have given out more bagels/breadsticks to players playing up then having a competitive match.
It’s also not rare to see opposing captains to throw the players playing up on D1 etc so the other courts are more competitive or so they can win D2/D3 etc.
It’s also not rare to see opposing captains to throw the players playing up on D1 etc so the other courts are more competitive or so they can win D2/D3 etc.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
I wonder what percent of people that appeal up end up getting bumped down at year end.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
this is a problem that is caused by usta 1) not rating enough games and 2) having levels that are far too wide for men. It is also caused by people all thinking they are above average.
if you consider that the top 3.5 men compete with top 4.0 or even liw 4.5 females and they all get lumped into two groups 3.0 and 3.5 lots of people are going to be wasting their time. That’s why I’m always surprised people say they play usta to have competitive matches.
people act like mixed doubles is an entirely different game. But it actually is not that different then same gender doubles. But usta ignores that data and so the ratings are not accurate.
Per TR the 4.0C guy who didn't get bumped had a year end 3.96 and was over 4.0 a few times during the year. The 4.0S guy who got bumped had a year end 3.80 and was never above 3.85.
Probably not as high as you would expect because of how hard it is to get bumped down.
However, in my personal experience. The only two guys I know who appealed up both got bumped down when the new ratings came out. One was a 3.0C who appealed up to 3.5A. The second was a 3.5S who appealed up to 4.0S who finished as a 3.5C the next year.
schmke
Legend
Actually ...
My data is not necessarily perfectly complete in this area, but ...
I show there were 1,948 player that had a 2021 year-end C and appealed up and subsequently got a 2022 year-end C. Of these, 645 got a 2022 C that was lower than what they appealed up to. So a full third of these appeal ups came back down and could probably be considered inappropriate.
I'm not sure what @Creighton was thinking it would be, but a third is more than I would have thought.
For 2019 to 2021, the numbers are 2,443 and 729.
For 2018 to 2019, they are 2,018 and 630.
