Showing posts with label ednr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ednr. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

The 2017 USTA League 18 & over 4.5 Women's National Champion is Florida (EDNR Edition)

The 2017 USTA League Nationals held in Mobile this past weekend did not get completed due to weather and four co-champions were declared for the 18 & over 2.5 women and two each for the 40 & over 4.5+ men and women.

Co-champions just leaves a sour taste in one's mouth though, so in an effort to declare one champion for each of these events, I came up with an approach to identify an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings (EDNR) National Champion.  I will be doing this each time something happens at an event the the final is not contested on the court.

I took a look at the 40 & over 4.5+ men and 18 & over 2.5 women, now the 40 & over 4.5+ women.

In this case, I have not learned the actual line-ups, so I am using the line-ups each team used in their semi-final wins.  Using these and my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings through the semis, that yields this result.

CourtFlorida 4.5+ WExpected ResultSouthern 4.5+F
1SElizabeth Baldwin0.03 →Spencer Moorman
2SJoan Simmons← 0.44Vanessa Dixon
1DGail Gibson / Allegra Campos0.12 →Jan Deener / Allison Scanlan
2DAvery Zercoe / Gueisy Herrmann← 0.12Stacy Trinkle / Mary King
3D Dagmar Rocker / Katarina Rutherford← 0.11Marnie Ochoa / Claudia Wesbrooks

This shows a tight one, with Florida winning 3-2 with the four close matches being split and Florida winning an easy one.

Congratulations Florida on winning the 40 & over 4.5+ women's EDNR National Championship?

p.s. for those interested, yes, I can simulate any match and can include such simulations with scouting reports I do if requested

The 2017 USTA League 18 & over 2.5 Women's National Champion is Missouri Valley (EDNR Edition)

The 2017 USTA League Nationals held in Mobile this past weekend did not get completed due to weather and four co-champions were declared for the 18 & over 2.5 women and two each for the 40 & over 4.5+ men and women.

Co-champions just leaves a sour taste in one's mouth though, so in an effort to declare one champion for each of these events, I came up with an approach to identify an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings (EDNR) National Champion.  I will be doing this each time something happens at an event the the final is not contested on the court.

I already identified Northern California as the EDNR National Champion for the 40+ 4.5+ men, now I take a look at the 18+ 2.5 women.  This event didn't even complete their semis, so I'll be simulating the two semis and the resulting final.

In this case, I was able to learn what the line-ups were for one semi-final, but am making a best guess at the other.  Using these line-ups and my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings through round robin, that yields this result for the Florida vs Missouri Valley semi.

CourtFlorida: Yacht Club/TaylorExpected ResultMoValley:Melcher/Austin
1SKatherine Sherman0.07 →Megan Lynch
1DDawn Crawford / Cheryl Flanders← 0.09Sandy Lyons / Alison Ryan Drain
2DJennifer Espinosa / Evelyn Edenfield0.29 →Britney Coffey / Maya Horsford

This shows a 2-1 win for Missouri Valley, but really close on two of the courts.

The other semi between Pacific Northwest and Southern would have played out this way.

CourtPacific NW:GoelExpected ResultSouthern:Edwards
1SClaudia Huzar← 0.11Katrina Moore
1DAnne Wilson / Jillian Lee← 0.04Karin Rubnitz / Cindy Cummings
2DGinevra Smith / Anna Graves0.11 →Christy Butcher / Rhonda Katzman

This shows a tight battle on each court, PNW coming through with a 2-1 win.

Using the same line-ups above in the final then would have had the following.

CourtPacific NW:GoelExpected ResultMoValley:Melcher/Austin
1SClaudia Huzar0.07 →Megan Lynch
1DAnne Wilson / Jillian Lee← 0.16Sandy Lyons / Alison Ryan Drain
2DGinevra Smith / Anna Graves0.21 →Britney Coffey / Maya Horsford

In another 2-1 result, Missouri Valley would come out on top.

Congratulations Missouri Valley on winning the 18 & over 2.5 women EDNR National Championship!

p.s. for those interested, yes, I can simulate any match and can include such simulations with scouting reports I do if requested

The 2017 USTA League 40 & over 4.5+ Men's National Champion is NorCal (EDNR Edition)

The 2017 USTA League Nationals held in Mobile this past weekend did not get completed due to weather and four co-champions were declared for the 18 & over 2.5 women and two each for the 40 & over 4.5+ men and women.

Co-champions just leaves a sour taste in one's mouth though, so in an effort to declare one champion for each of these events, I came up with an approach to identify an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings (EDNR) National Champion.  I will be doing this each time something happens at an event the the final is not contested on the court.

The first we'll look at is the 40 & over 4.5+ men.

In this case, I was able to learn what the line-ups used in the aborted final were.  Using that line-up and my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings through the semis, that yields this result.

CourtNor Cal 4.5+MExpected ResultMiddle States 4.5+M
1SBrian Heimbecker← 0.07Mark Tepes
2SMichael Hotti← 0.22Joseph Fisicaro
1DRoman Olmos / Andrew Ngo← 0.06Michael Sass / Jeffrey Hoffmann
2DAnthony J. Latos / Denton Desquitado0.07 →Jay Nistad / William R Dipietro
3D Brian Jacobsen / Kevin L. Howard← 0.03Jim Burmester / ed colfer

This shows a 4-1 win for NorCal, although four of the courts are quite close with three going NorCal's way.  While those close matches could go either way when they are played for real, in the world of Dynamic Rating National Champion, NorCal would come out on top.

Congratulations NorCal on winning the first ever EDNR National Championship!

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Uh-oh, rain is in the forecast again for Florida, will we have another EDNR champion in 40+ 3.5?

It appears the USTA League Nationals "weather issue" edition is going to continue this coming weekend.

The 40 & over 3.5 men and women are scheduled to be in Fort Lauderdale, site of the weather delayed 40 & over 3.0 men and women from a couple weeks ago.  I just checked the weather and things don't look good.


Yes folks, that is a 100% and 90% chance of thunderstorms and rain this weekend.  Friday (not shown) is better, just cloudy and no rain expected, but if this forecast is accurate, the entire second day and semis/finals could be washed out.

When the last event there had rain, it resulted in 4-6 hour delays, modified scoring to start sets at 2-2 and play no-ad scoring, and matches played late into the night.  With the forecast above, it doesn't appear even those measures would allow them to get the matches in.

So what will be done?  I don't know but can guess/suggest a few things.

  • Find indoor courts to use on Saturday and Sunday.  This wasn't done a few weeks ago though, so unclear if it is even an option.  If it is, this is probably the best one as it allows for normal matches, just probably on a different surface than planed (it was supposed to be on clay).
  • If indoor courts aren't available, they will probably shorten the scoring format again and get as many matches in Friday as possible and hope there is a window to finish up over the weekend.  The weather report makes this appear unlikely to work though.
  • As an extreme measure, they could go some sort of ultra short scoring format, say playing super tie-breaks for each match, and try to get the whole thing in on Friday.  I'd guess this is unlikely though.
  • Another unlikely option would be to offer teams the option to come early (Thursday is sunny) or stay late (forecast for Monday is fine) to get the matches in.  This probably is not reasonable given the logistics and travel involved for what could be 34 teams.


For those headed to Orlando for 55+ 6.0 and 8.0, I'm not ignoring you, but your forecast for 60% and 40% rain over the weekend is not nearly as dire, but you may still end up having a shortened scoring format at some point.

We can cross our fingers and hope the forecast is wrong, but this seems to be a disaster waiting to happen in Fort Lauderdale, worse than what happened in Mobile last weekend where 8 co-champions were declared for what should be been 3 championship events due to Sunday being rained out.  If they can't even finish flight play, would the USTA consider naming all the mathematically still eligible teams to win a flight co-champions?  That could be on the order of 12 teams per event of 24 teams!

I'm reaching out to anyone I know that is going to the event to see what the USTA is telling them, but it should sure be a bummer to travel thousands of miles to not even get to finish play in your flight.  If you are planning to go, please comment with what you've heard from the USTA.

The good news is, I have a solution for naming a single National Champ should they not get to finish.  I've come up with the Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating (EDNR) National Champion where using my estimated ratings and real (where possible) line-ups, I simulate each match to determine who advances or ultimately is the winner so we can have the satisfaction of naming a winner.


I'm working on identifying the EDNR champs for Mobile now, lets hope I don't have to do it for Fort Lauderdale this weekend!

What if it hadn't rained in Mobile for 2017 USTA League 40+ 4.5+ and 18+ 2.5 Nationals? A solution to picking a champion, EDNR

It rained in Mobile, AL this past weekend where USTA League Nationals were being held.  While the tournament officials were creative and rescheduled the 4.5+ semis to late Saturday in the hopes they could get the final in Sunday morning, the rains came early and the finals were not played/completed.  Worse, for the 18+ 2.5 women, because teams had already played twice on Saturday, the semis were not rescheduled resulting in that event not even determining the finalists.

How do they declare a champion then?  They don't, and punt and declare everyone co-champions.  Meaning, rather than three teams being champions, there were eight!  All four 2.5 women semi-finalists and the four 4.5+ finalists for the men and women.

That would be very unfulfilling, and from what I hear, folks left disappointed.  I can imagine not getting to finish things on the court would leave a sour taste in your mouth, but I heard that teams still had fun.

Let us ignore for a minute that playing Nationals in Mobile, one of the wettest cities in the country, is a questionable move on the USTA's part, and also that Nationals are also being played in Florida this year, another not exactly dry location where rain caused delays and altered playing formats a few weeks ago, and instead just look at how a single champion could have been determined when it can't be decided on the court.

A first thought it to use some sort of tie-breaker like is used in determining flight champions.  The challenge is, flight champions play each other and the same opponents, so courts won/lost and head-to-head make sense.

The USTA does already have an existing way to compare teams between flights though as they have to do it when Nationals has three flights and a wildcard makes the semis.  In this case, my understanding is that they use percentage of games won.  This can work when a flight may have a different number of teams and is finer grained than looking at courts won/lost or sets won/lost, but it still suffers from a team in a weaker flight having an advantage over the second place teams in the other flights.

Since I calculate Estimated Dynamic Ratings, my mind naturally starts to think about how ratings could be used.

One way of using them would be to look at the ratings players achieved during Nationals play, the idea being that those that the team that had the highest average match rating had shown themselves to be the best team.  This is similar to percentage of games won in that it is result based from Nationals, but it factors in the strength of the opponent as well as the score instead of looking just at the score.

If we did this with what happened in Mobile, the champions would have been:
  • 2.5 women - Pacific Northwest had the highest average at 2.80 vs Florida's 2.76, Southern's 2.70, and Missouri Valley's 2.60
  • 4.5+ women - Southern would have a very narrow win over Florida 4.46 to 4.45
  • 4.5+ men - Middle States would beat Northern California 4.62 to 4.52, but interestingly Florida had the highest average match rating at 4.63 but lost to NorCal 3-2 in their flight

But using an average rating achieved for a team isn't terribly satisfying, that rewards a deep team and ignores the match-ups a captain may have been able to get via line-ups to "steal" a 3-2 win.

As you might expect, I have a better solution!  Now, keep in mind I'm a bit of a propeller head so this appeals to be, but I think it makes sense and would be equitable and objective.

Ideally the captains fill out their line-ups and the match is played on the court.  If the match can't be played on the court though, the captains can still fill out the line-ups as they would have and then the USTA could use the currently calculated dynamic ratings through Nationals play to play the match "on paper" giving the court win to the player/pair with the higher rating(s).  This would even work with the 2.5 women where they had to play the semis as the captains could fill out their line-up for the semis and see who "wins" and then the winners could do it again for the final.

Now, the USTA doesn't tell us the dynamic ratings for the players, but lucky for us I calculate estimated ratings so we can use those!  Better yet, I actually have a match simulator to compare line-ups and identify who the winner would be!

So what I'll be doing for the levels not completed in Mobile, and any other Nationals that aren't able to complete their finals, is to identify who the Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating (EDNR) National Champion is.

I'll be doing these in subsequent posts and will use my best guess at line-ups unless there is better information available.  If any captain of one of the teams wishes to contact me and let me know what their line-up was or would have been, please do.  In lieu of this, for the 4.5+ men and women I will use their line-up from their semi-final match.  Otherwise I'll use what appears to be the most common or likely line-up.

Stay tuned, but feel free to let me know what you think of this approach.