Monday, July 28, 2014

USTA League playoffs continue, paths to advance, more report customers do so

This is a busy time of the year for USTA League play as rounds of playoffs continue to be played and more teams advance.  This weekend found some districts in the Midwest playing having their playoffs in various divisions and levels, and and the Southern section playing their doing the same.  And I'm sure there was other playoff activity.  And it is always fun to hear from report customers after playoffs to hear of their success, either individually or as a team, and their excitement to hear about how their matches have affected their NTRP dynamic rating.

Something that has always been interesting to me is how all the different sections and districts are organized. and how many rounds of playoffs a team may have to go through.

The shortest path is usually in a section like Hawaii, where simply beating out a few teams in local league play can be all that is required to advance.

In my section, the Pacific Northwest, we typically have local league play followed by local playoffs which serve as our Districts effectively, and then we advance to Sectionals.

In the South, states are aligned with districts and a team may have local playoffs to get to districts (states) and then on to Sectionals.

In the Midwest, the districts are smaller so a team may play Districts which gets them to States (Regionals), and then to Sectionals.

So it varies, and I guess the teams with a longer path just get the opportunity to play more, and isn't that the goal, to play more tennis?

Friday, July 25, 2014

More Interesting USTA League Stats - Middle States section strength of tennis players by NTRP level and district

Continuing in the series ofinteresting stats blog entries, here is how the Middle States districts compare.

The chart below shows the average NTRP rating by level for each district in the Middle States section of the USTA. Ratings used are the Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings used in calculating Individual and Team reports.

Here is a static image.


You can hover over each bar in the interactive chart and see what the average rating for that level in that district is.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

More Interesting USTA League Stats - Inter-Mountain section strength of tennis players by NTRP level and district

Continuing in the series ofinteresting stats blog entries, here is how the Inter-Mountain districts compare.

The chart below shows the average NTRP rating by level for each district in the Inter-Mountain section of the USTA. Ratings used are the Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings used in calculating Individual and Team reports.

Here is a static image.

You can hover over each bar in the interactive chart and see what the average rating for that level in that district is.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

More Interesting USTA League Stats - Midwest section strength of tennis players by NTRP level and district

Continuing in the series ofinteresting stats blog entries, here is how the Midwest districts compare.

The chart below shows the average NTRP rating by level for each district in the Midwest section of the USTA. Ratings used are the Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings used in calculating Individual and Team reports.

You can hover over each bar in the interactive chart and see what the average rating for that level in that district is.
Should the interactive chart above not render correctly, here is a static image.

Another scenario where a Computer (C) rated player had a successful grievance filed against them

I wrote last week about when a USTA NTRP C rating isn't really a C rating and I heard about another scenario today.

This player had played at a small college but self rated as a 2.5, got DQ'd to a 3.0, and had a year-end rating of 3.5, then while playing as a 3.5 had a grievance filed against them.  The USTA ignored the C rating and instead looked at what they should have self-rated at and DQ'd them and promoted them to be a 4.5.

So if you think you can slip one by and ignore your experience and the self-rate guidelines, watch out, you could have a grievance filed against you even after your get the coveted C rating.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

More Interesting USTA League Stats - Pacific Northwest section strength of tennis players by NTRP level and district

Sectionals in the Pacific Northwest section are coming up in August, so this interesting stats blog entry will tell us a bit about how the districts compare.

The chart below shows the average NTRP rating by level for each district in the Pacific Northwest section of the USTA. Ratings used are the Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings used in calculating Individual and Team reports.

You can hover over each bar in the interactive chart and see what the average rating for that level in that district is.
Looking at averages for players playing in each district, Northern Oregon and Northwest Washington lead the way for 3.0s, Southern Oregon for the 3.5s and 4.0s, and Alaska for the 4.5s.

Should the interactive chart above not render correctly, here is a static image.

More Interesting USTA League Stats - Southern section strength of tennis players by NTRP level and district

I asked on facebook what section people wanted to see interesting stats on next, and Southern won out, so here you go.

The chart below shows the average NTRP rating by level for each district in the Southern section of the USTA. Ratings used are the Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings used in calculating Individual and Team reports.

You can hover over each bar in the interactive chart and see what the average rating for that level in that district (state) is.
When you look at it at the district level, there isn't a huge amount of variance. But Kentucky has the highest average for 3.0s, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina have the highest for 3.5s, North and South Carolina have the highest 4.0s, and Arkansas the highest 4.5s.

Should the interactive chart above not render correctly, here is a static image.