Weighted Lines

[mpnv1990]

IMO, the 18 and over USTA league should be 3 points for D1, 2 points for D2, 1 point for D3, 2 points for S1, and 1 point for S2.

That would be 9 total points. The winner would need 5 points.

In order to prevent a situation where a team plays only D1 and S1, wins those, and therefore wins the team match, I would apply penalties in ascending order. For example, if you default a doubles line, it’s a 3 point penalty for one default, 5 point penalty for two defaults, and 6 point penalty for three defaults. If you default a singles line, it’s a 2 point penalty for one default and a 3 point penalty for two defaults.

The penalties would be applied after the matches are completed. For example, if a team only plays D1 and S1 and wins those, it would be a 5-4 victory pre-penalty. After the penalties, they would lose 4 to -2, as there would be 7 penalty points for defaulting two doubles and a singles line.

Also, if there winds up being a tie in points post-penalty points applied, the team with fewer penalty points would get the team win.

Under this system, it would be impossible to win a team match without winning at least three individual matches.

This would reduce the rate of stacking and make it an extreme disadvantage to default a line.

 

[nyta2]

IMO, the 18 and over USTA league should be 3 points for D1, 2 points for D2, 1 point for D3, 2 points for S1, and 1 point for S2.

That would be 9 total points. The winner would need 5 points.

In order to prevent a situation where a team plays only D1 and S1, wins those, and therefore wins the team match, I would apply penalties in ascending order. For example, if you default a doubles line, it’s a 3 point penalty for one default, 5 point penalty for two defaults, and 6 point penalty for three defaults. If you default a singles line, it’s a 2 point penalty for one default and a 3 point penalty for two defaults.

The penalties would be applied after the matches are completed. For example, if a team only plays D1 and S1 and wins those, it would be a 5-4 victory pre-penalty. After the penalties, they would lose 4 to -2, as there would be 7 penalty points for defaulting two doubles and a singles line.

Also, if there winds up being a tie in points post-penalty points applied, the team with fewer penalty points would get the team win.

Under this system, it would be impossible to win a team match without winning at least three individual matches.

This would reduce the rate of stacking and make it an extreme disadvantage to default a line.

i thought they do/did do weighted lines?
1S: 5pt
2S: 4pt
1D: 5pt
2D: 4pt
3D: 3pt
or something like that.

 

[tennis3]

They should weight the matches based on the actual level of the person that wins.

For example, if you win a 4.0 singles match using your 5.0 ringer, you get 1/2 point. If you win with your 3.5 scrub, you get 5 points.

 

[schmke]

Some areas already do points per position (PPP). More started doing it when 40+ went to 4 courts as a way to avoid dealing with 2-2 ties.

But PPP doesn't deal with team wins and losses, but instead just accruing points and whatever team in a flight has the most points is atop the standings.

Back to the proposal, if you want to still have a team win and use that for standings with your points system, the anti-default rules are fine and good, but they only address situations where a team defaults court(s). A team could still field a line-up with 5 scrubs on 2S/2D/3D and just three players on 1S/1D and if they win those two courts, they get the team win.

Under this system, it would be impossible to win a team match without winning at least three individual matches.

So I don't think this statement is true is it?

What does this system do other than make it easier for a top-heavy team to win team matches?

At least with PPP a team with just three top players can get the court 1 points every match, but likely won't be atop the points standings if they never manage to win any other courts.

 

[mpnv1990]

Some areas already do points per position (PPP). More started doing it when 40+ went to 4 courts as a way to avoid dealing with 2-2 ties.

But PPP doesn't deal with team wins and losses, but instead just accruing points and whatever team in a flight has the most points is atop the standings.

Back to the proposal, if you want to still have a team win and use that for standings with your points system, the anti-default rules are fine and good, but they only address situations where a team defaults court(s). A team could still field a line-up with 5 scrubs on 2S/2D/3D and just three players on 1S/1D and if they win those two courts, they get the team win.


So I don't think this statement is true is it?

What does this system do other than make it easier for a top-heavy team to win team matches?

At least with PPP a team with just three top players can get the court 1 points every match, but likely won't be atop the points standings if they never manage to win any other courts.

I have no problem if a team fills out all five lines, the bottom three lines are scrubs, and they get the team win by having a dominant D1 and S1.

That would be very difficult to sustain for an entire season.

Also, it gives captains an incentive to recruit better.

My system isn’t perfect, but I think it would make things a lot better.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

It would avoid stacking, but in the favor of superteams, now those without ringers can't sacrifice line 1 to avoid the usual out of place player.

 

[Curtennis]

I have no problem if a team fills out all five lines, the bottom three lines are scrubs, and they get the team win by having a dominant D1 and S1.

That would be very difficult to sustain for an entire season.

Also, it gives captains an incentive to recruit better.

My system isn’t perfect, but I think it would make things a lot better.

Edit. wait I’m still confused. What you wrote sounds like what’s already done.

 

[mpnv1990]

Edit. wait I’m still confused. What you wrote sounds like what’s already done.

Where I live, the season standings are determined by win-loss record and not total points.

I want a system done by total points because it discourages defaults and encourage the best players on team A to go against the best players on team B.

 

[Curtennis]

Where I live, the season standings are determined by win-loss record and not total points.

I want a system done by total points because it discourages defaults and encourage the best players on team A to go against the best players on team B.

Ah! I feel like the first post was a lot longer than need be to explain this. Understood! Not a bad idea. Totally see where you’re coming from.

Going out with the boys after a win is fun. With just point totals that get saved for the end of the year, some of that excitement is taken back.
If someone loses one position they still get to enjoy the win as much as the rest of the team since their loss is basically annulled. Makes it for more of a team dynamic rather than an every man for himself.
I’m only playing the advocate here with some initial thoughts. No offense meant.

 

[mpnv1990]

Ah! I feel like the first post was a lot longer than need be to explain this. Understood! Not a bad idea. Totally see where you’re coming from.

Going out with the boys after a win is fun. With just point totals that get saved for the end of the year, some of that excitement is taken back.
If someone loses one position they still get to enjoy the win as much as the rest of the team since their loss is basically annulled. Makes it for more of a team dynamic rather than an every man for himself.
I’m only playing the advocate here with some initial thoughts. No offense meant.

I get where you’re coming from, but it’s still a team thing, as the top two teams would advance.

 

[TennisOTM]

I don't really like the point penalty for defaults, because it might unintentionally pressure injured players to play. If your only choice is to put a hobbled guy out there to get zero instead of negative points, that's not a great situation.

Nobody likes defaulted lines, but the teams that tend to default are probably struggling to be in contention anyway - no real need to punish them more.

 

[mpnv1990]

I don't really like the point penalty for defaults, because it might unintentionally pressure injured players to play. If your only choice is to put a hobbled guy out there to get zero instead of negative points, that's not a great situation.

Nobody likes defaulted lines, but the teams that tend to default are probably struggling to be in contention anyway - no real need to punish them more.

My concern is that people pay money and sign up for a league to play matches. Not for another team to default the match they were supposed to play.

I do think that is a valid point, however.

 

[kylebarendrick]

What problem is this trying to solve? If the intention is to force matches to be played in order of strength, there are other ways to do it. I personally like the idea of having captains enter their lineups onto the USTA page for the match, and then having the website assign line numbers based on the player's dynamic ratings (which only they know). That keeps this as an 8-player team match rather than a 3-ringer match.

 

[Roforot]

What problem is this trying to solve? If the intention is to force matches to be played in order of strength, there are other ways to do it. I personally like the idea of having captains enter their lineups onto the USTA page for the match, and then having the website assign line numbers based on the player's dynamic ratings (which only they know). That keeps this as an 8-player team match rather than a 3-ringer match.

That's a neat idea. I would rather have it as the captain enterring 2 singles players and 3 sets of doubles players. Perhaps this is what you meant. I'd hate to go expecting to play singles and get suckered into doubles or vice versa. Also it lets me practice w/ my planned partner.

 

[mpnv1990]

That's a neat idea. I would rather have it as the captain enterring 2 singles players and 3 sets of doubles players. Perhaps this is what you meant. I'd hate to go expecting to play singles and get suckered into doubles or vice versa. Also it lets me practice w/ my planned partner.

The USTA won’t do that because then they’d be divulging ratings somewhat.

 

[schmke]

The USTA won’t do that because then they’d be divulging ratings somewhat.

I wouldn't be surprised if they've considered it. Really all it tells you is one singles player is rated higher than another. Much harder to derive anything from the doubles order.

 

[TennisOTM]

I don't really mind the current system where captains can set the lines however they want. It adds an element of strategic game theory for captains who enjoy that stuff. When both opposing captains are playing the lineup strategy game, things get interesting.

I also wonder if a points-per-position system really eliminates stacking incentive? If the opposing team has a ringer and you know even your best player has little chance to beat him, wouldn't you still have incentive to punt the S1 points with a scrub and go for the other points with your best players? The PPP makes it harder to win the team match that way, but it's still your best strategy.

The automated-lineup-by-NTRP idea would be fun to see in action, but I wonder if it would make the league experience worse for many players. Consider a weaker team where their best player is just in the middle of the NTRP level. If he is forced by the system to face the best player on every other team, he is going to be the underdog in every league match, despite being better than half the players in the league. Wouldn't he be happier in the current system where he could get a more random mix of opponents?

 

[socallefty]

I don't really mind the current system where captains can set the lines however they want. It adds an element of strategic game theory for captains who enjoy that stuff. When both opposing captains are playing the lineup strategy game, things get interesting.

That is how I feel. In our local league a few years ago when I used to captain, me and two other captains always strategized against each other trying to get an edge with lineups. Our teams were the only ones with any chance to win the league also and the other teams were just cannon fodder. Since we mostly played every season with the same players except for an occasional new recruit or two, it added an element of uncertainty to who would win the league as it invariably came down to a narrow win or two when the teams played head-to-head and the lineup order often provided the winning edge.

In our league, we don’t have a big turnover of players or players being recruited to switch teams to form super-teams. So, the lineup strategizing added fun to change the dynamic of each season. Otherwise the same team with the best players would win all the time and the strategic element of captaining would matter less.

 

[kylebarendrick]

I've never considered this a problem either. Setting line order is an artform in itself. I also get the argument that it doesn't really have anything to do with actual tennis skills.

That's a neat idea. I would rather have it as the captain enterring 2 singles players and 3 sets of doubles players. Perhaps this is what you meant. I'd hate to go expecting to play singles and get suckered into doubles or vice versa. Also it lets me practice w/ my planned partner.

Yes - that is what I meant. Captain enters the singles players and doubles teams that they intend to play.