What Should I Do With This Player?

[Cindysphinx]

I have a self-rated player who is causing me some concern, so I need some opinions. Here's the deal.

She started playing in summer 2006, drill classes. I first saw her in January 2007 as a prospect for my combo 6.5 team. At the time, she had joined USTA and obtained a self-rating of 3.5. This wasn't based on the assessment of a pro or anything. No, she had been accepted on a 3.5 ladies daytime team and the captain said "Yeah, just put yourself down as a 3.5," so that's what she did.

When I hit with her, I could see good groundies but weak net play and doubles inexperience. Good athletic ability. I offered her a slot. I also told her I thought she wasn't a 3.5 (she was clearly less skilled than I am just on account of my doubles experience, and the serve was shaky). I told her I thought she should appeal down to 3.0 and play up on her 3.5 team. I figured if she really turned out to be 3.5, she could just continue playing up and not play for me on the spring 3.0 team.

Well, now it's spring, and here's the situation.

She is planning to play on my 3.0 team and a 3.5 team. She has played three 6.5 combo matches (1-2) and two 3.5 ladies daytime matches (0-2). She is a bit stronger, but I'd still say she is weaker than I am.

I don't want to do anything unethical, but the scores on her losses in the ladies daytime matches (the only ones the computer will know about) were close against tough teams. If she were computer-rated, I wouldn't be the least worried that she'd be disqualified. But she's self-rated, so I'm not at all sure what the computer might be thinking about her. I don't want to deny her a spot on the 3.0 team in error, nor do I want her getting DQ'd. Nor will I cheat and tell her to tank matches or give away games to avoid a DQ.

If a player plays a match at a higher level, does the computer consider a competitive loss to be a strike? If you were the captain, what would you do here?

One option is to have her be on the team but tell her the issue, tell her not to tank or take a dive, but tell her if that if it looks like she is destroying people that I'll refund her money and not schedule her anymore. Would that make sense?

Geez, I sure loved playing with this woman the other night. It was a match made in heaven . . .

 

[cak]

I don't know what a day ladies league is (I'm thinking I'd love one here...). Is it a path to Nationals? If not, it's a local league and though tennislink will keep the scores the scores aren't entered in NTRP calculations. If its another flight of the adult NTRP league, then yeah, she might be considered a 3.5. If the teams she was playing against were high 3.5s she might gain a strike. But remember, to get a strike she doesn't have to just be a 3.5, she's got to be a middle of the road to high 3.5. (Go look at http://www.shively.net/howNTRPisCalculated.pdf, boy is that a great link from another thread.)

I'd say if she blows out opponents in two matches refund her money and quit playing her.

 

[10sfreak]

I assume that she successfully appealed down to 3.0? If so, then yes, I definitely do think she could be in danger of getting DQed if she's killing her opponents in 3.0. Your next-to-last paragraph makes the most sense to me for the situation you/she are in.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Well, she successfully appealled down, but she hadn't yet played a match. So it's just like she had self-rated as a 3.0 in the first place.

I don't think ladies daytime is a path to Nationals. Does that mean it necessarily doesn't count for NTRP calculations?

So say she plays on a 3.5 team this spring and is competitive, but she doesn't blow out the competition at 3.0. Will she get DQ'd?

 

[Topaz]

Our ladies daytime team is a USTA league, and it can get you to Nationals by way of districts and sectionals. Thing is, there aren't usually a lot of teams in the league, so to get to districts is relatively easy.

 

[marcl65]

So say she plays on a 3.5 team this spring and is competitive, but she doesn't blow out the competition at 3.0. Will she get DQ'd?

The only time I’ve ever seen anyone DQ’d was in a situation similar to what you described in your OP.

The guy’d self-rated as a 3.0 but signed up for both the 3.0 and 3.5 teams. I think it wasn’t until he started playing the singles matches and beating 3.5s that the computer DQ’d him from the 3.0 team. As I understand it, it’s harder to get DQ’d playing doubles as the ranking points are split between the two players but in singles it’s all *you*. So, Cindy, if this player only plays doubles you might be okay but, IMHO, there’s an inherent risk in anyone playing on two teams at different levels. The bummer for the 3.0 team this guy had played on was that after his DQ’s they dropped from 1st to 2nd and ended up missing sectionals.

 

[atatu]

The answer seems pretty obvious to me, put her in doubles with your weakest player, at least against the weaker teams. Save her to play with you in the big matches. That's neither unethical or unfair and it will keep her scores close. Honestly though, around here you have to have wins on the satellite tour to get DQ'd.

 

[raiden031]

I'm looking at tennislink at a guy's record in my area from last year. He went 10-0 in league, and 9-1 in tournament play at the 3.0 level. He had eight 6-0 sets, and nine 6-1 sets throughout all these matches. He did not get disqualified but did get bumped up to 3.5 at year's end. That makes me think that its not really that easy to get disqualified. If this woman is playing competitively at the 3.5 level, it could mean she was playing very weak 3.5 players. I wouldn't panic just yet.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I'm looking at tennislink at a guy's record in my area from last year. He went 10-0 in league, and 9-1 in tournament play at the 3.0 level. He had eight 6-0 sets, and nine 6-1 sets throughout all these matches. He did not get disqualified but did get bumped up to 3.5 at year's end. That makes me think that its not really that easy to get disqualified. If this woman is playing competitively at the 3.5 level, it could mean she was playing very weak 3.5 players. I wouldn't panic just yet.

Self-rated or computer-rated?

Had to be the latter.

 

[raiden031]

Self-rated or computer-rated?

Had to be the latter.

Computer-rated, but do you think your player is truly a 3.5 player? I think you have to destroy every player at 3.0 to get disqualified, not just play well and lose against 3.5 players.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Is she truly a 3.5? Not unless I'm a 3.5, and I don't think I am.

The DQs I know about were 2.5s who destroyed people in singles. I can't think of a single computer-rated DQ of anyone I've known or come across.

I dunno. I worry the three strikes thing is reallly wicked hard on people (with good reason). I guess I just have to take my chances, but it's going to be awfully hard to recognize a "strike" incurred at the 3.5 level.

 

[10sfreak]

The only time I’ve ever seen anyone DQ’d was in a situation similar to what you described in your OP.

The guy’d self-rated as a 3.0 but signed up for both the 3.0 and 3.5 teams. I think it wasn’t until he started playing the singles matches and beating 3.5s that the computer DQ’d him from the 3.0 team. As I understand it, it’s harder to get DQ’d playing doubles as the ranking points are split between the two players but in singles it’s all *you*. So, Cindy, if this player only plays doubles you might be okay but, IMHO, there’s an inherent risk in anyone playing on two teams at different levels. The bummer for the 3.0 team this guy had played on was that after his DQ’s they dropped from 1st to 2nd and ended up missing sectionals.

Sounds familiar...

 

[10sfreak]

The answer seems pretty obvious to me, put her in doubles with your weakest player, at least against the weaker teams. Save her to play with you in the big matches. That's neither unethical or unfair and it will keep her scores close. Honestly though, around here you have to have wins on the satellite tour to get DQ'd.

Cindy, this approach would make the most sense to me. Since she is now considered "self-rated," by virtue of having appealed down, then there's a chance that she could get DQed, but it would depend of course, on how she does.

 

[raiden031]

What is the reasoning for a self-rated player more likely to get disqualified than a computer-rated player? Is it because a self-rated player's match results are weighed more heavily than a computer-rated players? Or is it that the system is confident that someone who has a computer-rated player already is not likely to improve enough within 1 year to where match results would be lopsided enough to warrant a disqualification?

In short, if you take two identically skilled players, is the self-rated still more likely to get DQed than the computer-rated?

In any case, based on my scenario of the guy with 10-0 league, 9-1 tournament record with 8 6-0 and 9 6-1 sets, would this be a candidate for DQ being either computer-rated or self-rated?

 

[Fedace]

I have a self-rated player who is causing me some concern, so I need some opinions. Here's the deal.

She started playing in summer 2006, drill classes. I first saw her in January 2007 as a prospect for my combo 6.5 team. At the time, she had joined USTA and obtained a self-rating of 3.5. This wasn't based on the assessment of a pro or anything. No, she had been accepted on a 3.5 ladies daytime team and the captain said "Yeah, just put yourself down as a 3.5," so that's what she did.

When I hit with her, I could see good groundies but weak net play and doubles inexperience. Good athletic ability. I offered her a slot. I also told her I thought she wasn't a 3.5 (she was clearly less skilled than I am just on account of my doubles experience, and the serve was shaky). I told her I thought she should appeal down to 3.0 and play up on her 3.5 team. I figured if she really turned out to be 3.5, she could just continue playing up and not play for me on the spring 3.0 team.

Well, now it's spring, and here's the situation.

She is planning to play on my 3.0 team and a 3.5 team. She has played three 6.5 combo matches (1-2) and two 3.5 ladies daytime matches (0-2). She is a bit stronger, but I'd still say she is weaker than I am.

I don't want to do anything unethical, but the scores on her losses in the ladies daytime matches (the only ones the computer will know about) were close against tough teams. If she were computer-rated, I wouldn't be the least worried that she'd be disqualified. But she's self-rated, so I'm not at all sure what the computer might be thinking about her. I don't want to deny her a spot on the 3.0 team in error, nor do I want her getting DQ'd. Nor will I cheat and tell her to tank matches or give away games to avoid a DQ.

If a player plays a match at a higher level, does the computer consider a competitive loss to be a strike? If you were the captain, what would you do here?

One option is to have her be on the team but tell her the issue, tell her not to tank or take a dive, but tell her if that if it looks like she is destroying people that I'll refund her money and not schedule her anymore. Would that make sense?

Geez, I sure loved playing with this woman the other night. It was a match made in heaven . . .

does she lose even on the last spot like #3 doubles? if so then it is not the right level. i am 4.0 computer rated, although i have trouble at #1 spot, i can consistantly win at #3 spot and decent amt of time at #2 spot. that is what true level is.

 

[10sfreak]

What is the reasoning for a self-rated player more likely to get disqualified than a computer-rated player? Is it because a self-rated player's match results are weighed more heavily than a computer-rated players? Or is it that the system is confident that someone who has a computer-rated player already is not likely to improve enough within 1 year to where match results would be lopsided enough to warrant a disqualification?

In short, if you take two identically skilled players, is the self-rated still more likely to get DQed than the computer-rated?

In any case, based on my scenario of the guy with 10-0 league, 9-1 tournament record with 8 6-0 and 9 6-1 sets, would this be a candidate for DQ being either computer-rated or self-rated?

I think it's because a self-rated player can "sand-bag", whereas, by definition, a computer-rated player is at the appropriate level. When you're self-rated, that basically means that you haven't played enough official matches for the computer to calculate your "true" rating. I think once you've played two seasons, then you're no longer a self-rated player, and if you don't get bumped up, then the computer's algorithm has determined that you're playing at the right level. Does that make sense?
Disclaimer: If my understanding of the situation isn't exactly correct, somebody out there correct me.

 

[Topaz]

You will get a computer rating after four matches, but it might not show up until the next time ratings come out.

Edited to add: Though, once you've got one match in the computer, it has a rating for you, you just don't know it yet!

 

[raiden031]

I think it's because a self-rated player can "sand-bag", whereas, by definition, a computer-rated player is at the appropriate level. When you're self-rated, that basically means that you haven't played enough official matches for the computer to calculate your "true" rating. I think once you've played two seasons, then you're no longer a self-rated player, and if you don't get bumped up, then the computer's algorithm has determined that you're playing at the right level. Does that make sense?
Disclaimer: If my understanding of the situation isn't exactly correct, somebody out there correct me.

This is how I thought it worked, because of that confidence in the system that a computer-rated player is truly at the right level, and will not improve enough the following year to get DQed.

So this would mean a self-rated player who is as good as, but not better than a strong computer-rated player is no more likely to get DQed. But the example I showed surprised me because this dude whipped some butt even for being a computer-rated player. This would mean even if he was self-rated he still wouldn't be DQed.

 

[marcl65]

This is how I thought it worked, because of that confidence in the system that a computer-rated player is truly at the right level, and will not improve enough the following year to get DQed.

Raiden, I don't think it has anything to do with how much a player is capable of improving in a year. Think of it like this, as a self-rated player, you're basically on a probationary period (as in a job). If you come in as a self-rated player and start blowing away the competition then it would be fair to argue that you didn't rate yourself correctly and get a DQ.

So this would mean a self-rated player who is as good as, but not better than a strong computer-rated player is no more likely to get DQed. But the example I showed surprised me because this dude whipped some butt even for being a computer-rated player. This would mean even if he was self-rated he still wouldn't be DQed.

Here's a quote from the USTA website:
http://www.southern.usta.com/usaleaguetennis/custom.sps?iType=987&icustompageid=10938

How many players were disqualified in 2007?

Out of 95,000 players in the nine Southern states, there were 274 dynamic disqualifications based on the NTRP Computer Rating System. Of those, 106 had played in one level while 168 had played in two levels. 37 were computer rated players and 237 were self-rated. 217 were disqualified during local round robin play, 6 during local playoffs, 34 after the State Championships and 17 after the Sectional Championships.

Clearly, self-rated players are more likely to be DQ'd than computer-rated players.

 

[10sfreak]

I think it also depends on who you play against. (yeah, I know, duh! LOL!)
For instance, our local league coordinator told us that she played in 47 matches last year at various levels. She won in 43 of those matches. So she expected to get bumped up to 3.5, but didn't. When she inquired about it, it turns out she only played 4 matches against players who "mattered," and came out 2-2 against them. (Btw, these were all USTA matches).Sorry, but I can't recall why those players "mattered" and the others didn't, as far as the dynamic ratings go. So, since you only came out 2-2 against players that could affect her dynamic rating, and even though she was 43-4 overall for the season, she didn't get bumped up. Strange...

 

[Cindysphinx]

She inquired? Who did she ask? I thought all that stuff was a closely guarded secret.