TLS Rating vs Tennisrecords

[schmke]

@schmke what percentage of guys bumped to 5.0 are 40+ 4.5+ players?

So many guys here are getting bumped to 5.0 who can't even hack it on court 1 in 18+ 4.5.

J

470 2016 YE 4.5s bumped to 2017 YE 5.0. Of these, 256 played 40 & Over.

 

[J011yroger]

I really wish it weren't true.

I have a few on my 3.5 team that I think have a high likelihood of getting bumped down to 3.0 at end of season. They would be competitive at that level but are not at 3.5. One had been bumped down at EOY 2017 then appealed back up and is a 3.5A. She is currently 0-15 YTD 2018 and said she would never play at 3.0 because she is just too good for that. SMH girl, go play there and maybe you could win 50% of your matches. (she also shopped for a 4.0 team but thankfully no captain would take her)

Gotta get tired of hearing her throw her partners under the bus.

J

 

[J011yroger]

470 2016 YE 4.5s bumped to 2017 YE 5.0. Of these, 256 played 40 & Over.

Just over half, not as many as I thought. Maybe Eastern is an anomaly.

J

 

[J011yroger]

470 2016 YE 4.5s bumped to 2017 YE 5.0. Of these, 256 played 40 & Over.

Thanks for running the calculation!

J

 

[schmke]

Just over half, not as many as I thought. Maybe Eastern is an anomaly.

J

My data shows Eastern is slightly under 50% of the 4.5->5.0 bumps having played 40 & Over. Now, I am only looking at those with 2016 YE 4.5s. If they were self-rated or had an earlier 4.5C, I'm not counting them in the numerator or denominator.

 

[OrangePower]

If you appeal down only to play up, you are either just wanting more playing opportunities, or are perhaps sandbagging knowing you can and should play at the higher level but join a "Dynasty Team" at the lower level.

I know quite a few players like this that appealed down, and are now playing at both levels.
There are several 4.5A players in our local league (one on my team, and several on other teams) who were 5.0s last year, appealed down, and are now cleaning up at 4.5 while also doing ok at 5.0.
And then I have two players on my 4.5 team that appealed down to 4.0A and are still playing a few matches for us while killing it on a 4.0 team that is poised to make a deep playoff run.
Is it sandbagging? Not sure - if it's all being done by the book, then it's maybe USTA's fault for being too lenient with appeals. But definitely all these guys are dominating at their appeal level.

 

[kevrol]

I know quite a few players like this that appealed down, and are now playing at both levels.
There are several 4.5A players in our local league (one on my team, and several on other teams) who were 5.0s last year, appealed down, and are now cleaning up at 4.5 while also doing ok at 5.0.
And then I have two players on my 4.5 team that appealed down to 4.0A and are still playing a few matches for us while killing it on a 4.0 team that is poised to make a deep playoff run.
Is it sandbagging? Not sure - if it's all being done by the book, then it's maybe USTA's fault for being too lenient with appeals. But definitely all these guys are dominating at their appeal level.

I try this every year. Sadly every year my appeal is denied.

 

[Philip Stromer]

There are 2 sites calculating NTRP ratings currently and I am seeing different rating results for the same player. Which site's numbers do you think is more accurate?

Each site is useful and "fair" since it runs all players through the same algorithm, so it's accurate in its own self-contained universe. What most people aren't aware of regarding USTA, is that year-end benchmarks account for a full 50% of your year-end rating. This is to ensure that a 4.0 in Florida is the same as a 4.0 in Wyoming. If Florida 4.0 wins at nationals, all the Florida 4.0s will have their rating marginally increased. Conversely, if Wyoming 4.0 does poorly at nationals, all 4.0 Wyoming players will have their benchmark pushed down a bit. My conclusion: TLS and TennisRecord are useful for comparing player a with player b as to which is the stronger player, but neither is all that useful in predicting USTA year-end ratings.

 

[winchestervatennis]

Each site is useful and "fair" since it runs all players through the same algorithm, so it's accurate in its own self-contained universe. What most people aren't aware of regarding USTA, is that year-end benchmarks account for a full 50% of your year-end rating. This is to ensure that a 4.0 in Florida is the same as a 4.0 in Wyoming. If Florida 4.0 wins at nationals, all the Florida 4.0s will have their rating marginally increased. Conversely, if Wyoming 4.0 does poorly at nationals, all 4.0 Wyoming players will have their benchmark pushed down a bit. My conclusion: TLS and TennisRecord are useful for comparing player a with player b as to which is the stronger player, but neither is all that useful in predicting USTA year-end ratings.

I'm not saying you’re wrong, but where are you getting that 50% number? And how exactly does a benchmark effect a player’s rating?

 

[Vox Rationis]

Each site is useful and "fair" since it runs all players through the same algorithm, so it's accurate in its own self-contained universe. What most people aren't aware of regarding USTA, is that year-end benchmarks account for a full 50% of your year-end rating. This is to ensure that a 4.0 in Florida is the same as a 4.0 in Wyoming. If Florida 4.0 wins at nationals, all the Florida 4.0s will have their rating marginally increased. Conversely, if Wyoming 4.0 does poorly at nationals, all 4.0 Wyoming players will have their benchmark pushed down a bit. My conclusion: TLS and TennisRecord are useful for comparing player a with player b as to which is the stronger player, but neither is all that useful in predicting USTA year-end ratings.

I've always heard benchmarks affect your rating at the end of the year but never heard anyone quote a specific % before. Where does 50% come from?

And does that work the same at the Sectional level? Or if a team wins nationals, every district in it's section gets the same bump?

 

[J_R_B]

I know quite a few players like this that appealed down, and are now playing at both levels.
There are several 4.5A players in our local league (one on my team, and several on other teams) who were 5.0s last year, appealed down, and are now cleaning up at 4.5 while also doing ok at 5.0.
And then I have two players on my 4.5 team that appealed down to 4.0A and are still playing a few matches for us while killing it on a 4.0 team that is poised to make a deep playoff run.
Is it sandbagging? Not sure - if it's all being done by the book, then it's maybe USTA's fault for being too lenient with appeals. But definitely all these guys are dominating at their appeal level.

A rated players are subject to dynamic DQ, so if they dominate their lower level and are also 0.500 at the higher level, odds are that they will be DQ'd eventually. It is harder to be DQ'd as an A-rate than an S-rate because a lot of S-rate DQ's happen because a player puts up a huge rating in their first match that they never really recover from, whereas an A-rate still has a dynamic computer rating from the previous year that has to be (by definition) at or near the rating level boundary that is used to average with match ratings that will mitigate the effect of the initial high rating that the S-rate won't have. Nevertheless, A-rates can be DQ'd, especially if they are still playing up as well.

 

[J011yroger]

A rated players are subject to dynamic DQ, so if they dominate their lower level and are also 0.500 at the higher level, odds are that they will be DQ'd eventually. It is harder to be DQ'd as an A-rate than an S-rate because a lot of S-rate DQ's happen because a player puts up a huge rating in their first match that they never really recover from, whereas an A-rate still has a dynamic computer rating from the previous year that has to be (by definition) at or near the rating level boundary that is used to average with match ratings that will mitigate the effect of the initial high rating that the S-rate won't have. Nevertheless, A-rates can be DQ'd, especially if they are still playing up as well.

I'm sure I would have been DQed if I were an A.

If I don't get bumped after this year they are going to be outside of USTA headquarters with torches and pitchforks.

J

 

[OrangePower]

A rated players are subject to dynamic DQ, so if they dominate their lower level and are also 0.500 at the higher level, odds are that they will be DQ'd eventually. It is harder to be DQ'd as an A-rate than an S-rate because a lot of S-rate DQ's happen because a player puts up a huge rating in their first match that they never really recover from, whereas an A-rate still has a dynamic computer rating from the previous year that has to be (by definition) at or near the rating level boundary that is used to average with match ratings that will mitigate the effect of the initial high rating that the S-rate won't have. Nevertheless, A-rates can be DQ'd, especially if they are still playing up as well.

Agree with what you are saying in terms of A rated players being subject to DQ etc; however, my admittedly anecdotal evidence with a handful of A rated guys (a few 4.5A who also play 5.0, and a few 4.0A who also play 4.5) is that it takes *a lot* to get DQ'd as an A rated player.
Actual examples, none of which have been DQ'd:
4.5A; 9-1 at 4.5 including breadstick singles wins over a couple of strong 4.5s; 2-1 at 5.0
4.5A; 11-2 at 4.5. However both losses were against 5.0s (40& over 4.5+), and two wins were against 5.0s. 1-2 in 5.0 league.
4.0A; 6-2 at 4.0 (one of the losses to another 4.0A, the other to a 4.5S); 3-1 at 4.5
4.0A; 12-2 at 4.0; 3-2 at 4.5
Of course W/L isn't the whole story etc, but I know these players and would have bet than each would have been DQ's... I would have been wrong on all counts

 

[Philip Stromer]

Here is a USTA doc explaining how the benchmarks are calculated: http://assets.usta.com/assets/558/Microsites/dps/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_90_106.pdf. I learned about this from Gail Marx, USTA National League Administrator.

 

[winchestervatennis]

Here is a USTA doc explaining how the benchmarks are calculated: http://assets.usta.com/assets/558/Microsites/dps/usta_master/usta/doc/content/doc_90_106.pdf. I learned about this from Gail Marx, USTA National League Administrator.

Its old, but an interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

 

[OnTheLine]

It is an interesting reead, however, I am 99% certain that USTA got rid of the benchmark rating several years ago.

I believe they still give regions/districts a bit of a nudge up if the area did well in post season and a bit of a nudge down if they did poorly but I certainly don't know the metrics.

 

[Philip Stromer]

Its old, but an interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

It’s a decade old, but doesn’t the fact it’s still posted on the USTA website mean it’s still in effect? I believe it’s still the same today, it’s the USTA’s way of making sure a 3.5 in Florida is the same as a 3.5 in Colorado.

 

[winchestervatennis]

It is an interesting reead, however, I am 99% certain that USTA got rid of the benchmark rating several years ago.

I believe they still give regions/districts a bit of a nudge up if the area did well in post season and a bit of a nudge down if they did poorly but I certainly don't know the metrics.

I think you’re right they got rid of identifying a player as a benchmark rated player. For example i went to Maryland districts in 2010 and I remember seeing i had a “B” rating that year. That was my first year in USTA league so i had no clue what it meant.

But i would guess they kept the concept of benchmarking a certain group of players. Maybe @schmke could be so kind as to clarify his understanding?

 

[Philip Stromer]

They definitely stopped showing “B” with ratings, but I think that was the only change. The benchmarking concept is still in use (I think). I used to chat with Gail Marx and David Schobel (USTA National League Director) and pick their brains for everything they were willing to share. Both have since retired after 30+ years on the job, so I’m out of the loop now.

 

[Vox Rationis]

I believe it's correct that they stopped showing it but that it's still in use. I had a benchmark rating last year.

 

[schmke]

I think you’re right they got rid of identifying a player as a benchmark rated player. For example i went to Maryland districts in 2010 and I remember seeing i had a “B” rating that year. That was my first year in USTA league so i had no clue what it meant.

But i would guess they kept the concept of benchmarking a certain group of players. Maybe @schmke could be so kind as to clarify his understanding?

Still do the calculation, but no more "B" designation of a year-end level.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

This is to ensure that a 4.0 in Florida is the same as a 4.0 in Wyoming.

While this is an admirable goal, the USTA rating system does not even come close to this. If this was true, you would see an even distribution of winners at nationals, sectionals, etc. Wyoming would be holding that trophy just as often as Florida or New England or NorCal. We all know this isn’t true though, and winning nationals essentially rotates through the same sections year after year depending on which one of those sections is marginally stronger that year. That’s why you never hear teams from Atlanta or South Florida complaining about all those sandbaggers in Macon or Panama City. It’s always the other way around - because “they must be sandbagging”. But no, the answer is that a 4.0 is certain areas just isn’t the same as in other areas.

 

[schmke]

While this is an admirable goal, the USTA rating system does not even come close to this. If this was true, you would see an even distribution of winners at nationals, sectionals, etc. Wyoming would be holding that trophy just as often as Florida or New England or NorCal. We all know this isn’t true though, and winning nationals essentially rotates through the same sections year after year depending on which one of those sections is marginally stronger that year. That’s why you never hear teams from Atlanta or South Florida complaining about all those sandbaggers in Macon or Panama City. It’s always the other way around - because “they must be sandbagging”. But no, the answer is that a 4.0 is certain areas just isn’t the same as in other areas.

Not entirely true.

Part (not all) of the reason certain areas win more is they have more players to draw from and so it is easier and more natural for a single team to get a lot of strong players for their level. Smaller areas, like Wyoming from your example, just don't have enough players, at some levels they often just have two teams and even putting all the best players on one team, there is just not enough depth of strong players for these teams to compete against other teams from their section (Denver and Salt Lake City in this case normally) that do have more players to draw from.

These larger areas also have a higher level of competition on a regular basis due to more play against the larger pool of strong players which prepares players for Nationals better, and forces the team that advances to Districts/State/Sectionals to have improved and no longer be "4.0". Other sections where the competition isn't as fierce are not tested or force to improve to make it to Nationals.

Throw in the shenanigans that can take place with managing ratings, and it is correct that when it comes to Nationals, all 4.0s are not created equal. But I believe the NTRP system does a fairly decent job of ensuring the "average" 4.0 is relatively the same across sections. Those players at Nationals are not "average" 4.0s.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

One had been bumped down at EOY 2017 then appealed back up and is a 3.5A. She is currently 0-15 YTD 2018 and said she would never play at 3.0 because she is just too good for that. SMH girl, go play there and maybe you could win 50% of your matches. (she also shopped for a 4.0 team but thankfully no captain would take her)

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."

How many of those losses were singles? It would be interesting how she rationalizes those losses vs doubles [which she can blame on her partner].

Were any of her matches close? Against high-rated 3.5 players?

Giving her the benefit of the doubt on every variable, one might be able to make the case that she still belonged at 3.5. But it's not very likely.

 

[J011yroger]

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."

How many of those losses were singles? It would be interesting how she rationalizes those losses vs doubles [which she can blame on her partner].

Were any of her matches close? Against high-rated 3.5 players?

Giving her the benefit of the doubt on every variable, one might be able to make the case that she still belonged at 3.5. But it's not very likely.

I know a few people who have never lost a match.

J

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I know a few people who have never lost a match.

J

What are some of the best excuses you've heard?

 

[OnTheLine]

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."

How many of those losses were singles? It would be interesting how she rationalizes those losses vs doubles [which she can blame on her partner].

Were any of her matches close? Against high-rated 3.5 players?

Giving her the benefit of the doubt on every variable, one might be able to make the case that she still belonged at 3.5. But it's not very likely.

In her case nearly all singles. Scorelines average (per TR) 2.42 games she won per set in singles, 3.47 in doubles. She is now 0-17. 11 singles, 6 doubles.

She to her credit never gives any sort of excuse whatsoever to justify any loss.

 

[OnTheLine]

What are some of the best excuses you've heard?

The one I used last week when I played like poop:
Man, I couldn't get out of my own head today, sorry for giving you a weak match

Best excuse have ever heard:
Its really a tie because they are so similar ... and not from the same person:
"I took too many B vitamins"
"I had too much of this new energy drink ... here try it"

 

[J011yroger]

What are some of the best excuses you've heard?

The loss was blamed on a squirrel.

J

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The loss was blamed on a squirrel.

J

Well, they are rather fickle doubles partners...

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

In her case nearly all singles. Scorelines average (per TR) 2.42 games she won per set in singles, 3.47 in doubles. She is now 0-17. 11 singles, 6 doubles.

She to her credit never gives any sort of excuse whatsoever to justify any loss.

Interesting: if she never makes excuses, that means she recognizes her competition is better. But then how is there a disconnect between that and moving down being appropriate? How does she think she's too good for 3.0 when she's getting hammered at 3.5?

 

[travlerajm]

After my usta 8.0 mixed match last night, my 4.5 opponent ( hard hitting alpha male type oblivious to nuances of mixed doubles strategy) blamed his lopsided loss on too many balls hit to his 3.5 partner, claiming it was a handicap for him to have to play with a 3.5 ( never mind that there were two 3.5 gals on the court ).

My response: well, actually, in mixed, it’s a big advantage to have the strongest player on the court.

Him: that wasn’t true tonight!

Me: (I wanted to say: are you sure about that? But I held my tongue).

 

[winchestervatennis]

After my usta 8.0 mixed match last night, my 4.5 opponent ( hard hitting alpha male type oblivious to nuances of mixed doubles strategy) blamed his lopsided loss on too many balls hit to his 3.5 partner, claiming it was a handicap for him to have to play with a 3.5 ( never mind that there were two 3.5 gals on the court ).

My response: well, actually, in mixed, it’s a big advantage to have the strongest player on the court.

Him: that wasn’t true tonight!

Me: (I wanted to say: are you sure about that? But I held my tongue).

He’s playing 8.0 mixed and he’s 4.5 and he was upset about having to play with a 3.5. Apparently math is not his strong suit.

 

[OnTheLine]

Interesting: if she never makes excuses, that means she recognizes her competition is better. But then how is there a disconnect between that and moving down being appropriate? How does she think she's too good for 3.0 when she's getting hammered at 3.5?

I don't have a degree in abnormal psych, so cannot hazzard a guess.

And after today ... Now 0-18 with a fresh double-bagel to add to the record.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

He’s playing 8.0 mixed and he’s 4.5 and he was upset about having to play with a 3.5. Apparently math is not his strong suit.

Maybe he's decimal point challenged.

 

[OnTheLine]

Maybe he's decimal point challenged.

No that would be me. Somehow got talked into playing on a 8.5 mixed team (weird summer league here). I have no business being on this team. Why on earth did I say yes? Why did I get asked on this team? Why oh why am I being put on line 1?

Paired with a 4.0 partner, we are a full 1.0 NTRP too low, yet, we are keeping the scoreline respectable (losing 2s, 3s and 4s last 2 weeks) but it is taking every ounce of any skill or capability I have. To know that there is nothing I can do any better to have a shot at winning is a exercise of pure futility. (add to it that it seems every damn ball comes to me every time does not help). Turns out that I prefer winning to losing.

 

[J011yroger]

No that would be me. Somehow got talked into playing on a 8.5 mixed team (weird summer league here). I have no business being on this team. Why on earth did I say yes? Why did I get asked on this team? Why oh why am I being put on line 1?

Paired with a 4.0 partner, we are a full 1.0 NTRP too low, yet, we are keeping the scoreline respectable (losing 2s, 3s and 4s last 2 weeks) but it is taking every ounce of any skill or capability I have. To know that there is nothing I can do any better to have a shot at winning is a exercise of pure futility. (add to it that it seems every damn ball comes to me every time does not help). Turns out that I prefer winning to losing.

Keeps you humble!

At least that's the lie I tell myself.

J

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

No that would be me. Somehow got talked into playing on a 8.5 mixed team (weird summer league here). I have no business being on this team. Why on earth did I say yes? Why did I get asked on this team? Why oh why am I being put on line 1?

Paired with a 4.0 partner, we are a full 1.0 NTRP too low, yet, we are keeping the scoreline respectable (losing 2s, 3s and 4s last 2 weeks) but it is taking every ounce of any skill or capability I have. To know that there is nothing I can do any better to have a shot at winning is a exercise of pure futility. (add to it that it seems every damn ball comes to me every time does not help). Turns out that I prefer winning to losing.

Well, on the bright side, you're being pushed out of your comfort zone so that when you play at a lower level, you'll be that much better prepared!

And you're now better at decimals; win/win!

 

[OnTheLine]

Well, on the bright side, you're being pushed out of your comfort zone so that when you play at a lower level, you'll be that much better prepared!

I wish this were true. But it is absolutely a lie. When I switch back from playing 4.0 womens or 8.0 now 8.5 mixed and play 3.5 I am suddenly struggling with the slower paced, flat balls. These were not a problem before I played the higher levels, but now I am making the dumbest errors at 3.5, while doing fine at 4.0.

I think I need to play fewer matches for a while and just go hit.

Girl is frustrated.

 

[time_fly]

I wish this were true. But it is absolutely a lie. When I switch back from playing 4.0 womens or 8.0 now 8.5 mixed and play 3.5 I am suddenly struggling with the slower paced, flat balls

"I just figured out why you give me so much trouble"
"Why is that, do you think?"
"Well I haven't fought just one person in so long ..."

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

"I just figured out why you give me so much trouble"
"Why is that, do you think?"
"Well I haven't fought just one person in so long ..."

"I do not envy the headache you will have when you awake but until then, sleep well and dream of large women."

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I wish this were true. But it is absolutely a lie. When I switch back from playing 4.0 womens or 8.0 now 8.5 mixed and play 3.5 I am suddenly struggling with the slower paced, flat balls. These were not a problem before I played the higher levels, but now I am making the dumbest errors at 3.5, while doing fine at 4.0.

I think I need to play fewer matches for a while and just go hit.

Girl is frustrated.

I know what you mean: I lost to a big serve/big FH opponent and then switched gears to a slow-pace opponent and buried multiple shots in the net.

 

[soki]

Well I just finished my first season of USTA playing 4.5 (self-related of course) with an amazing 0-7 record. TR has me at 3.92 and TLS at 3.90 so it would take a miracle for me to have a year-end rating of 4.5C. With that said, after reading a bit about benchmark players a few posts up, I wonder if I will be affected. There is one team in my flight that is very serious about going to nationals and their captain has recruited players from all over the state (fresh ex-college players) to self-rate at 4.5 and destroy everyone else. If they do end up going to nationals and winning some matches, maybe my rating will be bumped up a bit?

 

[travlerajm]

I put some work in this week. These ratings sites are going to explode when they update.

J

I just peeked at your TR.com record.

Your 2018 singles record is 6-0 with average match rating of 4.61.
Your 2018 doubles average rating for 6 matches is 4.28. Mixed 4.24.

That's a pretty big gap. You are developing into a singles badass, giving you an obvious path to 5.0 bump-up if you want to take it.

 

[J011yroger]

I just peeked at your TR.com record.

Your 2018 singles record is 6-0 with average match rating of 4.61.
Your 2018 doubles average rating is 4.28. Mixed 4.24.

It seems you are developing into a singles badass, giving you an obvious path to 5.0 bump-up if you want to take it.

Pretty impressive to be winning 10.0 matches with a 5.0 partner if I'm a 4.24...

J

 

[travlerajm]

Pretty impressive to be winning 10.0 matches with a 5.0 partner if I'm a 4.24...

J

Your TR singles and men's doubles ratings are based on this year's results, but your mixed rating is based on last year's record because you played a self-rated opponent with no record in your only 2018 mixed match. If you have improved your mixed skills, your rating should go up with more matches.

 

[J011yroger]

Your TR singles and men's doubles ratings are based on this year's results, but your mixed rating is based on last year's record because you played a self-rated opponent with no record in your only 2018 mixed match. If you have improved your mixed skills, your rating should go up with more matches.

Or option B the site isn't exactly accurate...

J

 

[travlerajm]

Or option B the site isn't exactly accurate...

J

UTR already gave you a singles bump up.

 

[J011yroger]

UTR already gave you a singles bump up.

Don't get me started on UTR.

I'll be an 11 once I start playing tournaments again next month.

J

 

[Nostradamus]

I was just checking the Dynamic rating in Tennisrecord.com and I think I am in danger of being bumped down which is a problem for my team. I played 2 playoff match during summer and lost one of those kind of bad. I played both matches injured because our team was short handed for the playoffs which turned out to be a mistake. Since I don't play ton of matches to begin with and those 2 bad loses is what might dynamic rating to fall off the cliff. It is like 3.81 according to Tennisrecord.com. Since we don't have lots of guys on our 4.5 team, I really need to stay 4.5 rated and not get bumped down.

if I do get bumped down and I don't get that dynamic rating up during next 2 month, what are my chances of appeal ? I have been 4.5 computer rated for like 15 plus years. LOL. Is it easier to appeal if you are appealing up ?