USTA League Nationals start in four days

[schmke]

I've started posting my simulations and predictions on my blog. 18 & Over 3.5 women and men both up for those that care to look.

Favorites for the women are Mid-Atlantic Middle States, Eastern, and Texas

For the men it is Texas, Middle West, PNW, and NorCal.

Many more details on the blog including percent chance of an undefeated team going home, strongest/weakest schedules, chances of a tie for 4th and how large the tie may be, etc.

I'll update this thread as I post more previews.

Let the games begin!

 

[USPTARF97]

I've started posting my simulations and predictions on my blog. 18 & Over 3.5 women and men both up for those that care to look.

Favorites for the women are Mid-Atlantic Middle States, Eastern, and Texas

For the men it is Texas, Middle West, PNW, and NorCal.

Many more details on the blog including percent chance of an undefeated team going home, strongest/weakest schedules, chances of a tie for 4th and how large the tie may be, etc.

I'll update this thread as I post more previews.

Let the games begin!

How in the world do you predict what 3.5 teams will win? Have had several teams go to Nationals and win and it is up in the air at 3.5 who is going to win. The first problem with that is 3.5 players do not have the ability to play consistently day in and day out.

 

[darkhorse]

I'm on the 3.5 Northern team going on the men's side, and it wouldn't shock me if we're the team with the hardest schedule. We have Texas, Nor Cal, Caribbean and Southern

 

[USPTARF97]

I'm on the 3.5 Northern team going on the men's side, and it wouldn't shock me if we're the team with the hardest schedule. We have Texas, Nor Cal, Caribbean and Southern

I would just go believing you will win. Any team can beat the others at 3.5. Especially under pressure.

 

[Ft.S]

Go Mid-Atlantic women!!!

 

[Vox Rationis]

How in the world do you predict what 3.5 teams will win? Have had several teams go to Nationals and win and it is up in the air at 3.5 who is going to win. The first problem with that is 3.5 players do not have the ability to play consistently day in and day out.

It's a prediction not a guarantee. But it's easier to predict than you think when a handful of teams have players that could win matches against 4.5s (i.e. Texas).

 

[darkhorse]

I would just go believing you will win. Any team can beat the others at 3.5. Especially under pressure.

My approach is just to go into it without expectations, and just have fun. Winning is usually more fun

 

[USPTARF97]

It's a prediction not a guarantee. But it's easier to predict than you think when a handful of teams have players that could win matches against 4.5s (i.e. Texas).

Wouldn’t psych yourself out like that. They wouldn’t make it through State, or Regionals if they were that good.

 

[USPTARF97]

My approach is just to go into it without expectations, and just have fun. Winning is usually more fun

More likely to win if you believe.

 

[Vox Rationis]

Wouldn’t psych yourself out like that. They wouldn’t make it through State, or Regionals if they were that good.

Not really sure what you mean.

 

[USPTARF97]

Not really sure what you mean.

No way 3.5 players from any area can beat 4.5 players. Not happening.
Players get a dynamic disqualification or a grievance disqualification if they play a higher level than their self rating. They won’t make it to regionals or nationals normally.
Totally psych your self out going there believing you are playing players that could win at 4.5.

 

[schmke]

It's a prediction not a guarantee. But it's easier to predict than you think when a handful of teams have players that could win matches against 4.5s (i.e. Texas).

Of course there is no guarantee, no matter the level there are humans involved and who shows up to play or what line-ups are used all factor in. But I think my predictions actually did quite well last year.

Last year for the 18+ 3.5 men, the semi-finalists were Intermountain, Southern, NorCal, and Florida and I had three of those in my top-7 most likely to advance at 4-0 or 3-1.

Las year for the 40+ 3.5 men, the semi-finalists were Intermountain, Eastern, Mid-Atlantic, and Middle States and those four were all in my top-5 most likely to advance.

 

[schmke]

No way 3.5 players from any area can beat 4.5 players. Not happening.
Players get a dynamic disqualification or a grievance disqualification if they play a higher level than their self rating. They won’t make it to regionals or nationals normally.
Totally psych your self out going there believing you are playing players that could win at 4.5.

Most teams have 3.5C rated players not subject to 3-strike DQs that are playing well into the 4.0 range. And yes, on occasion there are 3.5s that go to Nationals and win and are double bumped up to 4.5.

 

[USPTARF97]

Of course there is no guarantee, no matter the level there are humans involved and who shows up to play or what line-ups are used all factor in. But I think my predictions actually did quite well last year.

Last year for the 18+ 3.5 men, the semi-finalists were Intermountain, Southern, NorCal, and Florida and I had three of those in my top-7 most likely to advance at 4-0 or 3-1.

Las year for the 40+ 3.5 men, the semi-finalists were Intermountain, Eastern, Mid-Atlantic, and Middle States and those four were all in my top-5 most likely to advance.

Curious but how do you know all of these players from all over the country well enough to predict a win. Guess you can guess that the players from areas of the country with the best weather play more tennis. But beyond that, I don’t know.

 

[USPTARF97]

Most teams have 3.5C rated players not subject to 3-strike DQs that are playing well into the 4.0 range. And yes, on occasion there are 3.5s that go to Nationals and win and are double bumped up to 4.5.

Bumped out an their results don’t count.

 

[schmke]

Curious but how do you know all of these players from all over the country well enough to predict a win. Guess you can guess that the players from areas of the country with the best weather play more tennis. But beyond that, I don’t know.

I calculate estimated dynamic ratings for all players that play USTA League and generate reports for players and teams. These simulations I do use the same ratings so are looking at the strength of teams based on their results. I am not permitted to post links to my site in this forum, but Google "Schmidt Computer Ratings" and you should find my blog.

 

[schmke]

Bumped out an their results don’t count.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. 'C' rated players are not subject to strikes or DQs and can play at their level through the end of the USTA year without being bumped up nor having results thrown out regardless of how high their dynamic rating gets.

 

[USPTARF97]

I'm not sure what you are referring to. 'C' rated players are not subject to strikes or DQs and can play at their level through the end of the USTA year without being bumped up nor having results thrown out regardless of how high their dynamic rating gets.

And by the time they are computer protected they are normally not 2 levels away from where they are supposed to be. A 4.5 player playing at 3.5 Nationals is such a rare occasion that anyone thinking they are going to 3.5 nationals and playing against 4.5 players is completely psyching themselves out.

 

[schmke]

And by the time they are computer protected they are normally not 2 levels away from where they are supposed to be. A 4.5 player playing at 3.5 Nationals is such a rare occasion that anyone thinking they are going to 3.5 nationals and playing against 4.5 players is completely psyching themselves out.

I don't disagree with that statement in general, but @Vox Rationis specifically called out Texas and they usually do have one or two 3.5s that could win a 4.5 match. They may not be bumped up to 4.5, but they can compete at the 4.5 level. Some have been a 4.5 in the past.

And no, they don't get their 3.5C honestly, they "work" at it ...

 

[USPTARF97]

I don't disagree with that statement in general, but @Vox Rationis specifically called out Texas and they usually do have one or two 3.5s that could win a 4.5 match. They may not be bumped up to 4.5, but they can compete at the 4.5 level. Some have been a 4.5 in the past.

And no, they don't get their 3.5C honestly, they "work" at it ...

Those players you see at 3.5 are not really competitive at 4.5. . We have former Div 1 players playing 4.5 and we never win Nationals. 5.0 players here are former NCAA Champions and one in particular was the #3 Junior in the world.
Players are psyching themselves out thinking those players at 3.5 nationals are competitive at 4.5. Not even close.

 

[tennis_tater]

Those players you see at 3.5 are not really competitive at 4.5. . We have former Div 1 players playing 4.5 and we never win Nationals. 5.0 players here are former NCAA Champions and one in particular was the #3 Junior in the world.
Players are psyching themselves out thinking those players at 3.5 nationals are competitive at 4.5. Not even close.

You must be the Infamous Texas captain.

 

[schmke]

Those players you see at 3.5 are not really competitive at 4.5. . We have former Div 1 players playing 4.5 and we never win Nationals. 5.0 players here are former NCAA Champions and one in particular was the #3 Junior in the world.
Players are psyching themselves out thinking those players at 3.5 nationals are competitive at 4.5. Not even close.

A 2015 Nationals winning 18+ 3.5 mens team had one player that was bumped up to 4.0, but played 4.5 the following year going 2-0 and also playing tournaments and got bumped up to 4.5. Note they also played tournaments in 2015, ... Open tournaments.

A 2017 Nationals winning 18+ 3.5 mens team had a player that was double bumped up to 4.5 at year-end. And yes, they were a 3.5C from 2016.

Another player on the 2017 team was double bumped up to 4.5 and went 1-3 as a 4.5 in 2018. Not dominating at 4.5 no, but certainly competing and able to play at the level.

Yet another player on the team was double bumped up to 4.5, mysteriously lost badly 3 times in 2018, and now is dominating at 4.0 and on their way to being a 4.5 again.

No, this isn't common, but it does happen.

 

[USPTARF97]

A 2015 Nationals winning 18+ 3.5 mens team had one player that was bumped up to 4.0, but played 4.5 the following year going 2-0 and also playing tournaments and got bumped up to 4.5. Note they also played tournaments in 2015, ... Open tournaments.

A 2017 Nationals winning 18+ 3.5 mens team had a player that was double bumped up to 4.5 at year-end. And yes, they were a 3.5C from 2016.

Another player on the 2017 team was double bumped up to 4.5 and went 1-3 as a 4.5 in 2018. Not dominating at 4.5 no, but certainly competing and able to play at the level.

Yet another player on the team was double bumped up to 4.5, mysteriously lost badly 3 times in 2018, and now is dominating at 4.0 and on their way to being a 4.5 again.

No, this isn't common, but it does happen.

Right, not common. Sounds like many of those players just needed to be moved to 4.0. And just because they won a couple of 4.5 matches means nothing. There are many 4.0 players playing 4.5.
My point is at 3.5 I wouldn’t be thinking those guys at Nationals are 4.5. They are not.

 

[2ndServe]

Who's the strongest teams at 40+ 4.5+

What's the weather like in Florida in October? Rain everyday? Hurricane season?

 

[USPTARF97]

Who lives in FL? Or TX? You guys must have taken a beating from those states.
When it comes to higher level players GA has always had some strong teams.

 

[am1899]

What's the weather like in Florida in October? Rain everyday? Hurricane season?

High temps are most commonly in the high 70’s to low 80’s. Risk of precipitation decreases pretty dramatically from the beginning of October to the end. I believe technically it’s still hurricane season until early November. However the peak season for Florida bound hurricanes is in the rear view at this point.

 

[tennis_tater]

Right, not common. Sounds like many of those players just needed to be moved to 4.0. And just because they won a couple of 4.5 matches means nothing. There are many 4.0 players playing 4.5.
My point is at 3.5 I wouldn’t be thinking those guys at Nationals are 4.5. They are not.

Right. But when Texas has a 3.5 singles player that has dominated singles through city, state and sectionals at 18s and 40s 3.5 AND 4.0 and is a top 8 player on a Texas team that will be one of the projected top 4 in 4.0, he’s a 4.5 player. Now, no one is saying this guy is a ringer 4.5 player in your 4.5 world, but odds are he’s a 4.5 everyone else, regardless as to whether he’s a high or low 4.5. He’s not a 3.5. And he’s likely not a 4.0. But give it a year or two, I’m SURE this player will prove you right and will fail miserably at 4.5 and be back at 4.0 where he will again dominate for another Houston team that will be back at Nationals.

 

[am1899]

Looking forward to @schmke predictions on 18+ 4.0 females in Vegas. My wife made it on Eastern’s team, so I will be making the trip to support them.

For any doubters, when I went to Mobile for a nationals tournament last year, @schmke predictions were incredibly accurate. He predicted 3 out of the 4 finalists correctly. His prediction was:

SoCal
Southern
Texas
Mid Atlantic

The actual finalists were:

Missouri Valley
Southern
Texas
Mid Atlantic

And not for nothing, if a thin team of jokers (including yours truly) from Eastern didn’t upset SoCal in round robin play, SoCal would have been in the finals. So, in reality...I suspect the only outlier there (in terms of predictions) was Missouri Valley. But that said, I don’t want to take anything away from MO Valley - we played them, and they rolled us. They were really good, and good sports, too.

By the way, my wife’s team drew the following teams for round robin in Vegas:

Hawaii
Texas
Florida
Southern

I wished her good luck with that.

 

[USPTARF97]

Who's the strongest teams at 40+ 4.5+

What's the weather like in Florida in October? Rain everyday? Hurricane season?

normally the strongest 4.5+ teams are the ones that have trained/played the most leading up to Nationals. Unfortunately or fortunately most of us have a life other than tennis and it’s hard to find time to play.

 

[schmke]

Looking forward to @schmke predictions on 18+ 4.0 females in Vegas. My wife made it on Eastern’s team, so I will be making the trip to support them.

For any doubters, when I went to Mobile for a nationals tournament last year, @schmke predictions were incredibly accurate. He predicted 3 out of the 4 finalists correctly. His prediction was:

SoCal
Southern
Texas
Mid Atlantic

The actual finalists were:

Missouri Valley
Southern
Texas
Mid Atlantic

And not for nothing, if a thin team of jokers (including yours truly) from Eastern didn’t upset SoCal in round robin play, SoCal would have been in the finals. So, in reality...I suspect the only outlier there (in terms of predictions) was Missouri Valley. But that said, I don’t want to take anything away from MO Valley - we played them, and they rolled us. They were really good, and good sports, too.

By the way, my wife’s team drew the following teams for round robin in Vegas:

Hawaii
Texas
Florida
Southern

I wished her good luck with that.

Congrats on going to Vegas!

Yeah, that is a tough draw on paper, stay tuned to see if the traditional tough sections are again this year.

 

[am1899]

normally the strongest 4.5+ teams are the ones that have trained/played the most leading up to Nationals. Unfortunately or fortunately most of us have a life other than tennis and it’s hard to find time to play.

Also depends on the quality of teams your team had to dispatch to get to nationals, IMO. The more difficult the path (and still make it), the more confidence one’s team can derive from that and take to nationals.

 

[am1899]

Congrats on going to Vegas!

Yeah, that is a tough draw on paper, stay tuned to see if the traditional tough sections are again this year.

Thanks (I think)? It’s costing us a bloody fortune to fly out there. But neither my wife nor I have ever been to Vegas, so we thought the stretch was worth it.

 

[USPTARF97]

Right. But when Texas has a 3.5 singles player that has dominated singles through city, state and sectionals at 18s and 40s 3.5 AND 4.0 and is a top 8 player on a Texas team that will be one of the projected top 4 in 4.0, he’s a 4.5 player. Now, no one is saying this guy is a ringer 4.5 player in your 4.5 world, but odds are he’s a 4.5 everyone else, regardless as to whether he’s a high or low 4.5. He’s not a 3.5. And he’s likely not a 4.0. But give it a year or two, I’m SURE this player will prove you right and will fail miserably at 4.5 and be back at 4.0 where he will again dominate for another Houston team that will be back at Nationals.

That’s the idea, train/play and move from 3.5 to 4.0 and hopefully higher. Most that get a glance at 4.5 are actually more like a solid 4.0. Playing 3.5 you actually play against players that are 3.3-3.4 or 3.8-3.9. Levels within a level. The deal is to find a way to improve while playing 3.5 and eventually you will be 4.0. Then guess what, the process starts over. Have to work your way up. The nature of tennis. It’s an unforgiving sport.

 

[BeyondTheTape]

It's a prediction not a guarantee. But it's easier to predict than you think when a handful of teams have players that could win matches against 4.5s (i.e. Texas).

Shots FIRED my friend! Let's go Southern

 

[2ndServe]

Thanks (I think)? It’s costing us a bloody fortune to fly out there. But neither my wife nor I have ever been to Vegas, so we thought the stretch was worth it.

Tell them to practice in the wind none of the courts UNLV or Darling have any wind protection, we played in 50mph winds a few years ago, good luck. Also Vegas is high elevation so the ball flies a bit more.

 

[Vox Rationis]

Right, not common. Sounds like many of those players just needed to be moved to 4.0. And just because they won a couple of 4.5 matches means nothing. There are many 4.0 players playing 4.5.
My point is at 3.5 I wouldn’t be thinking those guys at Nationals are 4.5. They are not.

Dude my original point was that you could predict who would win by looking for the teams that have those "uncommon" borderline 4.5 level players. I didn't say every team had players that could compete at 4.5. But you're being very naive if you think there aren't several high 4.0 level players if not higher on the two teams that will end up in the finals. You should be prepared to face those kinds of players if you actually plan to do well at nationals.

 

[schmke]

Men's 18+ 5.0+ simulation now up. Women's coming soon but the schedule on TennisLink has one team playing 5 matches and another 3 so waiting for that to get fixed.

 

[USPTARF97]

Dude my original point was that you could predict who would win by looking for the teams that have those "uncommon" borderline 4.5 level players. I didn't say every team had players that could compete at 4.5. But you're being very naive if you think there aren't several high 4.0 level players if not higher on the two teams that will end up in the finals. You should be prepared to face those kinds of players if you actually plan to do well at nationals.

Have seen the 3.5 teams, some of those players are better than the others and need to be moved to 4.0 but not even close to 4.5. You are dreaming if you think there are a considerable number of players at 3.5 that can compete at 4.5. Especially enough that 3.5 guys need to concern themselves with that and attempt to somehow plan. They would have no recourse. Lack of understanding about 4.5 tennis.

 

[am1899]

Tell them to practice in the wind none of the courts UNLV or Darling have any wind protection, we played in 50mph winds a few years ago, good luck. Also Vegas is high elevation so the ball flies a bit more.

Yeah i have told them as such (remains to be seen who will actually have listened). I’ll be restringing the wife’s racquet before we leave, in hopes having a bit tighter string bed will help her combat the elevation.

 

[schmke]

The 18+ 5.0+ women's simulation is now posted. In perhaps the most balanced and competitive Nationals we will see, the simulation says based on most likely records there would be a 6-way tie at 3-1 for 2nd thru 7th with four more right behind them at 2-2. And the co-highest rated team has the toughest schedule and may miss out on the semis in that 3-1 tie-breaker.

 

[Vox Rationis]

Have seen the 3.5 teams, some of those players are better than the others and need to be moved to 4.0 but not even close to 4.5. You are dreaming if you think there are a considerable number of players at 3.5 that can compete at 4.5. Especially enough that 3.5 guys need to concern themselves with that and attempt to somehow plan. They would have no recourse. Lack of understanding about 4.5 tennis.

I have not once said that there are. You keep making up something to argue against. Let me simplify this for you.

Schmke: Here are my simulations and predictions based on calculated data

USPTARF97: How in the world do you predict what 3.5 teams will win? It's up in the air. 3.5 players do not have the ability to play consistently day in and day out.

Vox Rationis: It's easy to predict because the top couple teams have players that are high end 4.0 (a.k.a. borderline 4.5) and could win a (singular) match against a (weak) 4.5.

USPTARF97: There's no way there are a "considerable number" of 3.5s at nationals that could be "competitive at 4.5" against the "former D1 players" who play 4.5.

I did not say there are a lot of 3.5s at nationals who would be consistently winning at 4.5. I said the top handful of teams have a couple players that could win a single match against a 4.5, obviously against a player on the lower end of 4.5.

Proof:

Texas's highest rated player on TR has a rating slightly above 4.0. That means his estimated rating (according to one hit or miss site) is slightly into the 4.5 range. But that's not the proof. The proof is in his results. He's 28-0 on the year. At 3.5 18+ sectionals he was putting out match results that estimated into the 3.90s. His two results at 4.0 18+ sectionals averaged out to an estimated 4.05 rating, which includes a win over a 4.0 projected to get bumped up (who had actually been undefeated since December outside of mixed doubles). And then at 3.5 and 4.0 40+ sectional weekend he played 2 matches each at both 3.5 and 4.0 and wound up with 3 of his 4 match ratings falling in the 4.5 rating zone. This guys is a computer rated 3.5, mind you. The next 5 guys on that team have all had matches whose estimated rating would put them at least in the top half of 4.0.

So Cal's highest rated player has an estimated rating of 3.97, just below the threshold for 4.5. But again let's dive a little deeper into it. He has 5 match results on the year that are estimated above 4.0. Then there's another 4 that were between 3.94-3.99. That's 9 total matches where he played above or close to the 4.5 level. But here's the kicker. He played a 5.0 singles tournament and only lost 7-5 6-2. Okay well maybe the guy he played wasn't actually a 5.0? Nope. That guy was 2-2 in 5.0 leagues and 6-3 in 5.0 tournaments. He has multiple wins over other 5.0s.

Those are the two worst offenders but there are other similar ones. Northern has a guy like that. Pacific has a guy like that. New England has a guy like that. Mo Valley has a high schooler like that. I mean, it's foolish to think this isn't something you'd come up against.

P.S. I am a 4.5. I've seen 4.5 playoffs in two different states. I have no lack of understanding about 4.5 tennis.

 

[USPTARF97]

I have not once said that there are. You keep making up something to argue against. Let me simplify this for you.

Schmke: Here are my simulations and predictions based on calculated data

USPTARF97: How in the world do you predict what 3.5 teams will win? It's up in the air. 3.5 players do not have the ability to play consistently day in and day out.

Vox Rationis: It's easy to predict because the top couple teams have players that are high end 4.0 (a.k.a. borderline 4.5) and could win a (singular) match against a (weak) 4.5.

USPTARF97: There's no way there are a "considerable number" of 3.5s at nationals that could be "competitive at 4.5" against the "former D1 players" who play 4.5.

I did not say there are a lot of 3.5s at nationals who would be consistently winning at 4.5. I said the top handful of teams have a couple players that could win a single match against a 4.5, obviously against a player on the lower end of 4.5.

Proof:

Texas's highest rated player on TR has a rating slightly above 4.0. That means his estimated rating (according to one hit or miss site) is slightly into the 4.5 range. But that's not the proof. The proof is in his results. He's 28-0 on the year. At 3.5 18+ sectionals he was putting out match results that estimated into the 3.90s. His two results at 4.0 18+ sectionals averaged out to an estimated 4.05 rating, which includes a win over a 4.0 projected to get bumped up (who had actually been undefeated since December outside of mixed doubles). And then at 3.5 and 4.0 40+ sectional weekend he played 2 matches each at both 3.5 and 4.0 and wound up with 3 of his 4 match ratings falling in the 4.5 rating zone. This guys is a computer rated 3.5, mind you. The next 5 guys on that team have all had matches whose estimated rating would put them at least in the top half of 4.0.

So Cal's highest rated player has an estimated rating of 3.97, just below the threshold for 4.5. But again let's dive a little deeper into it. He has 5 match results on the year that are estimated above 4.0. Then there's another 4 that were between 3.94-3.99. That's 9 total matches where he played above or close to the 4.5 level. But here's the kicker. He played a 5.0 singles tournament and only lost 7-5 6-2. Okay well maybe the guy he played wasn't actually a 5.0? Nope. That guy was 2-2 in 5.0 leagues and 6-3 in 5.0 tournaments. He has multiple wins over other 5.0s.

Those are the two worst offenders but there are other similar ones. Northern has a guy like that. Pacific has a guy like that. New England has a guy like that. Mo Valley has a high schooler like that. I mean, it's foolish to think this isn't something you'd come up against.

P.S. I am a 4.5. I've seen 4.5 playoffs in two different states. I have no lack of understanding about 4.5 tennis.

The TX player that is slightly over 4.0 is 4.0 not 4.5. He could be bumped to 4.0. You are 4.5 when you reach 4.5.
So Cal’s highest rated player is 3.97 meaning he is just below 4.0. He is just below 4.0 competing with team mates that are below 4.0. How in the world is that competing above or at 4.5 level? Just because he had a couple of good results in a 5.0 event doesn’t mean he is that level. Players play their best about 10% of the time and their worst about 10% of the time. Their actual level is what they play when they are competing somewhere in the middle of those percentages.
You are using fuzzy math to reach the conclusion you prefer. Your math is like saying my 7 yr old who is 7 and a couple of months old is 8. It’s a good thing they have birthdays to determine Junior age divisions.
By the way, who created the estimations on these players?

 

[tennis_tater]

I have not once said that there are. You keep making up something to argue against. Let me simplify this for you.

Schmke: Here are my simulations and predictions based on calculated data

USPTARF97: How in the world do you predict what 3.5 teams will win? It's up in the air. 3.5 players do not have the ability to play consistently day in and day out.

Vox Rationis: It's easy to predict because the top couple teams have players that are high end 4.0 (a.k.a. borderline 4.5) and could win a (singular) match against a (weak) 4.5.

USPTARF97: There's no way there are a "considerable number" of 3.5s at nationals that could be "competitive at 4.5" against the "former D1 players" who play 4.5.

I did not say there are a lot of 3.5s at nationals who would be consistently winning at 4.5. I said the top handful of teams have a couple players that could win a single match against a 4.5, obviously against a player on the lower end of 4.5.

Proof:

Texas's highest rated player on TR has a rating slightly above 4.0. That means his estimated rating (according to one hit or miss site) is slightly into the 4.5 range. But that's not the proof. The proof is in his results. He's 28-0 on the year. At 3.5 18+ sectionals he was putting out match results that estimated into the 3.90s. His two results at 4.0 18+ sectionals averaged out to an estimated 4.05 rating, which includes a win over a 4.0 projected to get bumped up (who had actually been undefeated since December outside of mixed doubles). And then at 3.5 and 4.0 40+ sectional weekend he played 2 matches each at both 3.5 and 4.0 and wound up with 3 of his 4 match ratings falling in the 4.5 rating zone. This guys is a computer rated 3.5, mind you. The next 5 guys on that team have all had matches whose estimated rating would put them at least in the top half of 4.0.

So Cal's highest rated player has an estimated rating of 3.97, just below the threshold for 4.5. But again let's dive a little deeper into it. He has 5 match results on the year that are estimated above 4.0. Then there's another 4 that were between 3.94-3.99. That's 9 total matches where he played above or close to the 4.5 level. But here's the kicker. He played a 5.0 singles tournament and only lost 7-5 6-2. Okay well maybe the guy he played wasn't actually a 5.0? Nope. That guy was 2-2 in 5.0 leagues and 6-3 in 5.0 tournaments. He has multiple wins over other 5.0s.

Those are the two worst offenders but there are other similar ones. Northern has a guy like that. Pacific has a guy like that. New England has a guy like that. Mo Valley has a high schooler like that. I mean, it's foolish to think this isn't something you'd come up against.

P.S. I am a 4.5. I've seen 4.5 playoffs in two different states. I have no lack of understanding about 4.5 tennis.

You win.

 

[Vox Rationis]

So Cal’s highest rated player is 3.97 meaning they are just below 4.0. He is just below 4.0 competing against players that are just below 4.0.(3.94, 3.99) Just because he had a couple of good results in 5.0 doesn’t mean he is that level. Players play their best about 10% of the time and their worst about 10% of the time. Their actual level is what they play when they are competing somewhere in the middle of those percentages.
You guys are using some fuzzy math to try and discredit the NTRP rating system.

Oh I get it. You made the ntrp rating system, think it's perfect, believe that no one every abuses it to get rated down, and now feel personally attacked. My bad, I apologize.

 

[Vox Rationis]

You win.

I feel like I'm going crazy. Wasn't even trying to get into this. I was just lightheartedly pointing out the obvious at first.

 

[USPTARF97]

If anyone is looking for why tennis has dropped off in numbers, this is it. Players complaining about whether or not another player is .2 or .3 points above them and should be playing at another level. Like it’s all some kind of conspiracy.
When tennis had its most significant growth we played age division and it was all open division. We played 128 draws and 64 at the smaller events.
Adult tournament draws don’t make and people play on two or three leagues teams with the general consensus that league levels always have too good a players in them. Makes no sense unless weaker levels is what people want. On par with our society wanting everything easier so everyone can succeed.

 

[USPTARF97]

Oh I get it. You made the ntrp rating system, think it's perfect, believe that no one every abuses it to get rated down, and now feel personally attacked. My bad, I apologize.

No just your math is wrong. When your TX player is slightly over 4.0 in your estimation they are 4.0 level and not 4.5. When your So Cal player is 3.97 in your estimated rating system and you somehow state they are playing at or above 4.5 because of that rating..they are actually still below 4.0.

 

[DCNJ]

.

 

[USPTARF97]

When is the last time you've admitted you were wrong about something?

Wrong quite often, just not in this conversation. Coaching teams for all of these years you have to help them work through thought process’ that are counter productive and quite frequently have no factual basis. Recreational league players are always trying to explain why they can’t win and things aren’t fair. And that is normally the men and not the women.

 

[Vox Rationis]

Wrong quite often, just not in this conversation. Coaching teams for all of these years you have to help them work through thought process’ that are counter productive and quite frequently have no factual basis. Recreational league players are always trying to explain why they can’t win and things aren’t fair. And that is normally the men and not the women.

I'm not competing against them so this is irrelevant to our conversation.

No just your math is wrong. When your TX player is slightly over 4.0 in your estimation they are 4.0 level and not 4.5. When your So Cal player is 3.97 in your estimated rating system and you somehow state they are playing at or above 4.5 because of that rating..they are actually still below 4.0.

My math is fine, you just seem unable to comprehend anything I've been saying. This whole response is irrelevant to every point I've made. Every time you say "See! They're not a 4.5!" it shows you're not listening. You seem not to care whatsoever about my point and only care about refuting this whole other argument you've concocted. Good luck with that.

Also it's not MY ratings site.