Saturday, September 7, 2013

More unexpected DQs and non-DQs explained

I've explained a number of DQs in the past (see here and here for a couple) using my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings and someone shared with me an unexpected DQ as well as an unexpected one during the Sectionals in the Eastern section of the USTA that I took a look at.  Once again, my ratings explain them showing how accurate they are.

First, this player had some very good results and the team fully expected him to be DQ'd but decided to just keep playing him as the Eastern section doesn't reverse matches for DQ'd players.  Despite a list of easy straight set wins, through Sectionals, he wasn't DQ'd.

My ratings do show that he likely had a strike from his first match of the year, but then managed to have his rating hover between 4.5 and 4.6 in large part because of a very low match rating in his second match.  Here is his full chart.


So while I can't confirm my ratings are exactly correct in this case, we only know he wasn't DQ'd, I seem to have gotten this one right.

Second, this player started the season as a 4.0 but got DQ'd to 4.5 during the mixed season, and so had to enter the men's season as a self-rated 4.5.  He went into Sectionals with one win (6-4,7-6) and one default win and proceeded to win 4 matches at Sectionals, 3 in match tie-breaks, and gets DQ'd which was very unexpected.

My ratings show that it is possible that he actually had 4 strikes at Sectionals, and was able to get the 4th simply because the match was played the same day and they may not have had a chance to do the calculations before the 2nd match.  Here is his full chart.


This shows pretty clearly that the first match at Sectionals was the key one generating a huge match rating of 5.33.  When the next two matches were also very good, his fate was sealed.

How did he generate such a high rating in that first 8/23 match?  He played with a partner that happened to be rated on the lower end of the 4.5 range and against two very strong 4.5s (likely to be bumped up).  Being only his second rated match, his rating is calculated as what it would have to be to make the match result correct and that was 5.33.

So my ratings have again gotten it right.  A player everyone thought would be DQ'd wasn't, and a player that on the surface looked unlikely to be DQ'd was.

If you've been DQ'd, and especially if you can share your DQ letter with me, let me know.