As I did last year, I will be doing simulations of each Nationals to predict who the most likely four teams are to make the semi-finals, and also look at other interesting things that may occur. Last year, the simulations did a pretty good job predicting who would advance to the semis including having all four teams predicted correctly several times.
Why do these simulations you ask? The primary reason is that the format for USTA League Nationals is now a flight-less random round-robin where each team plays four other random opponents. This introduces significant variations in schedule strength, the possibility of an undefeated team not making the top-4, and teams vying for the top-4 perhaps not having played head-to-head and unfortunate tie-breakers being used. The simulations aim to educate folks on how it all works and look at what may happen. Also see this write-up for some things to know about Nationals.
As a reminder, my simulations are done using my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings and looking at the average rating for the top group of players on each team, the actual schedule each team will play, and then doing a million simulations of the matches with some random variation in each team's expected result.
First, with 17 teams playing a random four opponents, it will always be possible for there to be five (or more) undefeated teams. The simulation says there is a one in a million chance of six undefeated, and a 1% chance of five undefeated so it is unlikely an undefeated team will be sent home.
There is a 20% chance of four teams being undefeated though, and that would be a nice clean result with no angst or controversy over tie-breaks and who is the most deserving to advance. And there is a 44% chance that there are three undefeated teams.
That leaves a very good chance, 79%, that there will be a tie for the last spot and it come down to tie-breakers. That tie could be two teams at 4-0 (but just the 1% chance of that) but more likely 3-1. The most likely size of the tie is four at 31%, but there is a 26% chance of a three team tie, 21% of five teams, 9% of two teams, and also 9% chance of six teams. The chances of larger ties diminish pretty quickly, but an 11-way tie is theoretically possible, but it appears a multi-way tie is a very high probability.
Should there be a tie on team record, it comes down first to who has the best court record, then head-to-head (if applicable), then to who lost the fewest sets, then who lost the fewest games, and finally percent of games won. There is a 20% chance it comes down to the sets lost tie-breaker, and there is a 76% chance that is between two teams but a 21% chance it is between three teams.
The schedule strengths do vary a lot, the team with the easiest schedule having an opponent average of 3.51 while the team with the toughest schedule having an opponent average of 3.69! Someone got a bad draw to pull that schedule! That can clearly lead to an easier road for some teams than others, in fact the two strongest teams got two of the easier schedules.
So who is most likely to come out in the top-4? Texas, Midwest, Pacific NW, and NorCal head the list, Texas being the slight overall favorite. Mid-Atlantic is close though and Southern, New England, and Southern Cal are all lurking and could be right there with an upset win.
For those interested, I offer a variety of reports to make Nationals more fun and help captains prepare. I have a Simulation Report that has all of the details of the simulation including the average ratings for each team, each team's schedule strength, the most likely record for each team, and the chance of each possible record for each team. I also offer reports to help teams scout opponents in more detail, both a Flight Report with full roster averages, top-8 averages and played by court averages for each team, as well as full Team Reports with detailed ratings for each rostered player and stats who who plays with who and on which court and how they do together. Contact me if interested in any of these reports.
As I did last year, I will be doing simulations of each Nationals to predict who the most likely four teams are to make the semi-finals, and also look at other interesting things that may occur. Last year, the simulations did a pretty good job predicting who would advance to the semis including having all four teams predicted correctly several times.
Why do these simulations you ask? The primary reason is that the format for USTA League Nationals is now a flight-less random round-robin where each team plays four other random opponents. This introduces significant variations in schedule strength, the possibility of an undefeated team not making the top-4, and teams vying for the top-4 perhaps not having played head-to-head and unfortunate tie-breakers being used. The simulations aim to educate folks on how it all works and look at what may happen. Also see this write-up for some things to know about Nationals.
As a reminder, my simulations are done using my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings and looking at the average rating for the top group of players on each team, the actual schedule each team will play, and then doing a million simulations of the matches with some random variation in each team's expected result.
First, with 17 teams playing a random four opponents, it will always be possible for there to be five (or more) undefeated teams. Thankfully, with the schedule in place my simulation says the worst it would be is five undefeated, and there is only a 0.3% chance of an undefeated team being sent home.
There is a 12% chance of four teams being undefeated though, and that would be a nice clean result with no angst or controversy over tie-breaks and who is the most deserving to advance. And there is a 40% chance that there are three undefeated teams.
That leaves a very good chance, 82%, that there will be a tie for the last spot and it come down to tie-breakers. That tie could be two teams at 4-0 (but just the 0.3% chance of that) but more likely 3-1. The most likely size of the tie is three at 32%, but there is a 28% chance of a four team tie, 17% of two teams, and 15% chance of five teams. The chances of larger ties diminish pretty quickly, but an 11-way tie is theoretically possible.
Should there be a tie on team record, it comes down first to who has the best court record, then head-to-head (if applicable), then to who lost the fewest sets, then who lost the fewest games, and finally percent of games won. There is a 20% chance it comes down to the sets lost tie-breaker, and there is a 77% chance that is between two teams but a 21% chance it is between three teams.
The schedule strengths do vary a lot, the team with the easiest schedule having an opponent average of 3.52 while the team with the toughest schedule having an opponent average of 3.63. That can clearly lead to an easier road for some teams than others, in fact the two strongest teams got two of the easier schedules.
So who is most likely to come out in the top-4? Mid-Atlantic, Middle States, Eastern, and Texas head the list, Mid-Atlantic being the ever so slight overall favorite. New England is very close though and Florida, Midwest, Intermountain, Northern, and Southern Cal are all lurking and could be right there with an upset win.
For those interested, I offer a variety of reports to make Nationals more fun and help captains prepare. I have a Simulation Report that has all of the details of the simulation including the average ratings for each team, each team's schedule strength, the most likely record for each team, and the chance of each possible record for each team. I also offer reports to help teams scout opponents in more detail, both a Flight Report with full roster averages, top-8 averages and played by court averages for each team, as well as full Team Reports with detailed ratings for each rostered player and stats who who plays with who and on which court and how they do together. Contact me if interested in any of these reports.
I have seen more text from the updated USTA League regulations for 2020 and there is another rule change to be aware of. I also have an update on the 40 & Over format change to 1 singles and 3 doubles courts. Note that the updated regulations document should show up on the USTA site here soon, in fact it is now there and you can go directly to the document using this link.
First, on the 40 & Over format, to be clear, this format is not mandated to be used for local leagues. Each section/district/area has the leeway to use an alternate format for local league play, and even through Sectionals if they so choose. The new format is what Nationals will use though. So I encourage you to let your League Coordinator which format you prefer and perhaps you can influence what is used at least for local league play.
Also, I did have a poll available to voice your opinion on the format chnage and as of my writing this, 85% of the nearly 100 respondents said they prefer the current 2 singles / 3 doubles format to the new 1 singles / 3 doubles format. If you haven't voted, please do and let your voice be heard.
Now, on to the new change I saw in the latest regulations.
This change centers around eligibility for playoffs and Nationals and the minimum matches required to be played to be eligible. In the recent past and for 2019, players had to play in two regular season matches to be eligible for playoffs through Sectionals, and three matches to be eligible for Nationals. In each case one default may count towards the required matches.
As I understand it, this rule is there to ensure players play on the team and don't just show up in playoffs as ringers from other teams that didn't qualify. Secondarily, it is there to ensure that self-rated players have played matches and have had a chance for the 3-strike DQ process to work.
The problem is that a self-rated (or appeal) players could be hidden on a roster getting a default win playing just one match before Sectionals, then play one match there and be qualified for Nationals with only two actual matches played. Naturally, there is no way to get three 3-strikes in just two matches.
The new rule now states that self-rated and appeal player must have played four matches to be eligible for Nationals and no defaults count. Sections may also optionally require the same for any phase of local through sectional playoffs, and may also optionally not allow defaults to count towards the total.
Update: I was not clear originally in the above, the minimum matches played are on the team advancing, not across all teams played on. So a self-rated player playing both 18 & Over and 40 & Over would have to play at least four matches on each team to be eligible for Nationals on each team.
I think this is an excellent change made by the USTA so thank them for taking this action. The prior rule was clearly a loophole allowing self-rates and appeal players to hide and not risk a 3-strike DQ and still qualify for Nationals where they could play all out, and unfortunately some captains would exploit it. The new rule makes this far more difficult to pull this trick off and I think league play and especially playoffs will be better off for it. Well done USTA.
Now let's hope sections adopt the four match minimum for playoffs too, or at least something more stringent than the old rule.
What do you think of the new minimum required match rule? Tough enough? Still too lenient? What should be done for local/district/state/sectional playoffs?
The USTA sends out surveys periodically asking questions about player's experience or preferences. One such survey was done earlier this year asking questions about the plus flights as well as the format for 40 & Over.
These surveys can be an indicator of changes to come, and in the case of plus flights we saw a rule change for 2020 forbidding players playing up from playing on court 1 in plus flights, e.g. a 4.0 cannot play court one in a 4.5+ flight.
What about the format for 40 & Over? The 2020 regulations document I've seen still lists 2 singles and 3 doubles as the National format, but I am hearing that National has announced a change to 1 singles and 3 doubles for 2020.
Note: I believe this has just been announced by National and as such sections/districts/areas may not have fully digested it and come up with a plan yet. I understand local leagues may have the option to adopt this format or stay with 2 singles and 3 doubles but am unaware of any decisions districts/areas have made one way or the other but expect each will be notifying players and captains of the decision for their local leagues soon. I'd ask you be patient while they do so as asking your LC about it probably won't speed things up. As I hear any announcements, I will write about them so stay tuned.
Now, on to my thoughts and analysis of the change.
I personally am not a fan of this change, I think there are a number of issues with it including fewer playing opportunities in general (just 7 players per team match rather than 8) and cutting in half the opportunities for singles players wanting to play 40 & Over. And what about team scoring and standings now that you have just four courts and matches will end in 2-2 ties (see below)?
But why might this change have been made? Certainly, the survey results may have shown support for it (but see below where I debunk survey results on this subject as potentially misleading), but I can also see some areas with limited court availability being in favor of it as it allows a team match to be played on four courts rather than requiring five.
In my area, there are some facilities with only four courts and today, this forces a split start time for matches where two (or three) matches go on at the start of the match, and the other three (or two) go on after they complete. This makes for a long team match if one stays for the whole thing. And it reduces the number of league matches and thus teams a facility can host when a team match takes up all the courts for 3+ hours.
With the new format, a four court facility can now host a team match all at the same time, and with one fewer court used, facilities can make it available to other members/players so a team match isn't taking up as many courts. But I wonder how big of an issue this really is/was?
On the survey, I would not be surprised if there were a fair number of responses in favor of 1/3. But let's think about it a minute. In the 2/3 format, just two of the eight players play singles, 25%, and it is probably fair to say the makeup of a team is similarly 25% singles players and 75% doubles players. Sure, some may play both but the player population at 40+ is certainly biased towards doubles players.
So, if you then do a survey of these players, and 70+% of them are doubles players that prefer doubles, what format do you think they'd vote for? If the majority of players don't want to play singles, they will probably vote for fewer singles courts, with the 30-% of singles players that want two singles courts simply out voted. I don't know what the survey results were, but this is a situation where I think the survey results needed to be not taken at face value but looked at in the context of the playing population.
And given that the 2/3 format already is biased towards doubles with 75% of the players playing doubles, why would you take away 50% of the few opportunities for singles players? Only 14% of the players in a 1/3 format team match are now singles players, and that hardly seems representative. You can't really trot out stats saying the majority of players over 40 play doubles and claim that is representative of interests, if the format you provide is biased towards forcing those players to play doubles ...
Now I am somewhat surprised the change was to 1/3 rather than 1/4. A 1/4 format would have avoided the 2-2 team match tie issue, and it would have actually increased playing opportunity as there would be 9 instead of 8 spots in each team match. I hope this is not the case, but someone suggested to me there were a lot of survey results asking for 2/3 or 1/4, and someone at the USTA decided to split the difference and do 1/3 was a happy medium 😏 But I'm guessing the fewer courts was attractive to facilities, or in smaller areas it was thought requiring 9 players for a team match would result in more defaults or would require larger rosters and thus fewer teams could be formed.
The other potential reason for this is that it was perceived that some teams were not competitive in 40 & Over because they didn't have two strong singles players. I'm sure it is true that not every team has strong singles players, but in 18 & Over not every team has two strong singles players either so I don't really see the difference. In either case, I don't see how dumbing down the competition at the expense of promoting singles play is a good thing.
What about defaults? Is it possible 40 & Over had a lot of defaults at 2 singles and so it was perceived 2 singles was not needed as a court? I don't think the data supports that at all. I took a look at the matches in 18 & Over and 40 & Over for 2018 and here is how things compare as it relates to defaults.
In 18 & Over, 6.4% of all courts were defaulted by one team while in 40 & Over it was 6.6%. While 40 & Over is a bit higher, that is hardly significant and not an indicator that 40 & Over is defaulting courts at an abnormally high rate because all 5 courts can't be filled.
But what about where the defaults occurred? In looking at this stat, keep in mind that USTA rules dictate that if a team is missing one person and the others all want to play, they must default 2 singles first so it is going to be the court most often defaulted. Court 3 doubles of course could be defaulted instead, but then another player is missing out on playing.
In 18 & Over, 38% of the defaults occurred on 1 singles while in 40 & Over 36% occurred there. So this certainly does not support the notion that court 2 singles was being defaulted at an alarming high rate as it is lower than the rate for 18 & Over. Based on this stat, if anything, 18 & Over should have had its format changed to just 1 singles court!
I've mentioned the scoring several times, so what about it? Having four courts does present a problem where team wins are decided by who won the most courts. Yes, you will still have some 4-0 and 3-1 wins, but a lot of those 3-2 wins or 2-3 losses are going to become 2-2 ties. So now we come to tie-breakers and if you read my blog, you know what I think of the tie-breakers the USTA uses.
For clarity, here are the rules for determining what team wins if the courts tie 2-2 as I understand them.
Sets: Loser of the fewest number of sets
Games: Loser of the fewest number of games
Game Winning Percentage: Total games won divided by total games played
You see the same sets lost and games lost tie-breakers I've written about before. The good news is #3 is there taking into account games won as well at least, but being used after games lost it really won't have that large an impact and will often times not identify a winner as it will be the same for each team.
And what if it is still tied after #3? I have not heard but will try to find out.
There you have my thoughts. I don't think the change is a good idea for lots of reasons, and don't see any real benefit for the players in the new format. But what do you think?
Leave a comment here on the blog or on Facebook, or vote in the poll below.
Do you prefer the new 1 singles / 3 doubles or existing 2 singles / 3 doubles format for 40 & Over
The 2019 USTA League Nationals are just about to begin, so 2020 will be upon us very soon. In fact, in some areas early start leagues for 2020 have already begun.
With that in mind, what are some of the regulations changes for 2020? You can read the whole 2020 USTA League Regulations document, but here is a summary of some of the notable changes to be aware of.
The big change is for those that are concerned about uncompetitive matches on court 1 when a team sacrifices a weak player there. For them, there is good news, although for 2020 just for plus flights. There is a new regulation stating that below level players are not allowed to play court 1 in plus flights. More specifically, in 5.0+ flights with 3 courts, a 4.5 cannot play on court 1 singles, and in 4.5+ flights, a 4.0 cannot play on either court 1.
This means for example that while a 4.5 can be rostered and play on a 18 & Over 5.0+ team, they will not be allowed to play on court 1. This makes sense given that the plus player (5.5s) must play on only court 1, and having them play a 4.5 would likely result in an uncompetitive match. Since the point of level based play is to have competitive matches, allowing 4.5s to play 5.5s kind of goes against that so one can see the reason for this regulation.
Now, this does handcuff some captains a bit taking away some line-up flexibility, particularly in 5.0+ where just three courts are played, but it may help keep plus players engaged in USTA League.
Now, this rule is just for plus flights. Normal flights there is no restriction and there is still no special meaning to the courts in these flights.
What do you think? Is this a good change? Would you like to see the rule apply to all flights? Or did you like it the way it was?
A few other changes are related to sections being given leeway on scoring methods and tie-break procedures in playoffs. Basically, a section can elect to use rules different from the Nationals for determining standings the determining who advances.
Those are the significant changes. I'll keep my eyes out for more.
USTA League Nationals for this year start just two weeks from the time I am writing this. 18 & Over levels are played the first weekend and the following two weekends, while 40 & Over starts the second weekend of October and runs through the end of the month. 55 & Over fills the last October weekend and early November, Mixed is entirely in November.
For teams/player that are going to Nationals, or just those following along, there are a number of things to remember.
The sites for Nationals include the National Campus in Orlando, Las Vegas, Surprise Arizona, and new for 2019 Oklahoma City. I think this is a good set of sites with pretty even geographic distribution, and it appears are traditionally dry enough or have provisions for dealing with in-climate weather.
Regarding the weather, hopefully there are no issues, but if there are, players need to be prepared for altered formats. The most likely change is to go to a shortened format to speed up the completion of matches, either a Fast Four format or something similar like starting sets at 2-2 and using no-ad scoring. At worse though, it could become just a single set to decide a match.
The format for Nationals continues to be an un-flighted round-robin. Teams are not in traditional flights but each team simply plays four other "random" teams and the top-4 overall in the standings advance to the semi-finals. This is good as all teams get to play four matches (old format most played just three) and it provides some additional opportunities for a team to lose early and still make the semis, but also means the "randomness" of the schedule can become a huge factor as a weaker team with an easy schedule may have a better chance of making the semis as a strong team with a tough schedule.
The other big factor with the new format is how the top-4 teams are determined and the tie-breakers used. Last year, there were some issues (IMHO) a few times, that precipitated my proposing some rules changes that unfortunately were not adopted. So read those links in the prior sentence to understand the tie-breakers and the implications.
Given the new format and schedule and tie-break implications, using my ratings, I came up with a new report that performs a million simulations of the matches to determine the chances of all possible records for the teams and the chances each one will advance to the semis. I often post a summary of the simulations as a preview/prediction of an event, but also offer a report with all the details of the simulation including the chance of every record for every team. Note that the simulations show there is always a chance that five teams could finish undefeated and one team sent home as happened in NorCal when this format was used incorrectly. The chance is usually quite low, but it could happen at some point.
On the subject of reports, for those players/captains interested, I offer a variety of reports to help scout opponents and plan your line-ups. Reports include summaries on flights, details on teams, individual reports, and the aforementioned simulation reports. See the summary of offerings I posted here for more information and contact me if interested in any of them.
Good luck to all those fortunate to be going to Nationals, play well and have fun!
We are now a week into September and with USTA League Nationals starting in October, that means we are less than a month away from National Champions being crowned.
See what I wrote earlier about the full schedule and locations, but things start with 18 & Over the first weekend in October, the 3.5 level in Surprise, AZ and the 5.0+ in Las Vegas. Other also used throughout October and November include Oklahoma City and Orlando.
I will be writing a variety of previews, predictions, and observations as we approach and complete each event, but I also offer a variety of detailed reports to help captains scout opponents and plan their line-ups. I've been fortunate to work with quite a few captains that are Nationals bound this year, and work with numerous other teams over the years that have done well at Nationals including quite a few that took home first place trophies.
My reports are all based on my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings that have proven quite accurate over the years at predicting match results and year-end levels, and giving captains a very good idea of what to expect at all levels of playoffs. The reports I offer include:
Team Reports giving captains a detailed view of their own teams or opponents including my estimated rating for each rostered player, their record and courts played on the team, and a partner report showing how each player has done with their various partners. These are a great tool to see where specific players and pairings are rated and where to expect them to play, or what pairings on your own team do the best.
Flight Reports showing summary information on each team in a flight, or those that will be played, including full roster averages (including average by level) to show general strength, top-8 averages to show who is the strongest if they play their best players, and averages played by court to see trends on how captains play their courts. While not as detailed as Team Reports, they still give captains a great idea what to expect and how to plan and when to rest players vs play your best line-up.
Flight Simulation Reports were created last year to simulate Nationals with the new flight-less round-robin format. These do a million simulations of the schedule with some random variation in team strengths and take into account the actual schedule to predict the most likely record for each team and the chances of all possible records, and what teams will advance to the semi-finals. These also point out where there is a chance of having five undefeated teams and one not making the semis and being sent home.
Individual Reports give detailed match by match analysis of a player's play over the year to allow them to see what has worked well and what hasn't and where their rating likely is match to match.
If you are interested in any of the above reports, or have an idea for something custom or unique, feel free to contact me.
