Updated Estimated NTRP for Northwest Washington Men Posted

The weekend isn't over, but I played a match last night so updated the Estimated NTRP ratings so I could see what happened to my rating (it went down a bit :( ) and I've posted these to the site.  I'll probably post again late Monday or Tuesday after the full weekend of match scores should be available.

Past year Estimated Dynamic NTRP now available

I have posted the 2010 and 2011 end of regular season Estimated Dynamic NTRP ratings to the web-site for the Northwest Washington area. See the 2010 men, 2010 women, 2011 men, and 2011 women.

I should note a few things.

First, these ratings generally only include regular season matches.  No local, regional, sectional, or national playoffs are included, except I did include some for the 3.5 mens level for 2011.

Second, the final USTA NTRP ratings do a recalculation based on benchmark players at the end of the year and they do not simply use the current Dynamic NTRP.

Third, the USTA can and has elected to do mass bumps up/down at times to keep the levels balanced.

For these reasons, what you see as the final rating may not match the end of year NTRP from the USTA. But it is still interesting to look at.

Women's Estimated Dynamic NTRP updated

And now the women's ratings are updated to include all levels from 2.5 to 5.0.  See them here.

Updated Mens Estimated NTRP for Northwest Washington posted

I wrote yesterday about my newly released rating for players playing in USTA League Tennis, the Estimated NTRP.  I've already posted an update, this one adding in all levels from 2.5 to 5.0 to the current ratings for Northwest Washington men.

An update for the women and past year's end of year ratings will be posted shortly.  I'll also be writing on statistics and observations as well so stay tuned.

Estimated USTA Dynamic NTRP for Northwest Washington Adult Leagues

Note: This post was made in April 2012 but seems to be found by search engines frequently.  I am now doing ratings/reports for all USTA League play so contact me if interested in a report or click here to see the latest posts on this blog.

I'm a huge football fan and love doing computer ratings for both the NFL and College Football, but the sport I play the most is tennis and have been playing USTA League Tennis for the past few years.

For those that follow USTA League Tennis, you know that players play at different levels to promote competitive play and the USTA uses a National Tennis Rating Program (NTRP) rating to determine what level a player is at.  Levels exist from 1.5 all the way up to 7.0 (in 0.5 increments), but typically league play is at the 2.5 thru 5.0 levels.

Initially, players self rate usually with assistance with a local tennis pro, but there after the USTA computes a Dynamic NTRP nightly throughout the season (self rated players are subject to DQ if their rating increases too much), and then computes an end of year rating which determines the level a player will be at the following year.

The challenge is that the USTA does not publish Dynamic NTRP ratings at all, and the end of year rating is only published to the 0.5 level (e.g. 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, etc.) so one never knows exactly where they fall within their level.

Naturally, I couldn't help but try to determine how all this was calculated and while the USTA does not publish the algorithm, there was enough information out there that I've come up with what I consider a reasonable approximation of the algorithm to the point that I now have what I call an Estimated Dynamic NTRP.

Since I live in the Seattle area, I'm presently only calculating this for the Northwest Washington Area of the Pacific Northwest Section, and I have now published the current ratings with the matches available thru April 16th on the web-site.  It is presently just the men's levels from 3.0 thru 4.5.   I'll try keep this updated once a week and also include the women's levels soon.

Let me know what you think!

Update: Women's 3.0 and 3.5 now posted too here.

Update: Ratings through April 1st, 2013 posted now here.

Update: Ratings for Southwest Washington now posted too here.

2012 NFL Pre-Season Projected Records

The NFL released the 2012 schedule today and with that, my computer can now project the records for each team.  Without further adieu, here is the list.

The columns below are the team, most likely record with the chance of that record, then the chance of a record one game better and one game worse.  Red teams are AFC and blue are NFC, and bold are the teams that would win their divisions.

Note that these projections are based on the end of year ratings from last year and do not reflect any ratings changes due to personnel or coaching changes.  So Denver is project at 7-9 in part due to a tougher schedule as a division winner, but having Peyton Manning is not factored in.

There are no big surprises, New England, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh expected to top the AFC and Houston also winning their division.  The small surprises are probably San Diego winning the West (no Manning factored in for Denver) and Miami getting a wildcard.  But Cincinnati, the Jets, and Tennessee would all be tied with Miami so it would come down to tie-breakers.

In the NFC, also no big surprises unless you expect New Orleans to falter and Atlanta to benefit, although Atlanta is projected to be a wildcard.  Philadelphia is right there at 9-7 too, but Dallas and Chicago are close but a game back.

Enjoy!

Team	Record	% chance	% +1	% -1
Team	Record	% chance	% +1	% -1
New England	12-4	22.7	18.0	20.6
Green Bay	12-4	22.6	17.2	21.3
San Francisco	11-5	22.4	17.6	20.8
New Orleans	11-5	21.9	19.6	18.3
Baltimore	10-6	21.2	19.2	17.7
Pittsburgh	10-6	21.1	18.4	18.5
NY Giants	10-6	21.1	17.8	19.1
Atlanta	9-7	20.9	18.1	18.4
Detroit	9-7	20.9	18.1	18.4
Houston	9-7	20.7	19.3	17.1
San Diego	9-7	20.4	17.5	18.5
Philadelphia	9-7	20.3	19.8	16.0
Chicago	8-8	20.8	19.7	16.7
Miami	8-8	20.7	19.7	16.6
Dallas	8-8	20.6	16.9	19.3
Seattle	8-8	20.5	18.9	17.2
Cincinnati	8-8	20.5	17.0	19.0
NY Jets	8-8	20.3	19.3	16.5
Tennessee	8-8	20.3	17.0	18.8
Arizona	7-9	21.5	17.1	20.3
Denver	7-9	20.8	18.4	18.1
Oakland	7-9	20.7	19.2	17.1
Buffalo	7-9	20.6	18.6	17.6
Carolina	7-9	20.6	18.5	17.6
Kansas City	7-9	20.1	18.9	16.6
Minnesota	6-10	21.4	18.7	18.4
Jacksonville	6-10	21.1	17.9	18.9
Washington	6-10	20.9	19.4	17.2
Cleveland	5-11	22.4	18.2	20.3
Indianapolis	5-11	22.0	17.5	20.5
Tampa Bay	5-11	21.9	17.4	20.6
St Louis	4-12	23.5	19.5	20.3

2012 NCAA Tournament Observations and Potential Upsets

I posted my computer's full ratings and as well as who my computer says should have made the 68-team field earlier today.  But now it is time to look at who actually made the field and see what observations can be made and what we can learn from them.  The full list of teams with my computer's ratings is below.

First, it is always fun to look at the seeding and see how things panned out.  At the top, my computer agrees with 3 of the #1 seeds and 3 of the #2 seeds.  It says Syracuse should have been a #2 and Ohio State the #1, and then Duke is too high as a #2 and Memphis should have replaced them.  So all in all, not that far off here.

So where was the seeding way off?

Belmont is the most underrated team being a #14 seed, but my computer ranks them #27 which says they should have been around a #7 seed.  They play a #3 seed in Georgetown that is seeded slightly high (ranked #17 should have been a #5 seed) so this game is a potential upset.

Memphis is a #8 seed but being ranked #8 by my computer says they should have been a #2 seed.

St. Louis and Long Beach State are also small conference teams getting no respect as my computer ranks them #19 and #33, worthy of #5 and #9 seeds, but they received #9 and #12 seeds.

On the other side of things, Montana got in with their conferences automatic bid, but ranked #88 should have been around a #15 seed but received a #13 seed ahead of some at-large teams my computer ranks well ahead of them.

Southern Miss, somehow gets a #9 seed but being ranked #67 shouldn't have even been a bubble team let alone make the tournament.  I may eat crow on this, but do not pick them as one of your #9 upsets #8 seed games.

Colorado State also shouldn't have made it as an #11 seed being ranked #71.  Don't look for them to pull the upset of Murray State either.

San Diego State gets a #6 seed but being ranked #44 should have had more like a #12 seed.  The committee set them up to fail having to play #49 NC State, good upset chance here.

Notre Dame and Temple are a bit high at #7 and #5 respectively, as they are ranked #40 and #32 more in line with a #10 and #8 seed.

What do you think?

Rank	Team	Rating	Record	Schedule	Change
Rank	Team	Rating	Record	Schedule	Change
1	Kentucky	87.688	32-2	73.497	+0, -1.560
2	Michigan St	86.530	27-7	75.276	+2, +0.691
3	Ohio State	86.306	27-7	74.682	+2, +0.614
4	North Carolina	85.856	29-5	73.825	-2, -1.013
5	Kansas	85.262	27-6	75.069	-2, -0.849
6	Missouri	85.045	30-4	72.937	+1, +1.224
7	Syracuse	84.534	31-2	73.480	-1, -0.672
8	Memphis	83.226	26-8	72.864	+3, +0.904
9	Wichita St	82.856	26-5	71.967	-1, -0.208
10	Indiana	82.468	25-8	73.863	-1, -0.476
11	Vanderbilt	82.145	24-10	74.450	+9, +1.286
12	Baylor	82.034	26-7	74.585	+2, +0.206
13	Duke	81.894	27-6	75.163	-3, -0.590
14	Wisconsin	81.863	24-9	74.377	-1, -0.104
15	Louisville	81.710	26-9	74.378	+9, +1.650
16	Marquette	81.507	25-7	74.091	-4, -0.676
17	Georgetown DC	81.154	22-8	74.322	+1, -0.023
18	New Mexico	81.052	26-6	70.889	+3, +0.656
19	St Louis U.	81.045	24-7	71.787	-4, -0.659
20	Florida	80.995	23-10	74.278	-1, +0.095
21	Kansas St	80.694	21-10	74.094	-4, -0.510
22	Michigan	80.591	23-9	75.411	-6, -0.790
23	Florida St	80.452	24-9	74.404	+9, +1.144
24	Gonzaga	79.856	25-6	70.251	-2, -0.473
25	Iowa St	79.674	22-10	73.698	-2, -0.572
26	Creighton	79.586	28-5	71.435	+0, -0.167
27	Belmont	79.528	26-7	69.833	+1, -0.041
28	Murray St	79.477	27-1	68.534	+1, -0.059
29	UNLV	79.171	24-8	71.982	-4, -0.654
30	Texas	79.159	20-13	74.756	+1, -0.324
31	Virginia	79.124	22-9	71.795	-1, -0.371
32	Temple	79.075	24-7	73.768	-5, -0.650
33	Long Beach St	79.049	23-8	70.979	+3, +0.152
34	Cincinnati	79.012	24-10	72.603	+4, +0.461
35	Purdue	78.998	21-12	74.341	-1, -0.265
36	Alabama	78.952	21-11	74.083	-3, -0.322
37	St Mary's CA	78.593	25-5	69.489	+2, +0.106
38	Connecticut	78.463	20-13	74.596	+4, +0.505
39	California	78.369	24-9	71.122	-4, -0.881
40	Notre Dame	78.366	22-11	73.470	-3, -0.482
42	West Virginia	78.091	19-13	74.264	-1, -0.272
43	VA Commonwealth	77.982	28-6	69.791	+0, +0.073
44	San Diego St	77.509	24-7	71.409	+0, -0.208
45	Harvard	77.441	25-4	69.556	+2, -0.028
46	New Mexico St	77.303	24-9	69.409	+13, +0.587
49	North Carolina St	77.225	22-12	72.929	+12, +0.617
51	South Florida	77.171	19-13	74.445	-2, +0.109
53	St Bonaventure	76.847	20-11	71.963	+19, +0.855
54	Brigham Young	76.784	23-8	69.788	-4, -0.242
56	Xavier OH	76.718	21-12	73.939	-1, -0.040
57	Iona	76.660	25-7	69.323	-3, -0.103
59	Ohio U.	76.618	26-7	69.479	-2, -0.101
62	South Dakota St	76.523	25-7	68.956	-4, -0.195
67	Southern Miss	75.968	23-8	72.836	-7, -0.699
70	Davidson	75.798	24-7	68.300	-2, -0.479
71	Colorado St	75.795	20-11	72.550	+2, -0.107
77	Lehigh	75.398	25-7	66.579	+5, +0.352
85	Colorado	74.650	21-11	72.002	+20, +1.047
88	Montana	74.543	23-6	66.465	+2, +0.125
98	Lamar	73.923	21-11	68.848	+16, +0.834
103	Detroit Mercy	73.668	20-13	70.010	+13, +0.635
122	UNC-Asheville	72.509	21-9	67.032	+4, -0.086
125	Loyola-Maryland	72.325	24-8	68.357	+7, +0.096
129	Vermont	72.089	23-11	66.344	+17, +0.635
147	LIU-Brooklyn	71.205	25-8	66.390	+13, +0.591
180	Norfolk St	68.984	24-8	66.027	+1, -0.034
186	Western Kentucky	68.661	15-18	70.000	+19, +0.792
227	Mississippi Valley St	66.609	21-12	66.358	-6, -0.477