Analyzing 2025 USTA NTRP year-end ratings - Bump rates by level and gender

The 2025 year-end NTRP ratings have been published and that means we get to take a look at how ratings have changed.

In this post I'll take a look at bump rates by level and gender.

First, here are the overall bump rates by level for 2025.

2025 Bump Rates by Level

For comparison, here was last year.

2024 Bump Rates by Level

The rates are not dramatically different, but 2025 bump ups are perhaps a little lower with about 12.5% of 3.0s being bumped up compared to nearly 15% in 2024.  At the 3.5 level also slightly lower at 7% versus 7.5%, but 4.0s are right about the same and 4.5s perhaps a little higher.

But doing it by gender is more interesting, here are the women in 2025.

2025 Bump Rates by Level - Women

And for comparison, 2024.

2024 Bump Rates by Level - Women

Similar, at 3.5 and below the bump up percentage is down a bit, but at 4.0 and 4.5, perhaps slightly higher.

And then the men.

2025 Bump Rates by Level - Men

And 2024.

2024 Bump Rates by Level - Men

Again, similar here.

So at the lower levels, while bump rates remain higher there than at higher levels, the bump rates are trending down slightly from last year.

2025 USTA NTRP Year End Ratings Are Out!

The year-end NTRP ratings were published last night, a little earlier than expected at around 9pm EST, and with that players are rabidly checking their rating and determining what that means for what teams they can join and how captains can form their teams.

I'll try to post some analysis shortly, but my quick observation is that there seems to have been fewer bumps up and down than normal.  I haven't run across many surprising bump ups, but quite a few surprises where players perhaps should have been bumped up and weren't.

Stay tuned for more.

2024 USTA NTRP year-end ratings are out! For real this time!

I wrote a few days ago that the USTA's sneak peek year-end ratings were out, well, the full year-end ratings seem to be out.

So, hop on over to TennisLink or the USTA app and see where you ended up.  Did you get what you expected?

I love to get feedback and interesting stories or scenarios, drop me a note at ratings@teravation.net.

2024 USTA NTRP year-end ratings are out! ... sort of

It is Black Friday and everyone is shopping, but USTA League players are anticipating 2024 year-end ratings to be published which typically happens early the week after Thanksgiving.  I'm guessing they will come out around midnight on December 3rd this year.

However, for those that took advantage of a promotion (if you can call it that) to take an on-line Safe Sport training, you should have received an e-mail with your rating today November 29th.

The USTA sent an e-mail to members back on October 11 offering to send player's their 2024 year-end rating in an e-mail on 11/29, four days before they would be published on TennisLink, if they took a Safe Sport training course, and indeed I took a course (two actually) and got an e-mail today!

Now comes the confusion when players tell their friends what they new rating is, but TennisLink still shows their old rating.  Since the USTA clearly has the ratings already, I think it is somewhat silly that they don't just go ahead and publish them.

What do you think?  Did you take the training and get your rating via e-mail today?

The World Tennis Number (WTN) changed again

Being someone very interested in ratings, I've followed the World Tennis Number (WTN) as an interested party, including doing some early analysis on how it mapped to NTRP.  You can see all my posts on WTN here.

The ratings themselves have gone through a few "adjustments", most recently just over a year ago, but a notice was sent out of another impending adjustment a few days ago, and it appears with today's update, it has gone into effect.

Both the USTA and LTA sent e-mails with a heads up about the change, from the LTA's e-mail, the goal was to:

• Improve accuracy by adjusting where some players start on the scale
• Make every match count whilst recognizing the difference in ability between you and your opponent
• Faster movement of a player's WTN to reflect their level

The USTA's e-mail said more.  On where players start:

Based on the data, it’s become increasingly apparent that some players are being initialized too high. We want junior players to experience appropriate improvements to their rating as their game improves. This change will ensure players see this reflected in their rating as their level improves.

Regarding faster movement:

Player ratings will transition to their ‘true’ skill level faster from the initial rating given to them. This will mean that when a player is given an initial rating that is too low or too high, they will update to a more accurate rating much faster from their first few matches.

And about matches counting:

Every match counts towards a player's rating but it’s important that the rating change reflects the difference in ability. Players will experience smaller changes to their WTN in matches when losing to a superior player. However, players will still see a sharp increase to their rating should they beat a player with a substantially better rating.

The USTA does have a document highlighting the changes with an FAQ as well.

This all seems good, but we'll see how it plays out.

On a personal level, the adjustment a year ago saw my rating get worse, going from around 21 one all the way up to 29 (remember, the scale is from 40 to 1, 40 being the lowest/worst rating).  That was a pretty major shift, seemingly because the USTA felt as a group, adult league players were rated way too high.

This time around the shift went back the other way, but was far smaller, I went from a 27 to 25.

Is this better?  I'm not sure, it is difficult to do a thorough analysis on WTN as the data isn't readily available.  My rating getting better feels nice, but it is just a number, and one league players as a whole don't really seem to follow closely.

What do you think?  Do you care about your WTN?  Do you check it each Wednesday when the new ratings are published?

Analyzing 2023 USTA NTRP year-end ratings - Are the number of players with ratings going up or down?

Earlier this year, I wrote about the USTA's press release on tennis growth and in that post I introduced a new chart showing participation based on the number of players who receive year-end ratings.  Now that ratings are out, I can add 2023 to the mix.

Here is the chart showing the number of players with year-end ratings since 2012.

We see the metric has gone up slightly from 2022 (231K to 238K), it is still lower than all the other years from 2012 to 2021.

There are a number of possible reasons the number has gone up including:

• We are still in the post-COVID recovery period where players continue to come back to league play
• The COVID tennis boom we heard about from the TIA and USTA is finally resulting in some of those new players joining league play
• Some sections with secondary leagues that didn't count for ratings in the past are now counting these leagues, so players that play in them are now getting year-end ratings.

The bulk of the increase from 2022 is with C rated players which are up around 6K on their own.

2024 will be interesting to see where we end up!

2023 year-end NTRP ratings have been published!

The annual post-Thanksgiving wait is over, the USTA has published year-end ratings for 2023!  As I write this, there are at least some players with 2023 year-end ratings on TennisLink.

To check what your rating is, you can go to TennisLink and look yourself up, or login and it should show your rating.  Make sure to check the date and that it is 12/31/2023 as that is what all new ratings should show.  If it still says a different date, yours may not be updated yet, or you didn't play enough matches to get a new rating.

Stay tuned for analysis of the ratings, but if anyone has any questions or wants to get a report to understand why they were/weren't bumped up or down, contact me!  And I'm always interested in situations where players successfully appeal, so if you do that and it is granted, drop me a note.

I'll be doing some of my usual analysis in the next few days, looking at general bump rates, then drilling in by section and by gender and level and section (those links to 2022's analysis) to see what we can tell about how the USTA handled things this time around.  So stay tuned!

2023 USTA League Nationals are over - When will ratings be published?

With the last weekend of USTA League Nationals complete, the wait now begins for 2023 year-end rating levels to be published.

The USTA generally publishes the year-end ratings the week after Thanksgiving and I'd speculated it would be November 29th or 30th, and yesterday the USTA sent out an e-mail saying it would be the 30th.

When on the 30th?  Traditionally they publish at midnight EST so that means staying up late to repeatedly hit refresh on your browser to see what your year-end level is.  Sometimes there are delays, but usually they hit the date and time.

As we approach the date, I'll try to post some analysis of the 2023 season and perhaps some general predictions about bump rates, and will definitely plan to do analysis after ratings are published.  And as always, I can do reports using my ratings at any time for players that want to see more detail about how my estimated ratings show their ratings progression to look and where they are likely to end up.  Contact me if interested.

Should computer rated player be able to be disqualified and promoted in USTA League play?

For those that play USTA League, it is pretty well known that new players, and those with expired ratings or a few other scenarios, are required to self-rate to determine the level they will play at when they join a league/team.  Since the self-rating isn't perfect, there is a system in place where a player's results are evaluated to determine if they are out of level, and if so, they can be disqualified from that level and promoted mid-season.  This is known as the three-strike DQ process.

It is also well known that players that have a current computer (C) rating are not subject to this three-strike DQ process, meaning they can play the entire year and improve and be out of level, even way out of level, during the year, and they are "golden" and can't be DQ'd or promoted.

See my FAQ question 16 for more discussion.

What can be interesting to look at is how players get their strikes.  Generally speaking it is when they win very easily over decent to good at-level players, but there are times when score lines that don't look out of whack can end up being strikes.

I was recently made aware of once such situation at NorCal Sectionals where a self-rated player lost a match in straight sets, and got their third strike!  On the surface that may not seem possible, but indeed it is, and in this case it was because the opponent they lost to was rated significantly higher than they were and so the loss was a "good" loss and rated very high.  And yes, my ratings agree with the three strikes and DQ.

So how is it fair for a self-rated player to be disqualified for being out of level if they are playing someone, at the same level, who is expected to and does beat them in straight sets?  How high does this opponent have to be rated?

For starters, the threshold for a player to get a strike isn't just the top of their level.  The USTA gives some leeway for players to improve and be above level before they begin accruing strikes.  The leeway given is greater at lower levels because normal improvement can happen faster at lower levels.  I think the threshold may be too high in the first place, but they are what they are.

For discussion purposes, lets say the threshold in question for this case was 0.2 higher than the top of the level and lets assume the level is 4.0, that puts the strike threshold at 4.20, meaning the self-rated player got their rating above that three times.  For them to have such a rating and be expected to lose in straight-sets to an opponent means that opponent's rating is well north of that, perhaps as high as 4.35-4.40.

This means we have a 4.0 match being played between someone rated around/over 4.2 vs someone around 4.4!  How is a "normal" 4.0 player supposed to compete?

I don't think anyone would be surprised to know that to advance and do well in playoffs, you need to have players rated near the top of the level, and even into the next level.  Players do improve, especially those that get into the competition and are trying to advance and put in hours of practice to get better, and there is something to be said for not penalizing someone that puts in this work.  But at what point is there too much improvement?

With self-rated players the USTA does set a threshold the player cannot improve past, but should C rated players have such a threshold too?

The situation I outline may be an outlier and you don't want to change the entire system for just a few outliers, but I also don't think implementing something to catch the outliers means the other 99% of players will be affected.  In fact, that 99% of players may be affected in a positive way if they don't have to face such out of level players.

Note, it is unfortunate but the problem is exacerbated at times by players willing to manage scores, throw matches, or other shenanigans to get bumped down or ensure they don't get bumped up, so they can be one of these "top of level" players.  A threshold for C rated players to be DQ'd would most likely be targeting these players as they genuinely should be at the higher level.  Might it catch the occasional legit player who just improved "too much"?  Sure, but regardless of how a player gets there, isn't it more fair to the 99% to promote the out of level player and not force at-level player to compete with them to advance?

I realize it is hard to determine where to draw the line, but I think having some threshold for C rated players is a worthy discussion.  It could perhaps be a bit higher than the self-rate strike threshold to give a little more leeway, but a case could be made it should be the same, or that if it is higher the self-rate strike threshold should be a bit lower to start.

What do you think?  Should Computer rated players get a "golden ticket"?  Or should there be some threshold they too can't exceed without being promoted?

A bit more on the recent WTN algorithm change / adjustment

I wrote a few days ago about the recent significant change to WTN ratings that the USTA sent a notice out about, and many players saw their WTN get larger (worse) overnight, some in the high single digits, but others went up 10 or more.

I don't have any detailed analysis yet, but do have a few more observations.

The USTA published an FAQ about the changes that is worth a quick read, but it had a few interesting explanations.

First, some insight into why the change was made:

These enhancements to the ITF WTN algorithm will reposition cohorts of players on the current scale of 40-1 and ensure that players from all over the world are more accurately aligned, particularly with regard to different age groups. While ratings are likely to be adjusted, players will likely see movement relative to their age group.

So, they seem to have concluded that different age groups of players were rated correctly relative to each other.

Going on, they get more specific:

Adult players aged between 19-29 should expect only minor changes to their ITF World Tennis Number. Larger changes begin to occur for players over 30 years old that regularly play against players of a similar age. Adult players over 30 will see their numbers move down the scale (towards 40), this is to create some balance with Junior players and to ensure full use of the 1-40 scale.

This is consistent with my anecdotal observations that USTA League players around me, for the most part age 30+, have seen their WTN get larger and closer to 40.  I haven't looked at any juniors, but believe their statement to be true.

And from what I see, USTA League players are by and large are all in the mid-20s and higher.  I see 4.5 and 4.0 men in the mid-20s and the majority of league players are at 3.0-4.0, so that means the majority of league players are being squeezed into the 25-40 range.  That is quite a bit less granularity than we had before (15-40) so we will see how that works out.

Regarding juniors, the FAQ states:

Junior players aged 10 and under will most likely experience a movement down the scale, (towards 40) with players who are aged 17 and 18 moving up the scale (towards 1). The player ratings are now more of an accurate reflection of age, with a general incremental increase expected from aged 10 upwards.

I've also heard from players in the UK and US looking at comparisons with players in Europe that prior to this change, there seemed to be a disconnect in that what appeared to be similarly skilled players from Europe and the US had significantly different WTN ratings, those in the US having lower numbers, so this adjustment seems to have addressed that, at least somewhat.

All of this highlights the challenge of a single algorithm that tries to put all tennis players in the world on the same scale.  Whether it is age groups or countries or other geographic grouping, you will inevitably have islands, or cohorts as the FAQ says, that all play each other, but have little to no play with other islands or cohorts.  When this happens, the algorithm has very little data to go on to reasonably ensure players from those different groups are appropriately rated relative to each other.

This is probably the biggest challenge for the WTN, and as such one would have hoped a lot of effort would have gone into reviewing this and getting it right prior to launch.  If adult USTA League players were rated in the teens and similar recreational players from Europe were in the 20s, that should have been one of the first things that was reviewed and stuck out.  Similarly if all juniors regardless of age were clumped together, or juniors relative to adults seemed off, this could have been observed far earlier and address before WTN was launched.

There are ways an algorithm can address this, notably by looking at the matches that are played between the islands of players, and giving them more weight in determining the relative ratings for the group of players they represent.

This is effectively what the USTA does with NTRP, using the matches from Nationals to "connect" the different sections, and have those results and how well a section did trickle down to players from the section.  If a section does very well at Nationals, that means relatively speaking the players from that section at that level were rated too low relative to other sections, so player's ratings may go up and more bump ups will occur.  It can go the other way too, and I've pointed out the effect of this in many of my year-end rating analysis'.

I'm guessing the WTN doesn't inherently do this as part of the algorithm, as it seemingly required this significant adjustment to compensate for what they were observing.  Hopefully they still applied the principals of leveling across cohorts and it wasn't entirely manual.

Another challenge the WTN has, and one that doesn't seem to have been addressed yet and wasn't mentioned in the FAQ is gender neutrality.  The algorithm claims to be gender neutral, i.e. just like a WTN 25 male should have a competitive match with another WTN 25 male, either should also have a competitive match with a WTN 25 female.

It is generally accepted that NTRP which is not gender neutral has about a one level (0.5 NTRP) difference between the genders, e.g. a 3.5 male and 4.0 female will be similarly skilled, but looking at WTN ratings one will regularly see men and women of the same NTRP level with similar WTN ratings or even the women having lower (better) WTN ratings.  Similarly, you will see men with higher (better) NTRP levels having higher (worse) WTN ratings.

This means WTN really can't be used to get cross-gender competitive matches today.  And WTN is really handcuffed now when it gets to trying to solve this as it now has to fit both men and women into this compressed 25-40 range I noted above.

For example, looking at men's WTN ratings, leaving room for the 2.5 and 3.0 women to have higher WTN ratings than 3.0 men, and leaving some room for complete beginners not even playing matches yet, the WTN range all recreational men have to fit into is more like 25-35 at best, and perhaps even less.

The change made to WTN may very well make it better than before.  But the challenges of truly being a world tennis number are still there.  It will be interesting to see how it continues to mature.

Another look at what NTRP rating combinations works best in Mixed 18 & Over? More Interesting Tennis League Stats

I've been looking at how different combinations of levels do in the 55 & Over Adult and 18 & Over Mixed, and just took a deeper dive on 55 & Over, so the same deeper dive on Mixed is in order.

The general observation has been that unbalanced pairs, e.g. a 4.5 and 3.5 in an 8.0 flight, tend to win more often than not, and this deeper dive will take a look at if this is actually expected or not based on the current ratings of the players.

The deeper dive on 55 & Over revealed that while the unbalanced pairs do win more often, they are always expected to, and often fall short of the expected winning percentage.  This may indicate a selection bias of sorts, where it is possible that only stronger players at their level opt to play as an unbalanced pair, thus skewing the stats in their favor, and there is not some inherent advantage to unbalanced pairs.

So on to taking a closer look at Mixed.  Specifically, I narrowed the matches analyzed to only those where I had an established rating for all 4 players and then looked at not just how often unbalanced pairs won, but how often they were expected to win.  The results were certainly interesting, and a bit different from what we saw for 55 & Over.

Note, the actual winning percentages are slightly different from the earlier post because some matches where the players didn't all have ratings have been filtered out.

For each level/gender below, I'm using 2022 18 & Over Mixed league data again and showing the percentage of the time the unbalanced pair won, followed by the percentage of the time the unbalanced pair had the higher combined ratings.  When the actual is higher than the expected, the unbalanced is overachieving, and when the actual is lower than the expected, they are underachieving.

The ratings used for this analysis are my Mixed Exclusive Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings I use for doing the various individual, team, and flight reports I offer.  The pairings are showing the male then female levels.

Starting with 6.0:

• 3.5/2.5 vs 3.0/3.0 - 52.0% actual, 57.1% expected - underachieved
• 3.5/2.5 vs 2.5/3.5 - 53.7% actual, 41.1% expected - overachieved big
• 2.5/3.5 vs 3.0/3.0 - 48.0% actual, 59.3% expected - underachieved big

The 6.0 level can be tricky with a lot of new/unknown players at times, but we see the pairs with the higher rated male player win more often, and this is especially true when it is a 3.5 male vs a 2.5 male and the 3.5 male really overachieves vs expected.

But like I said, 6.0 is tricky, so on to 7.0 where players are a little less volatile:

• 4.0/3.0 vs 3.5/3.5 - 58.7% actual, 56.4% expected - overachieved a bit
• 4.0/3.0 vs 3.0/4.0 - 56.3% actual, 51.7% expected - overachieved
• 3.0/4.0 vs 3.5/3.5 - 49.7% actual, 53.3% expected - underachieved

We again see the pair with the higher rated male wins more often, and we also see some over achievement for the 4.0/3.0 pairs.

Next, 8.0:

• 4.5/3.5 vs 4.0/4.0 - 57.8% actual, 54.9% expected - overachieved
• 4.5/3.5 vs 3.5/4.5 - 52.4% actual, 48.9% expected - overachieved
• 3.5/4.5 vs 4.0/4.0 - 54.2% actual, 53.2% expected - overachieved a bit

The trend of unbalanced pairs overachieving continues by a decent 3-4% margin for the 4.5/3.5 pairs.

Next, 9.0:

• 5.0/4.0 vs 4.5/4.5 - 61.6% actual, 53.6% expected - overachieved big
• 5.0/4.0 vs 4.0/5.0 - 59.1% actual, 55.0% expected - overachieved
• 4.0/5.0 vs 4.5/4.5 - 56.6% actual, 54.6% expected - overachieved a bit

The over achievement for unbalanced pairs is seen here too.

The counts for 10.0 are so low there is no point to doing the analysis here.

Given we see some to significant over achievement for the unbalanced pairs, especially at the higher levels, it may be that there is an inherent advantage in Mixed.  This is perhaps because at higher levels, players are able to employ strategies maximizing the difference in abilities taking advantage of having the stronger player.

It could also be that for the lower level player of unbalanced pairs, only the top players at that level self-select to play, and that gives an inherent ratings advantage over two "average" players on a balanced pair.

What do you think?

Another look at what NTRP rating combinations works best in Adult 55 & Over? More Interesting Tennis League Stats

A few days ago I took at look at what ratings combinations win the most in 55 & Over Adult league play.  What I found was consistent with earlier analysis I've done and that is that unbalanced pairs, e.g. a 4.0/3.0 pair in 7.0, beat balanced pairs, e.g. a 3.5/3.5, more than they lose.

What some pointed out, and I knew I wanted to do more research into, is that while the unbalanced pairs win more, that may be because of a selection bias of sorts, where it is possible that only stronger players at their level opt to play as an unbalanced pair, and the fact they win more often may be expected.  It is even possible that while they win more than lose, they may not win as often as expected.

For example, at 7.0, it may be that it is the strong 3.0s that are attracted to play or perhaps are recruited to play.  That means when they (say a 2.90 3.0) partner with an average 4.0 (3.75) vs two average 3.5s (3.25), the rating comparison is 6.65 vs 6.50, and the unbalanced pair has the higher combined ratings and thus is arguably expected to win.  Even if the 3.5s are a bit better (3.30) it is still 6.65 vs 6.60.

With that in mind, I went about digging deeper.  Specifically, I narrowed the matches analyzed to only those where I had an established rating for all 4 players and then looked at not just how often unbalanced pairs won, but how often they were expected to win.  The results were certainly interesting, if not a bit surprising.

Note, the actual winning percentages are slightly different from the earlier post because some matches where the players didn't all have ratings have been filtered out.

For each level/gender below, I'm using 2022 55 & Over Adult league data again and showing the percentage of the time the unbalanced pair won, followed by the percentage of the time the unbalanced pair had the higher combined ratings.  When the actual is higher than the expected, the unbalanced is overachieving, and when the actual is lower than the expected, they are underachieving.

The ratings used for this analysis are my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings I use for doing the various individual, team, and flight reports I offer.

For the women:

• 6.0 - 3.5/2.5 vs 3.0/3.0 - 48.7% actual, 54.7% expected - underachieved
• 7.0 - 4.0/3.0 vs 3.5/3.5 - 54.6% actual, 54.5% expected - nearly perfectly as expected
• 8.0 - 4.5/3.5 vs 4.0/4.0 - 56.2% actual, 62.3% expected - underachieved
• 9.0 - 5.0/4.0 vs 4.5/4.5 - 66.9% actual, 73.7% expected - underachieved

Here we see the selection of matches change the actual percentages slightly, and at 6.0 the unbalanced actually lost slightly more than they won, but at three of the four levels, while the unbalanced won more, they were expected to win more than they did, so arguably underachieved.

For the men:

• 6.0 - 3.5/2.5 vs 3.0/3.0 - 58.6% actual, 58.6% expected - exactly as expected
• 7.0 - 4.0/3.0 vs 3.5/3.5 - 55.6% actual, 51.1% expected - overachieved
• 8.0 - 4.5/3.5 vs 4.0/4.0 - 55.4% actual, 56.3% expected - slightly underachieved
• 9.0 - 5.0/4.0 vs 4.5/4.5 - 50.9% actual, 55.2% expected - underachieved

Here the actual percentages vary a bit more with the selected matches, especially at 9.0.  And we also see that at 6.0 it is exactly as expected, the unbalanced overachieve at 7.0, but 8.0 has a slight underachieve and 9.0 a significant underachieve.

So, it may not be quite as clear cut as the earlier analysis showed.  While unbalanced pairs do win more than they lose, it appears it is because it is the right unbalanced pairs are playing and they are expected to win because they are higher rated overall, not just because they are an unbalanced pair.  And they may not even win as often as expected.

What do you think?  Is this more in-line with your experience than the initial analysis was?

What NTRP rating combinations works best in Mixed? More Interesting Tennis League Stats

I wrote yesterday about what ratings combinations work best for 55 & Over Adult play, today, I thought I'd start a refresh of the ratings combination analysis for Mixed I did around 8 years ago.

To start, I'll look at 18 & Over Mixed.  For reference, here is the post I did 8 years ago for the same division.

This time I will include 6.0 and 10.0 levels I omitted last time.  For each pairing I list, the first number will be the male level and the second the female level.

Starting with 6.0:

• 3.5/2.5 pairs beat 3.0/3.0 pairs 52.7% of the time
• 2.5/3.5 pairs beat 3.0/3.0 pairs 49.6% of the time
• 3.5/2.5 pairs beat 2.5/3.5 pairs 56.2% of the time

Here, a slight to significant advantage to unbalanced when the male is the higher rated player.  The 2.5/3.5 is ever so slightly below 50%.

Next up, 7.0:

• 4.0/3.0 pairs beat 3.5/3.5 pairs 58.3% of the time
• 3.0/4.0 pairs beat 3.5/3.5 pairs 50.8% of the time
• 4.0/3.0 pairs beat 3.0/4.0 pairs 55.1% of the time

This is similar to before (60%, 52%, 57%) so that form continues to hold.  Unbalanced with the higher rated male has the advantage, but unbalanced with the higher rated female has a slight advantage too.

Next up, 8.0:

• 4.5/3.5 pairs beat 4.0/4.0 pairs 57.6% of the time
• 3.5/4.5 pairs beat 4.0/4.0 pairs 53.5% of the time
• 4.5/3.5 pairs beat 3.5/4.5 pairs 51.7% of the time

This is a bit different from last time (61%, 51%, 60%) with the unbalanced 3.5/4.5 pairs doing better than before.  Still, unbalanced has the advantage over balanced and unbalanced with the higher rated male stronger overall.

And 9.0:

• 5.0/4.0 pairs beat 4.5/4.5 pairs 59.6% of the time
• 4.0/5.0 pairs beat 4.5/4.5 pairs 56.1% of the time
• 5.0/4.0 pairs beat 4.0/5.0 pairs 58.5% of the time

This compares with 57%, 58%, 51% last time, so a bit different, but the trend holds.  Unbalanced with more frequently, and the unbalanced with the higher rated male do so over the higher rated female.

Last, 10.0:

• 5.5/4.5 pairs beat 5.0/5.0 pairs 27.0% of the time
• 4.5/5.5 pairs beat 5.0/5.0 pairs 62.9% of the time
• 5.5/4.5 pairs beat 4.5/5.5 pairs 66.7% of the time

Note there is so little play at this level that some of the totals for these match-ups are in the single digits so make of that what you will.

Aside from a couple anomalies at the 6.0 and 10.0 levels, the trend continues.  Unbalanced pairs win more often in Mixed.  The advantage is not huge, most of these winning percentages are between 50% and 60%, but it is consistent.

What do you think?  Is this consistent with what you see locally?

What NTRP rating combinations works best in Adult 55 & Over? More Interesting Tennis League Stats

A popular discussion topic for USTA League teams that use combo-levels is what the best pairings are.  I've looked at this a number of years ago for Mixed, but thought it would be interesting to take a look at Adult 55 & Over.

The candidate leagues in this case are the 55 & Over Adult leagues with 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0 flights where players up to a full two levels apart can play together.  For example, in 8.0 the playing combinations can be 3.5/4.5, 4.0/4.0, and 4.5/3.5.  The fundamental question is, when different pairings face each other, which wins more often?

Note for this analysis I'm only considering "at-level" pairings and not those where say a 3.5 and 4.0 play together as a "7.5" pair in an 8.0 flight.

I've done this before for Mixed, both 18 & Over and 40 & Over and in nearly every case, unbalanced pairs win more often than balanced pairs, generally between 52% and 60% depending on the exact scenario.  Mixed also has different genders to add to the permutations but the strongest tends to be unbalanced with the male the higher level player where that pair wins around 60% of the time.

What I did was to take a look at Adult 55 & Over matches from 2022 and broke it out by both gender and level.

For the women:

• 6.0 - 3.5/2.5 pairs beat 3.0/3.0 pairs 51% of the time
• 7.0 - 4.0/3.0 pairs beat 3.5/3.5 pairs 55% of the time
• 8.0 - 4.5/3.5 pairs beat 4.0/4.0 pairs 57% of the time
• 9.0 - 5.0/4.0 pairs beat 4.5/4.5 pairs 66% of the time

We see unbalanced pairs have the advantage, very slight at 6.0 but growing as the level goes up.

For the men:

• 6.0 - 3.5/2.5 pairs beat 3.0/3.0 pairs 57% of the time
• 7.0 - 4.0/3.0 pairs beat 3.5/3.5 pairs 56% of the time
• 8.0 - 4.5/3.5 pairs beat 4.0/4.0 pairs 56% of the time
• 9.0 - 5.0/4.0 pairs beat 4.5/4.5 pairs 57% of the time

The men are very consistent at 56-57% of the time the unbalanced pair wins.

This is pretty consistent with the Mixed results, unbalanced pairs win more often.  They theory is that the unbalanced pairs generally have the strongest player and if they employ a strategy to minimize the lower rated partner's weaknesses, the stronger player rises to the top.  At 55-57% for most scenarios it is obviously not a given that unbalanced pairs will win, but the trend is pretty clear.

What do you think?  Is this consistent with what you see in your leagues?

Update: I did a subsequent deeper dive looking at actual vs expected results here.

USTA League Regulations Changes for 2024 - Strikes in Mixed?

It is only June 2023, but with 2024 early start leagues beginning in Georgia already, and other areas starting in the late Summer and Fall, the USTA League regulations for 2024 are starting to become relevant.

I have not seen a full regulations document yet, but have heard about a few changes, some National, some section specific, that I think are interesting and IMHO, probably a good thing.

First, it appears that National is going to be calculating dynamic ratings for Mixed in 2024!  This means that self-rates, appeals, and mixed-exclusive players will be subject to strikes from their Mixed play.  This is big and I think will help cut down on some of the abuses of the system we see in Mixed where new players self-rate too low and dominate, but there is very little that can be done to disqualify the players that are clearly out of level.

I have not heard if this will begin with 2024 early start Mixed leagues or only for play during the 2024 rating year, but am working to find out.  I assume that the rating from Adult league play will still be what goes into year-end ratings, but have not confirmed that yet either.  But what do you think?

Second, in most sections, Tri-Level has counted for year-end ratings for a number of years.  Southern has been a hold-out, which could again be abused in some scenarios where players could dominate in Tri-Level for several years using an artificially low year-end level from a prior year.  Well, in 2024, Southern will be including Tri-Level matches in year-end ratings.  Southern will also hold Sectionals for Tri-Level in 2024 which I guess they haven't in the past.

Third and last (for now), also in Southern, a change is being made to the levels for Mixed leagues.  In the past, I believe every section has run Mixed leagues as "combo" leagues, e.g. 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, and 10.0, where the players on the court cannot have a combined current level over the level of the flight.  This allows for a 4.5 and 3.5 to play together on an 8.0 team for example.  This gives teams a lot of flexibility, and allows friends and spouses at a variety of levels to play together, but can lead to a pretty wide disparity in ability on the court at the same time, e.g. a 4.0 male with a 3.0 female (or 4.5/3.5 or 5.0/4.0).

Well, for championship year 2024 leagues in Southern, Mixed is going to be straight-level leagues, e.g. 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, meaning it will be like normal Adult leagues where just 3.5s and 4.0s can be on a 4.0 roster for example.  This will reduce the disparity of abilities on the court, but perhaps put Southern at a disadvantage come Nationals where they will have to face combo-level teams.

There are some side-effects of this of course and I assume they were all considered as some might be perceived as or actual negatives for a number of players.

A simple one is that this restricts the ability for some friends/family/spouses to play together on a team.  A husband and wife that are a 4.0 and 3.0 could play 7.0 before, and now can't play on a Mixed team together.

A more significant side-effect is on participation though.  Where a player could have played on three different Mixed teams at different levels before (e.g. a 4.0 could play 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0), the same player can now play on only two teams (4.0 and 4.5) and will be at a disadvantage one one of them.  This has the potential to reduce participation 33%.  Now, one might argue that there are players that avoid Mixed because of the ability disparity issue and they'll come back and make up the difference, but we'll have to watch and see.

It is worth noting that parts (or perhaps all) of Southern has done 55 & Over leagues as straight-level so this is just making their Mixed leagues consistent with that.  That has worked for them, and Southern has done well at Nationals in this division, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

What do you think?

How accurate are Dynamic NTRP ratings at predicting tennis matches? 2022 edition - Interesting League Stats

It has been awhile since I took a look at how accurate my Estimated Dynamic Ratings are at predicting match results so I thought I'd take a look at how they did in 2022.

As a reminder, if you are interested in getting a detailed report using my ratings, see this post.

For this analysis, I'm looking at all matches played in 2022 in the 18 & Over, 40 & over, and 55 & Over divisions.  Unlike before, I'm going to slice the data a few different ways.

Note, these are my dynamic ratings, that largely mirror what the USTA does with their ratings but are not the USTA's ratings, so any accuracy or claims regarding predicting matches is for my ratings and not the USTA's.

First, here are the winning percentages by the higher rated player/pair across all the divisions for all matches, and then broken down by the difference between the ratings as well as singles and doubles.

Rating Gap	Overall	Singles	Doubles
Overall	72%	73%	72%
<= 0.05	54%	53%	54%
0.05 - 0.15	66%	64%	66%
0.15 - 0.25	79%	76%	80%
0.25 - 0.35	88%	85%	89%
0.35 - 0.45	93%	89%	94%
> 0.45	96%	94%	97%

These percentages are remarkably consistent with the past analysis I did.  The matches between closely rated players are close to 50/50 but the higher rated player/pair does win a little more often.  As the gap grows, the higher rated player/pair wins increasingly often.

Interestingly, the doubles percentages are generally slightly higher.  Perhaps that is due to more players on the court making it less likely that one player being really on or off has as much effect.

Taking a look at just the 18 & Over division:

Rating Gap	Overall	Singles	Doubles
Overall	73%	73%	72%
<= 0.05	54%	53%	54%
0.05 - 0.15	66%	63%	66%
0.15 - 0.25	79%	76%	80%
0.25 - 0.35	87%	85%	89%
0.35 - 0.45	92%	89%	94%
> 0.45	96%	95%	97%

These percentages are nearly identical to the overall, which makes sense since 18 & Over is the largest division and most matches.

Then just the 40 & Over division:

Rating Gap	Overall	Singles	Doubles
Overall	72%	73%	72%
<= 0.05	54%	54%	54%
0.05 - 0.15	66%	65%	66%
0.15 - 0.25	80%	76%	80%
0.25 - 0.35	88%	85%	89%
0.35 - 0.45	93%	90%	94%
> 0.45	96%	94%	97%

Very similar percentages here too, just slightly higher at the larger gaps.

And last, just the 55 & Over division:

Rating Gap	Overall
Overall	72%
<= 0.05	54%
0.05 - 0.15	66%
0.15 - 0.25	81%
0.25 - 0.35	91%
0.35 - 0.45	95%
> 0.45	98%

This division is doubles only, and these percentages are basically the same as the doubles stats for the other divisions.

So it appears the ratings predict match results very consistently regardless of division, which should be the case for a good rating system.  So perhaps my ratings are sound and a good rating system!

What do you think?

Dissecting the USTA"s 2022 tennis participation press release

Each year, the USTA has a press release or post discussing a variety of participation numbers.  This year was no different with the headline being that participation grew for a third straight year.  There are many ways to look at tennis participation, so this deserves a closer look to see what exactly grew.

Those that are regular readers of this blog know that I take a look at USTA League participation each year and there has been a general decline in the number of players playing in the main 18 & Over, 40 & Over, and 55 & Over leagues.  However, depending on how you look at 2020/2021 since league play was suspended and there were no Nationals in 2020, there has been some growth in league participation after a big drop due to COVID.  Regardless of how you look at it though, even if participation in 2022 was up from 2021, 2022 was down from 2019 (258K down to 242K) and on a similar or even quicker trajectory to prior years.

So how can the USTA claim participation grew for three straight years?  The answer is that they are using a different metric than league participation.  The number they are using is from the Tennis Industry Association (TIA) that is estimating the number of people that play tennis in the US irrespective of being part of any organized league or tournament.  The TIA is saying that 23.6 million people played tennis in 2022, up 5.9 million from the start of 2020.  I believe the TIA bases their estimate on reported sales of tennis balls or other similar sales metrics, and much of the increase is attributed to COVID and how tennis was a safe sport to play and the population has flocked to it.

You'd think that an additional 5.9 million players (33% growth) over three years would result in a larger group of players that would be interested in USTA League play, but my numbers show a decrease from 2019 of 6.2%.  Now, if the TIA's numbers are correct, the percentage of the playing population that plays USTA League is barely over 1%, so one wouldn't necessarily expect a strong correlation.  Clearly, the vast majority of tennis is not played as a part of USTA League.

That said, the USTA stated that 284K players played USTA League in 2022 and that is different from my number of 242K.  Why is that?  My number is looking at just the main Adult leagues as that is something I can do consistently from year to year.  I'm assuming the USTA's number is using all leagues and so it is larger.  By my count the number of unique players in all leagues is just over 284K as well, so I have no argument with that number and it appears accurate.

The USTA also touts 2022 having an 11% increase over 2021 and that too seems accurate by my numbers as my main Adult league count went up just over 10% and these are very close.  And 2021 was up over 2020 which is no surprise as 2020 was way down due to COVID.  It is likely that at least some of the growth in 2022 was due to 2021 still being down due to COVID and more players coming back.

The key thing is that 2022 is still short of 2019.  Whether that is because the general decline in USTA League participation has continued, or we are still suffering from the effects of COVID remains to be seen.  One would think that 2022 didn't have many players still staying away from league play due to COVID but perhaps there were some.  The league participation numbers for 2023 will go a long ways to answering the question of if the pre-2019 decline is continuing, or if the USTA can capitalize on the additional tennis playing population and convert some to league play.

While writing this blog, it occurred to me that there is another metric that could be tracked, and that is the number of players that receive a year-end rating each year.  This will include more players than my main Adult league metric as it will include Mixed and Tournament players as well as players that play in alternate leagues that count for ratings.  It won't count players that play Combo or other leagues that don't count for ratings, won't count tournament players that play non-sanctioned or non-NTRP tournaments, and won't include players that don't get the minimum three matches played.

The result of this is a metric the USTA doesn't want to publicize at is falls well short of some of the aforementioned metrics.  I show just 231K players that had a 2022 year-end rating and this was down 8.0% from the 2021 number of 251K.  This is well below the USTA's 284K and below my 242K as well.  This means that just over 50 thousand league players play leagues that don't count for ratings, or didn't play enough matches to get a year-end rating.

Note that 2021 was up 2.7% over 2019's 245K, but keep in mind that 2021 covered a 2 year period which would inherently inflate the number.

Here is the full chart for the past 10 years.

Here we see the slow but steady decline with a slight bump up in 2019 and another in the 2-year period 2021, but a drop to a level lower than any other year in 2022.  And the drop is a similar percentage for both women and men.

So, was there growth in general tennis participation?  Yes, if you believe the TIA.  But has that transferred to adult play in USTA League and those players getting year-end ratings?  It doesn't appear so, at least yet.

Will the significant growth the TIA reports in the tennis playing population find its way to USTA League play in 2023?

It is 2023 and never too early to get an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report and track your rating!

It is 2023, and in some areas leagues have started or are starting in the next few weeks.  Some areas even had matches in November and December after the ratings cut-off date.  So there are a growing number of matches being played that will go towards 2023 year-end ratings.

That means player's ratings are changing as they play and those that like to track their rating may want to get an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report from me.  Yes, I continue to calculate my ratings and do reports using them!

Now, I do offer a variety of reports from individual reports with a host of detailed stats and a chart showing how my rating for a player has changed match to match, to team reports showing ratings for a whole roster and summary stats on each player and how they've done with different partners, to flight reports show averages for each team in a flight which is a great way to scout opponents.  I can also do custom reports or lists for captains wanting to find or recruit players.

If you are interested in a report, contact me!

2022 year-end NTRP ratings have been published!

It has been much anticipated, and has finally happened, the USTA has published year-end ratings for 2022!  As I write this, there are at least some players with 2022 year-end ratings on TennisLink.

To check what your rating is, you can go to TennisLink and look yourself up, or login and it should show your rating.  Make sure to check the date and that it is 12/31/2022 as that is what all new ratings should show.  If it still says a different date, yours may not be updated yet, or you didn't play enough matches to get a new rating.

Stay tuned for analysis of the ratings, but if anyone has any questions or wants to get a report to understand why they were/weren't bumped up or down, contact me!  And I'm always interested in situations where players successfully appeal, so if you do that and it is granted, drop me a note.

I'll be doing my usual analysis in the next few days, looking at general bump rates, then drilling in by gender and level and section (those links to 2019's analysis) to see what we can tell about how the USTA handled things this time around.  So stay tuned!

If the 2022 rating year is over, when will year-end NTRP ratings be published?

Based on what I've been told, the cut-off date for 2022 year-end ratings has passed and so now we await their publishing.  When will that be?

Historically the ratings are published "around December 1st", and that is what an e-mail I recently received said to expect, but the exact date varies a bit year to year, but is always sometime early/mid-week the week after Thanksgiving.

I've done a decent job of writing a blog post every year right around when the ratings come out, so here is the history so we can see if we can identify a trend.  In reverse chronological order and using PST since, well, that is where I am.

2021 - Tuesday 11/30 Around 9 pm

2019 - Sunday 12/1 around 9 pm

2018 - Wednesday 11/28 around 7 pm

2017 - Thursday 11/30 around 9 pm

2016 - Wednesday 11/30 around 7 pm

2015 - Sunday/Monday 11/29-11/30 overnight

2014 - Monday 12/1 around 9 pm

2013 - Sunday/Monday 12/1-12/2 overnight

2012 - Monday 11/26 early morning

There you have it, the date has always been by the end of day 12/1, but as early as 11/26.  In some years there was a published date or timer on TennisLink but sometimes that date was not hit and there were delays resulting in the dates above.

And the day of the week varies.  For awhile, it appears they were targeting Sunday night or Monday morning, but recently it has usually been mid-week.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say to expect something around 9pm on either Wednesday 11/30 or Thursday 12/1.

Now we wait and see!