USTA 2010 Ratings Bump - Playing Up a Level = More likely to be bumped

[Islandtennis]

I understand your point, but you don't control your age. Your parents were to blame.

Obesity is largely due to taking in too many calories, more so than genetics or lack of exercise. There are numerous studies than conclude this point. America is the most obese

I don't assume that older people are slower on the court as they get older. I know for a fact the average person will slow as they age. The evidence is clear when you look at age brackets of runners. Look at the times of 5K, 10K, and marathons. It is clear people in their 20s & 30s are faster as a group than people in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

In the tennis playing population, while you and I may be faster than someone half our ages, we are not the norm.

We're not talking pure 40 time, we're talking tennis playing ability. The 4.0 sixty year old may be a former 5.5 college player and the 20 year old 4.0 may have been a 3.5 last year. With due respect, I know a 70+ year old down the street that could beat you like a drum G4. He is technically a 4.0 but would be competitive with almost any 4.0 in the area on a tennis court.

 

[pennc94]

I don't think the algorithm should adjust for age. I'm almost 50, but there are players decades younger I can beat because I have better strokes and movement. Why assume that the mere fact that someone is older means they will be slower around the court? Given the obesity levels in this country, perhaps the USTA algorithm should adjust for BMI instead.

I think generally an older player with X.X rating would not be as good a player as a younger X.X rated player. There will be exceptions, but this is generally my experience. Of course it also depends on whether you are a doubles specialist or not. I know several older players who I could destroy at singles, but they hold their own in doubles. Problem is that older players play both senior and adult. They get bumped up due to senior play and then get outgunned in adult.

Not to open another can of worms, but there is also a difference in a male player with X.X rating and a female X.X rated player. Again, there will be exceptions, but this is generally my experience.

Tencap does address both age and sex, so it appears to be a bit more specific than NTRP. I guess if tencap added another element for doubles versus singles play, then we might have it all.

 

[SweetH2O]

I guess if tencap added another element for doubles versus singles play, then we might have it all.

The Tencap league around here gives you two ratings, one for doubles and one for singles. I assume it's the same for all Tencap leagues.

 

[SweetH2O]

And other than maybe handicapping your rating when first self-rating, I don't know that your age affect your rating in Tencap either. It seems like your Tencap rating is purely results oriented like NTRP.

 

[g4driver]

We're not talking pure 40 time, we're talking tennis playing ability. The 4.0 sixty year old may be a former 5.5 college player and the 20 year old 4.0 may have been a 3.5 last year. With due respect, I know a 70+ year old down the street that could beat you like a drum G4. He is technically a 4.0 but would be competitive with almost any 4.0 in the area on a tennis court.

I get your point. There are very good players in their 70s who can and will beat 20 year olds due to ability.

But there is no respect from you to me in your statement to me. It's shallow to make the comment that you know a 70+ year old that could beat me like a drum, considering you know very little about me. You've never seen me play 3.5s, 4.0s, or 4.5s. You don't have a clue about me, and yet you make a comment with absolute assertion.

I think the USTA NRTP model is dated. The co-author of the NTRP, and former USTA President thinks so too.

I guess Google should have never started since Yahoo was the absolute king of search engines. How could there every be anything better than Yahoo? :-?

 

[g4driver]

And other than maybe handicapping your rating when first self-rating, I don't know that your age affect your rating in Tencap either. It seems like your Tencap rating is purely results oriented like NTRP.

http://my.tencaptennis.com/help/video.aspx?size=medium&video=Tencap_Ratings_Explained

 

[SlapShot]

I'm an unusual exception to the "play up, get bumped" rule from what I've found.

I played 4.0 for 4 seasons as a 3.5, with a winning record overall, and multiple 3 set losses. Finally was bumped to 4.0 during the 2009 ESR time. At that time, I started playing up to 4.5 (while still playing 4.0) with competitive results (a couple of 3 setters, one won and one lost, and a few 6-3, 6-4 losses), and I'm still a 4.0. I don't mind that at all, but I do intend to continue playing up, and if my results warrant a bump at some point, then so be it.

I think there is something else that factors in....or I'm just climbing a big NTRP hill.

 

[g4driver]

I guess if tencap added another element for doubles versus singles play, then we might have it all.

Tencap does give different ratings for singles and doubles.

 

[SweetH2O]

I'm not sure if you are trying to prove me wrong or agreeing.

In the video they say they take age and gender into account but then talk the rest of the time about how ratings are calculated based on results. The NTRP/Tencap equivalency chart shows gender differences but nothing for age. They do show that they ask for your age during when first self-rating like I said. The rest is smoke and mirrors math by the computer behind the scenes.

 

[g4driver]

I'm not sure if you are trying to prove me wrong or agreeing.

In the video they say they take age and gender into account but then talk the rest of the time about how ratings are calculated based on results. The NTRP/Tencap equivalency chart shows gender differences but nothing for age. They do show that they ask for your age during when first self-rating like I said. The rest is smoke and mirrors math by the computer behind the scenes.

I'm simply providing a link to explain how the system works.

Often, people don't have an agenda other that to try to get more information or provide it. That was my intent. Provide information.

TenCap provides more information about their algorithm than the USTA provides about theirs. I think TenCap's algorithm makes more sense from what I can see. The co-author of the NTRP agrees. I may well be wrong, but when the co-author of the NTRP system thinks TenCap is a better system, well, you be the judge of that statement.

Yahoo was unseated as the most popular search engine due to the algorithm they created to provide more accurate results.

Time will tell if Tencap does the same the USTA's NTRP system.

 

[SweetH2O]

Thanks for the info, g4driver. Nice edit, btw... :wink:

 

[g4driver]

The edit was just to remove my comment that age is initially factored in. I just thought the link is self-explanatory.

No worries at all.

 

[g4driver]

FYI and I've been told by many with the USTA NTRP that 4 games is considered competitive. 6-2 6-2, 6-1 6-3, 6-4 6-0.

So if this is true, a 3.5 who loses 2&2 to a 4.0 gets a Dynamic Rating bump.

Yet if the same 3.5 player beats another 3.5 by the same score 2&2, there is little movement on either of 3.5's Dynamic Ratings since the match was "competitive"

Is this what your are saying?

That explains why a 3.5 player can go 2-5 at the 3.5 level, and 1-9 at 4.0 and get bumped up.

If what you are writing is true, the 3.5 doesn't get any Dynamic Ratings movement if his 3.5 matches are "competitive", yet he gets a bump by getting 4 games off a 4.0.

 

[Islandtennis]

I get your point. There are very good players in their 70s who can and will beat 20 year olds due to ability.

But there is no respect from you to me in your statement to me. It's shallow to make the comment that you know a 70+ year old that could beat me like a drum, considering you know very little about me. You've never seen me play 3.5s, 4.0s, or 4.5s. You don't have a clue about me, and yet you make a comment with absolute assertion.
:-?

I didn't mean to disrespect you. I was just going off how you had described yourself in the past as a player and the type of record you had. The point was that while age can have an effect on the physical abilities, the NTRP takes into account actual match scores of tennis matches played and that there is not a direct linear correlation between age and ability. The NTRP is not perfect, but adding age to the algorithm is an unneeded variable that would make it worse. The USTA wants (and needs) competitive matches, not age divisions.

I agree that there are more 4.5's in their 30's and 40's than in their 60's, but a guy who is 65 and plays competitively with a 35 year old 4.0 should be a 4.0 not rated down to 3.5 just because he is 65.

 

[g4driver]

Islandtennis, Thanks for the post.

So should "3.5" player, be able to get scores like 2 & 3 against 4.5s on a regular basis?

And if the USTA wants (and needs) competitive matches, and not age divisions, why does the USTA have Adult, Senior and Super Senior Divisions? Why not just let the let the 25 year's play in Adult, Senior and Super Senior Divisions? Why does the USTA only allow 59 year olds to play in all three divisions, yet the 25 year old can only play Adult?

I played 4.0 competitively for ten years. I'm playing better now than I was in 1999. My local league didn't count 6 of my Fall Wins this year, nor any of my flex league wins. Math isn't emotional or subjective, but algorithms are programs with assigned values. Google in the opinion of most created the best algorithm to provide better search results. Since the USTA doesn't reveal much about their algorithm, we are left to speculate.

I think if your are playing the same level, same gender USTA match anytime during the year, the match should be factored into your NTRP, but local leagues don't always do this. Pick any date to start that you want then use 365 (Nov 1, through Oct 31st) or a 331 day period (Jan 1 through Nov 29) and count the matches within that period. Use the KISS Principle. Keep everyone on the same page. If you play a USTA match, count it.

I played 12 USTA matches against 3.5 men this year that didn't count and only eight matches that did count. The USTA useed 40% of my 20 USTA matches in my year-end rating. 100% of those matches were in Feb and Mar, after two back surgeries and nearly a ten year break. By March 2010, I had been on the court eight months at this point. 60% of my matches (Aug-Nov) did NOT factor into my NTRP, yet this is the USTA and local leagues policy.

I stand my assertion that the USTA's model is partially broken in parts of the country. I see TenCap gaining ground, but do I see the USTA changing their algorithm. No, not I don't.

 

[g4driver]

I agree that there are more 4.5's in their 30's and 40's than in their 60's, but a guy who is 65 and plays competitively with a 35 year old 4.0 should be a 4.0 not rated down to 3.5 just because he is 65.

We agree on this and I don't advocate moving anyone anywhere based on age.

If anything, I think TenCap's algorithm would give older player's a better "handicap" than a younger player. The younger player is expected to be faster than the older player. It doesn't make sense to provide the younger player with a slight "bonus" due to age, but rather to give to a slight "bonus" to an older player to account for speed and to even out the starting point.

I will be happy to email them and ask the question though. I'm curious, but I suspect the older you are the "bigger" the age bonus you would get.

 

[OrangePower]

A rating should be purely an indicator of expected result, so that two people with the same rating should be competitive with one another. Age should not be a factor.

But there definitely should be a different rating for singles and doubles. Some people have a skill set that lends itself better to one or the other, whether because of age or various other factors.

 

[g4driver]

A rating should be purely an indicator of expected result, so that two people with the same rating should be competitive with one another. Age should not be a factor.

I agree with you completely. But does the current USTA do what you just stated?

And wouldn't you love to know the USTA's definition of "competitive"? Since it is a such a nebulous term.

What is the point of having a rating if you can't compare two people with the same rating? The USTA NTRP system doesn't accomplish that across the board.

Look at Tencap's system. It gives ratings for both singles and doubles. The introductory rating asks for age, but the Tencap rating is update after ever eight matches, and age is factored out quickly. Matches with a spread of 10 or more are not factored in. I've asked my friends to try it. It will be interested to see what the results are every 3 months.

 

[baseliner68]

Opinions please...a bit off subject

I have an opinion both ways on this but am wanting to know what others think and would greatly appreciate knowing what others think.

....A friend of mine who is my regular hitting partner (besides my husband) and a teammate for years got bumped to 5.0 this year. She has played tennis most all of her life and is a very skilled player. The thing that gets me is she has played 4.5 tennis for years and has gone to sectionals many times but she is now 60y/o and has had numerous injuries so can only play doubles and like many even then is wrapped up all over. I'm 20 years younger than her and we drill each week but I always play to only one side (we do crosscourt drills, down the line and point play but only crosscourt.) We both like doing drills and fine-tuning things in our game as opposed to many who only want to play only all the time.


So....I don't know quite what to think. On one hand, yes, she is a very skilled player but USTA should have put her at the 5.0 level of play when she was younger and more mobile but they crammed everyone together and are just now spreading them out. Something just doesn't seem fair about just as you turn into a supersenior player you're put at the 5.0 level. There aren't enough local 5.0 women to form a team unless some of us played up so she is definitely in a tight spot.

I know many players get better as they get older but for those who were really great players in their younger years, age doesn't improve their playing ability.

Like I said....I definitely see both ways on this one but would very much appreciate some other opinions. Thanks in advance!!

 

[max8176]

I have a friend who had a 5-1 record in 7.0 mixed. She got bump up from 3.0s to 4.0c which is totally crazy. Her wins in 7.0 mixed are not total blow-out as most matches are competitive (eg. 6-4, 7-5, 6-3). Another thing is her partner did not get bump up and he had a good record in adult league as well. I dont know but this is a bit strange.

 

[gameboy]

max, if she has 4.0(C), she did not get the bump from mixed, she got bumped because of her women's league play, otherwise should would be 4.0(M). No strangeness there.

As to senior tournaments. You have to remember that many senior players are quite competitive in their level playing doubles, but not nearly as competitive playing singles due to their mobility. The senior tournaments there to given them a chance to play against people of (presumed) similar mobility.

 

[Nellie]

I see a lot of funny results in mixed - for example, I have seen occasions where the computer takes an unbalanced team (such as a 4.0/5.0 pair playing 9.0 doubles) that wins every match and moved both players to 4.5 (m).

 

[max8176]

max, if she has 4.0(C), she did not get the bump from mixed, she got bumped because of her women's league play, otherwise should would be 4.0(M). No strangeness there.

As to senior tournaments. You have to remember that many senior players are quite competitive in their level playing doubles, but not nearly as competitive playing singles due to their mobility. The senior tournaments there to given them a chance to play against people of (presumed) similar mobility.

My bad, she does have a 4.0m rating since she only played mixed. She is now depressed because she is not really a 4.0. She is more like a low 3.5.

 

[OrangePower]

I agree with you completely. But does the current USTA do what you just stated?

And wouldn't you love to know the USTA's definition of "competitive"? Since it is a such a nebulous term.

What is the point of having a rating if you can't compare two people with the same rating? The USTA NTRP system doesn't accomplish that across the board.

Look at Tencap's system. It gives ratings for both singles and doubles. The introductory rating asks for age, but the Tencap rating is update after ever eight matches, and age is factored out quickly. Matches with a spread of 10 or more are not factored in. I've asked my friends to try it. It will be interested to see what the results are every 3 months.

I believe that yes, the USTA algorithm does provide a reasonably accurate indicator of overall match play level - assuming that a player plays only singles, or only doubles, and we are comparing against a player that specializes in same.

So the real breakdown is in the failure to distinguish between singles and doubles. And this failure to differenciate is in general more noticable with older players, who tend to be more competitive at doubles than at singles because of declining athleticism.

And with respect to competitive, I've seen mention somewhere (don't remember exactly where) that 2 & 2 or better is generally considered competitive.

 

[OrangePower]

I have an opinion both ways on this but am wanting to know what others think and would greatly appreciate knowing what others think.

....A friend of mine who is my regular hitting partner (besides my husband) and a teammate for years got bumped to 5.0 this year. She has played tennis most all of her life and is a very skilled player. The thing that gets me is she has played 4.5 tennis for years and has gone to sectionals many times but she is now 60y/o and has had numerous injuries so can only play doubles and like many even then is wrapped up all over. I'm 20 years younger than her and we drill each week but I always play to only one side (we do crosscourt drills, down the line and point play but only crosscourt.) We both like doing drills and fine-tuning things in our game as opposed to many who only want to play only all the time.


So....I don't know quite what to think. On one hand, yes, she is a very skilled player but USTA should have put her at the 5.0 level of play when she was younger and more mobile but they crammed everyone together and are just now spreading them out. Something just doesn't seem fair about just as you turn into a supersenior player you're put at the 5.0 level. There aren't enough local 5.0 women to form a team unless some of us played up so she is definitely in a tight spot.

I know many players get better as they get older but for those who were really great players in their younger years, age doesn't improve their playing ability.

Like I said....I definitely see both ways on this one but would very much appreciate some other opinions. Thanks in advance!!

You said it yourself in the bolded part. Remember, there is nothing magical that separates the levels. They are just arbitrary divisions across a player population that statistically range in skills following a normal-distribution. The USTA decided to change where the boundary points are between the levels so that people are more spread out and not bunched as tightly into 3.5 and 4.0 in the middle... and that's all there is to it.

4.5 is the new 4.0; 5.0 is the new 4.5 (well, not quite that drastic, but you get the point....)

 

[g4driver]

And with respect to competitive, I've seen mention somewhere (don't remember exactly where) that 2 & 2 or better is generally considered competitive.

Thanks OrangePower.

You and another guy on here have the same guess. 4 games is "competitive". This explains why a senior Doubles only player can go 2-5 at 3.5, and 1-9 at 4.0 and get bumped to 4.0 :?

If what you write it true (4 game = competitive), since the senior 3.5 Doubles player won 4 games in all of his 3.5 matches, his NRTP isn't affected either up or down, since the USTA's algorithm got the "expected results". But since he and his partner won 4 games against other men in a 4.0 Division, 9 out the 10 times he played at 4.0, his Dynamic Rating would be bumped up.

Hence my original point: Play up and move up. The "missing link" was what the USTA considered "competitive".

And due to the same logic, the 3.5 Single's player who went 15-1 but only beat one opponent by giving up less than 4 games, doesn't move up since he produced "expected results" with wins of 0&5, 4&1, 1&4, 3&4, 2&2, and a 3 set win, and only one loss to a guy who was bumped.

Since the 3.5 Singles player didn't win outside of the "expected result range", his stayed at 3.5

When I play a 4.5 and get beat 2&2, I don't feel competitive, but then again, the USTA and I disagree on what "competitive" is. That's ok I guess, since Bill Clinton had issues with the word "is". :-?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

 

[OrangePower]

^^^^^ kind of, except the way you've put it is an over-simplification.

Having a 'competitive' match within level does not mean your dynamic rating won't go up or down a bit, just that it's not going to swing wildly. On the other hand, having a 'competitive' match at a higher level is going to cause a larger swing upwards. But anyway, the end result is along the lines you described - if you have a losing record at your own level but the matches are 'competitive', you will take a bit of a rating hit, but if you also had 'competitive' losses at a higher level, you will have an upwards adjustment that is larger than the hit you took for losing at your own level.

Even this is a simplification since the actual outcomes depend on the exact ratings of the opponents, but in general the above would be what I'd expect.

 

[g4driver]

OrangePower,


Thanks again for all the info. I should not have written "his NRTP isn't affected either up or down", as I realize your Dynamic Rating will be updated after each match. That was my carelessness.

Your explanation is more accurate and informative. I just didn't realize the USTA considers winning 4 games a set "competitive".


More questions:

1) How do USTA tournaments get mixed into your NTRP? I'm playing a level 4 Tournament this weekend, but it doesn't have any singles events

2) What is the difference between a Tournament Levels? Is 1 the largest draw, and 4 the smallest?

I'm going to try to find some larger Singles tournaments in early next year, playing Single's 3.5 or 4.0, and Double's 4.0.

 

[OrangePower]

OrangePower,


Thanks again for all the info. I should not have written "his NRTP isn't affected either up or down", as I realize your Dynamic Rating will be updated after each match. That was my carelessness.

Your explanation is more accurate and informative. I just didn't realize the USTA considers winning 4 games a set "competitive".


More questions:

1) How do USTA tournaments get mixed into your NTRP? I'm playing a level 4 Tournament this weekend, but it doesn't have any singles events

2) What is the difference between a Tournament Levels? Is 1 the largest draw, and 4 the smallest?

I'm going to try to find some larger Singles tournaments in early next year, playing Single's 3.5 or 4.0, and Double's 4.0.

Don't know anything about how tournaments factor in - I just play league. But I've seen others post that the treatment of tournaments varies based on section, so keep that in mind if you search the forum for answers.

 

[J_R_B]

OrangePower,


Thanks again for all the info. I should not have written "his NRTP isn't affected either up or down", as I realize your Dynamic Rating will be updated after each match. That was my carelessness.

Your explanation is more accurate and informative. I just didn't realize the USTA considers winning 4 games a set "competitive".


More questions:

1) How do USTA tournaments get mixed into your NTRP? I'm playing a level 4 Tournament this weekend, but it doesn't have any singles events

2) What is the difference between a Tournament Levels? Is 1 the largest draw, and 4 the smallest?

I'm going to try to find some larger Singles tournaments in early next year, playing Single's 3.5 or 4.0, and Double's 4.0.

Winning 4 games a set IS competitive.

Individual sections can choose to include tournament matches in the NTRP rating or not. I know Middle States does not.

 

[g4driver]

Winning 4 games a set IS competitive.

Individual sections can choose to include tournament matches in the NTRP rating or not. I know Middle States does not.

Thanks J_R_B. The more I learn about the USTA's NTRP system, the less I like their math.

My points:

1) The USTA in sections counts less than 50% of same gender same level matches toward an NTRP rating. In my case this year, 40% of my matches against same gender, same level men were used in my NTRP. I don't think I'm alone.

2) The USTA considers winning 4 games per match competitive (This is unsubstantiated by the USTA, but quite a few people making this assertion)

I made a mistake in my earlier post. OrangePower and others have stated winning 2&2 is considering competitive (4 games a match). I made a mistake of writing "4 games per set". I would agree 4 games a set is competitive, but I don't feel competitive when I only manage 4 games per match.

Does anyone feeling competitive in a match when the win only 4 games per match?

I'm playing a USTA Tournament this weekend, and know our local league President, so I will ask him some questions and see if he has more answers or if there is a why to bring up certain issues within our local league.

The guy is opened minded, and is easy to talk to, so I think that is the best place to start.

 

[wrxinsc]

^ 6-2, 6-2 is not considered a competitive match btw so i disagree with orange's original statement. that match obviously results in a 12 to 4 consideration. not a blow out but not competitive. we don't know the actual numbers, but from what i remember in the presentation we were were given by one of the usta ratings gurus a competitive match range (so called) is 14-12'ish to 12-7'ish for example. keep in mind the score of the match is just one of the two main components - your opponent's dynamic rating is the other.

i understand why people say things like - i don't like the math - but the basic premise of the system actually does make sense from a purely mathematical standpoint. that's probably why people don't like it.

 

[g4driver]

i understand why people say things like - i don't like the math - but the basic premise of the system actually does make sense from a purely mathematical standpoint. that's probably why people don't like it.

wrxinsc,

Your in SC like me. The math doesn't make sense to me, but I based that on three things:

1) not seeing the USTA algorithms.

2) a lack of consistency by the USTA into what counts towards an NTRP (all matches at the same level, same gender don't count)

3) the USTA's decision to have one rating for both single's and double's when players might do well, in both or only one format due to various skill sets

My background is an undergrad in finance, with enough math to have a minor. My master's was in Logistics. I've taken a lot of math, stats and spent years as a cost analyst. Not financial analyst, but someone who used & wrote algorithms to derieve projected costs from multi-million dollar contracts.

I would love to see the USTA algorithm, but can't. I would love for the USTA to break out NTRPs for singles and doubles but they don't. And, I would love for the USTA to count all matches against same level, same gender but they don't.

The system has flaws. It could be better with just a little effort. To start,

How hard would it be for the USTA to simply count every match you played against every equally rated player of the same gender? If your a 4.0, and play a 4.0 match, count it.

 

[wrxinsc]

Your questions are all good ones and if could be satisfied would likely result in a 'better' rating system.

1. They will never let us see the enough details to allow some math smarties to figure out the algorithm, so I agree it is impossible to evaluate the actual methodology...
2. They only count league play that all sections have playoffs for. The benchmark is an important part of the formula. For instance I think they should institute the singles flex league like we have in SC everywhere and have a national playoff. But they can't count our results in SC but not everywhere else.
3. I totally agree with you here. I am a singles player who has aged and plays doubles and singles now - so totally get what you are saying here

Possibly your concerns are more people oriented than the math. A wise man once told me. "all human interaction is mathematics and politics".

IMO your valid suggestions/concerns fall into the politics side of things...

 

[JavierLW]

The math is flawed. If we take it as a given that we completely dont know how they generate the numbers for the match results, just based on the other information that we do know for sure there is a big flaw in it:

Look at sometime how they average the current DNTRP. It's a rolling average of your last 4 results (including last year's year end rating if that falls within the last 4 numbers).

But they dont average match results, they average previous averages that are averages of previous averages, etc....

It's hard to explain unless you're willing to look at it and you have a math background and follow the numbers, but basically they are double and ntuple dipping into the same numbers over and over and over again.

For example they average anywhere from 2 to 4 numbers, and it takes 7 matches before last year's year end rating doesnt exist in some form in every single number that is being averaged.

This makes for a severely slow system that results in the following phenomenon and I believe when they designed this system they more or less did that on purpose because they were afraid of having mass bumpups back then.

This causes the following issues:

1) Players actually move slowly. Especially if they DONT play up, they almost have to play #1 singles or #1 Doubles to ever move up a level.

2) Players that get moved up, very seldom move down. If you get moved up to 4.0 for example whatever math got you there is going to hold you there for a long time unless something significant happens.

(and unlike when you want to go the other way, you cant play down to rectify that)

3) Self rated players have a WAY better chance of getting moved up, then computer rated players. This is because they do not have a year end rating from last year weighing them down. But a Computer rated player who has improved his game drastically may not get moved up.
And this cant be exactly normal because those two player could of had the same results, but one will get moved up easily and the other wont.

4) The auto-appeal rule was flawed. They made a .05 margin of error, probably thinking that it was so small that most people would not win their appeal. If you look at the actual numbers, a HUGE majority of everyone who appealed won their appeal. This is because the system moves so slowly that most people if they happen to get moved, it's actually rare that they'll get moved much beyond just barely getting moved.....

5) The year end ratings even affect your rating years from now if you dont play a ton of matches. Ive seen entire teams go to Nationals for 3.5 and EVERYONE gets rated to 4.0 except for 3 people. And then you look at it and they had a 3.0 rating 2 or 3 years prior. There is no way for this system to accommodate that they could of vastly improved their game in 2 or 3 years where they belong at 4.0 now....

So the math itself works. But the USTA's use of it is flawed. As well as their continuing poking and altering of it with things like the auto-appeal system and throwing out 6-0, 6-0 scores (which I did not believe but I saw an example this year that proved it, in 2006 I know it wasnt there).

They clearly do not understand how the math affects their results, which is why they constantly argued about what to do change, and eventually they just had to massively move everyone up to get what they want. (which is something they wanted to avoid 8 years ago).

And a lot of this opinion was something I checked out with a friend of mine that has a Master's degree in Math and he works at NASA. Double dipping into the same figures to create a average is frowned upon because it's known that it create averages that fall way too narrowly.

 

[g4driver]

Thanks for your comments.

Why does the search for something better and more accurate in your opinion have anything to do with politics?

I don't work for or get anything from Tencap Tennis, but I'm adamant competition foster better ideas and products. From what I can tell, their system make much more sense. Then again, Tencap is also willing to explain their process in detail, something the USTA doesn't do with their NTRP.

You can manipulate almost anything, and understanding the process probably makes cheating even more likely. Score one for the USTA NTRP for that. I find it very sad that some golfers only turn in official scores when they have bad round, and never when they have a great round. :-?

 

[g4driver]

+JaviewLW

Back to stringing, then going to work on my serve.

 

[JavierLW]

Thanks for your comments.

Why does the search for something better and more accurate in your opinion have anything to do with politics?

I don't work for or get anything from Tencap Tennis, but I'm adamant competition foster better ideas and products. From what I can tell, their system make much more sense. Then again, Tencap is also willing to explain their process in detail, something the USTA doesn't do with their NTRP.

You can manipulate almost anything, and understanding the process probably makes cheating even more likely. Score one for the USTA NTRP for that. I find it very sad that some golfers only turn in official scores when they have bad round, and never when they have a great round. :-?

Im not against finding something better, I just dont like Tencap.

It's anyone's opinion obviously, but I dont agree with the camp that says that there are not enough levels or that too many people are at one level.

They are skill levels, it makes sense to me that you'd have a lot more people at the bottom then on the top.

I just think the USTA's formula for moving people is flawed because it moves people too slowly and in a inconsistent manner. But the old NTRP chart itself is not the blame for that. (whether that's desirable to someone or not is a whole different argument)

 

[ian2]

to JavierLW: great summary! Your example with self-rated vs. computer-rated is especially telling. A couple of comments:

1) Playing #1 court (if that's what you meant) has nothing to do ratings. At least that is what USTA is telling us... one of the rare examples when they are willing to indulge us with the details.

2) As g4driver thread argues (convincingly in my opinion; I argued the same point in the "Post most absurd ratings" thread), playing up is weighted disproportionally higher than playing at-level. What you wrote implied this phenomenon; I'm just saying that it's a very prominent factor in the system break-down.

 

[J_R_B]

to JavierLW: great summary! Your example with self-rated vs. computer-rated is especially telling. A couple of comments:

1) Playing #1 court (if that's what you meant) has nothing to do ratings. At least that is what USTA is telling us... one of the rare examples when they are willing to indulge us with the details.

2) As g4driver thread argues (convincingly in my opinion; I argued the same point in the "Post most absurd ratings" thread), playing up is weighted disproportionally higher than playing at-level. What you wrote implied this phenomenon; I'm just saying that it's a very prominent factor in the system break-down.

The court number has no direct affect on the rating, but *most* teams around here play straight lineups, not stacked, so playing on court 1 will generally mean opponents with higher DNTRP and hence a greater likelihood of moving up vs a player with the same results on lower courts.

 

[g4driver]

JavierLW,

I liked your post. I don't have a Ph.D in math, but I do have a friend who does.

My question was to wrxinsc. He made the comments that he thought my statement "IMO your valid suggestions/concerns fall into the politics side of things... "

I haven't used Tencap's system, as I haven't played anyone else who uses it. I'm trying to get my friends to join, then enter their scores against people they play. The more players who use it, the more accurate the system will be. If you consistently play the same small group of players, the data will be compromised. One of the best features of TenCap IMO is the ability for someone like me who travels for a living to find player's of similiar skill level in places like San Diego, Fort Lauderdale, Austin, and other cities where I travel.

 

[ian2]

The court number has no direct affect on the rating, but *most* teams around here play straight lineups, not stacked, so playing on court 1 will generally mean opponents with higher DNTRP and hence a greater likelihood of moving up vs a player with the same results on lower courts.

What constitutes *most* and what constitutes "around here"? OK, just kidding... More to the point, when these "straight lineups" take place, it would mean a higher probability that the players involved are close in their "starting" DNTRP. Unless the match is a complete blow-out, there is very little DNTRP movement for all involved. The end result might in fact be the opposite of the one you are implying...

 

[g4driver]

The court number has no direct affect on the rating, but *most* teams around here play straight lineups, not stacked, so playing on court 1 will generally mean opponents with higher DNTRP and hence a greater likelihood of moving up vs a player with the same results on lower courts.

What is "stacking"? (I'm asking facetiously.)

After all, according to the USTA a 3.5 is a 3.5 is a 3.5 right, just like a 4.0 is a 4.0 is a 4.0?

 

[JavierLW]

to JavierLW: great summary! Your example with self-rated vs. computer-rated is especially telling. A couple of comments:

1) Playing #1 court (if that's what you meant) has nothing to do ratings. At least that is what USTA is telling us... one of the rare examples when they are willing to indulge us with the details.

2) As g4driver thread argues (convincingly in my opinion; I argued the same point in the "Post most absurd ratings" thread), playing up is weighted disproportionally higher than playing at-level. What you wrote implied this phenomenon; I'm just saying that it's a very prominent factor in the system break-down.

1) Yes I implied that #1 of anything is the stronger players. The point is that if you play the highest rated players and do very well you could get moved up without playing up, but I generalized that you'll find that at #1 Singles and #1 Doubles for the most part.

2) I believe that if people play up and they lose but have respectable scores they should still get moved up. For a system based on skill, that makes sense to me. So I dont think there is anything wrong with that.

But what I think both of us will agree on is that because the inherent slowness involved with the numbers people playing AT level but succeeding do not have as much of a chance to move up.

(it's just a matter of which part of that someone chooses to disagree with)

 

[JavierLW]

[/I]I haven't used Tencap's system, as I haven't played anyone else who uses it. I'm trying to get my friends to join, then enter their scores against people they play. The more players who use it, the more accurate the system will be. If you consistently play the same small group of players, the data will be compromised. One of the best features of TenCap IMO is the ability for someone like me who travels for a living to find player's of similiar skill level in places like San Diego, Fort Lauderdale, Austin, and other cities where I travel.

Right but you could apply the same idea with the NTRP system. They are just numbers.

If they wanted they could of applyed the same system and logic with NTRP ratings instead and they'd probably get more people involved and more accurate results because more people are going to know what you are talking about.

But they wanted to make a novel idea obviously and most people are not into math so changing the numbers themselves is probably a bigger marketing tool for them

 

[JavierLW]

What constitutes *most* and what constitutes "around here"? OK, just kidding... More to the point, when these "straight lineups" take place, it would mean a higher probability that the players involved are close in their "starting" DNTRP. Unless the match is a complete blow-out, there is very little DNTRP movement for all involved. The end result might in fact be the opposite of the one you are implying...

My point was that you rarely move out of your own level aside from extreme circumstances.

You have to play the highest rated players (wherever they are) and you either have to clobber them, or have a close score with other people that are likely going to end up getting moved up.

That doesnt happen very often, maybe just to a handful of people who played another handful of people in any given league with hundreds of players.

As far as whether it's at #1 or not, that depends. Im used to our league where we count every single individual match, so the motivation is if you have your best player you want him to go up against their best player so you can get as many wins as possible. (there is no stacking unless you are the underdog or you suspect the other team is stacking and you want to straighten it out)

 

[JavierLW]

Here is a quote from my math friend who works at NASA.

I believe that it is an explanation that shows a direct link between what g4driver observes and the subject of this thread to how the USTA calculates these rolling averages. (which is published information that we DO know about...)

----

It is also not really statistically sound to double dip into your data (more like n-tuple dipping). You will then be overly biased in the narrowness of the spread (or variability) in the ratings of individuals that have more years of playing.

----

He's actually talking about whether you have a Year end Rating involved or not, but it works for people who play up as well.

You are either narrowly averaging off of a bunch of bigger numbers or you are not. If you are not even looking at the bigger numbers, in this system it is not as likely that you will increase high enough to get to them....

 

[cknobman]

Does anyone feeling competitive in a match when the win only 4 games per match?

I have played several matches where I lost 2,2 and 2,3 that went more than 2 hours and feel they were very competitive. Many, many of those games went to multiple dueces and I had several break points but I just suck at break point conversions and never could pull off wins in most of those duece games.

Scores dont mean everything.

Also the USTA uses a dynamic rating so two 4.0's that are playing and one is 3.98 while the other is a 3.51. If the player that is 3.98 wins 2,2 then the player that is 3.51 will still likely get a small bump in their dynamic rating because they managed to take games off someone who is ratined significantly higher than they are.

 

[g4driver]

I have played several matches where I lost 2,2 and 2,3 that went more than 2 hours and feel they were very competitive. Many, many of those games went to multiple dueces and I had several break points but I just suck at break point conversions and never could pull off wins in most of those duece games.

I've had a 4.5 friend at 0-40 in singles so many times I've lost count. While I can break him, he breaks me more often. So he beats me 2-2, 0-0, 1-3, in matches.

Often we will hit and work on specific parts of our game. After we work on specific drill or two for an hour, we normally play games to 11 (server serves 11 points) win by 2. We always play five 11 games.

In these 11 games, I can get to 11-9, 13-11, 11-7, 11-8 and will beat him 15-13, 11-9 one out of five games. The best I've ever done is win two out of five games, and yes, I have lost all five multiple times. I don't feel competitive against him, but he continues to ask me to hit with him so I do. He's making me better and has raised my game, whether my NTRP reflects it or not.

 

[JavierLW]

I've had a 4.5 friend at 0-40 in singles so many times I've lost count. While I can break him, he breaks me more often. So he beats me 2-2, 0-0, 1-3, in matches.

Often we will hit and work on specific parts of our game. After we work on specific drill or two for an hour, we normally play games to 11 (server serves 11 points) win by 2. We always play five 11 games.

In these 11 games, I can get to 11-9, 13-11, 11-7, 11-8 and will beat him 15-13, 11-9 one out of five games. The best I've ever done is win two out of five games, and yes, I have lost all five multiple times. I don't feel competitive against him, but he continues to ask me to hit with him so I do. He's making me better and has raised my game, whether my NTRP reflects it or not.

Right but the point is that in reality the game score is not really an indicator of how competitive the match was in terms of skill.

I watch a lot of amateur matches and if I just heard about the score that really tells me nothing about what is going on in the match.

But for rating purposes games are the smallest thing we have to go on which is why they are used in a skill based system. (unless you want to start counting points or even better whether you were ever ahead in those points or not)