The most likely court to be thrown is ...

[schmke]

With the data I have from estimating dynamic NTRP ratings, I decided to take a look at which courts the winning team in a match is most likely to win. The results are perhaps not that big a surprise (see http://computerratings.blogspot.com/2013/08/more-interesting-usta-league-stats.html for details) and probably confirmed some things you'd have guessed, but are interesting nonetheless.

It was interesting to see that the winning team in a match wins court 1 singles less frequently than court 2 singles, and court 1 doubles is won less frequently than court 2 or 3 doubles. This would seem to be an indication that winning teams don't always run their best players out on court 1 and are not afraid to stack court 2 singles and court 2 and 3 doubles with their best players as the way to win the team match. The other explanation might be that weaker teams still have superstars that can win their matches on court 1 even against what is a stronger team, but the lack of depth results in losses on courts 2 & 3 and a team loss.

What was also interesting is that court 1 singles is more likely to be lost than court 2 doubles, and even court 2 singles is more likely to be lost than court 2 doubles. This goes against the theory that winning teams do so with studs at singles, at least when looking at all matches. This might be different if just playoff matches were considered.

 

[OrangePower]

What was also interesting is that court 1 singles is more likely to be lost than court 2 doubles, and even court 2 singles is more likely to be lost than court 2 doubles. This goes against the theory that winning teams do so with studs at singles, at least when looking at all matches. This might be different if just playoff matches were considered.

I'm not sure that you can draw that conclusion. I think that regular season winning teams need at least one stud at singles. However, since that stud may alternate between court 1 and court 2, the stud's statistical impact is diluted by whoever then fills in on the court that stud isn't on.

Basically, you can never rely on sweeping dubs - you need to have one singles win basically guaranteed, and one dubs line guaranteed. Then chances are good that one of the remaining lines will come through for you for the team win.

And as you observed, I think in playoffs things change - you do need two singles studs, to compete against the other teams' singles studs

 

[Cindysphinx]

The other explanation might be that weaker teams still have superstars that can win their matches on court 1 even against what is a stronger team, but the lack of depth results in losses on courts 2 & 3 and a team loss.

Yes, I think that is it.

When I am captaining a strong team, I don't worry much about court assignments. I will usually put players who "need" a match on Court 1 or 2 so they don't wind up sitting out if the other team defaults.

When I am captaining a weak team, I don't often "stack." The reason is that weak players are resentful if they are "sacrificed," and it doesn't tend to work anyway. Not worth the drama.

 

[BeyondTheTape]

Call me Old-Fashioned during the Regular Season but i like to put my top 2 on ct 1.
I never liked putting the top pair on ct 2 because it leaves you in a sticky situation with ct 1. i always look at that strategy as giving up ct 1 for ct 2.

 

[CrocodileRock]

The reason is that weak players are resentful if they are "sacrificed," and it doesn't tend to work anyway. Not worth the drama.

I have been sacrificed many times, and done the sacrificing as captain a few times, and never once has anyone seemed to resent it. Remember, in team tennis, you should do what helps the team to advance, regardless of what happens to some of the individuals involved. Sometimes it just makes mathematical sense to line up that way. For example, when you know you can't beat the other team's #1 singles player, and you'd rather split the singles than lose both. If someone is playing for individual glory, they should forget team, and go play singles tournaments.

 

[Angle Queen]

It was interesting to see that the winning team in a match wins court 1 singles less frequently than court 2 singles, and court 1 doubles is won less frequently than court 2 or 3 doubles.

I've been saying this for years. In fact, my feelings on this strategy, particularly that you've gotta win #2 dubs, are/were so firm, I once calculated what percent of our district flight matches adhered to that theory. It was over 80%. Granted, it might have been an isolated circumstance and mayhap more acute on the ladies side.

Especially since USTA play does not require playing in order of strength, we often put/see the best pair at #2 dubs. For some teams I've played on, there was little difference between the top two doubles pairs and it became as much of a toss-up as to who played in which spot. On those same teams, though, we had the luxury of no/little egos...and no one felt they had to have that #1 by their name. We also had a nice contingent that didn't mind taking a turn at being sacrificed...and sometimes, they stepped up their play, not always for the win...but sometimes so and it buoyed and inspired the entire team.

And certainly, from a do/don't stacking perspective, I think a captain should run out their best players at #2 singles and #2 & #3 dubs. Here's my 10-cent analysis on why: if the other team stacks as well, you've got your best players against theirs...and you hope to win mano-a-mano. Always a good feeling. If the opponents play it straight up, you've got your best against their weaker ones and you hope to win with overall team strategy.

Lone singles stud not required, IMHO. Just 5 really good players which ain't always easy to acquire.