New USTA NTRP Rating FAQ now published

I get a lot of questions from people via e-mail or via comments on my blog about NTRP ratings and how they work.  I also frequent several message boards where I respond to questions and scenarios I see there.  As you might expect, I find myself answer some of the same questions over and over again, so I thought I'd begin collecting them in one place for all of you to have as a reference.

So, as of this moment, you may check out my USTA NTRP Ratings FAQ page.  I've captured some of the more popular questions and answers but it will be a living FAQ and be updated on a regular basis.

Do let me know if you have a question that isn't listed there, or any comments you have about the answers I've written up.  While I think I have a pretty good handle on how it all works, I can calculate an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating for any USTA League player after all, I might have something wrong so any and all feedback is welcome.

How can Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Reports help in scouting USTA League opponents? A real world example

A large and growing number of USTA League players have gotten Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Reports from me.  These are a great way to find out why you were/weren't bumped up or down, see how specific matches affect your rating, or track your progress towards a rating goal.  And with the updated report format I just released, you can now clearly see how your singles matches rate vs your doubles matches.

What fewer, but still quite a few, folks do is get reports to aid in scouting future opponents.  These can be lists of ratings or team reports that show overall ratings, and records and courts played on a given team.  With these you can get an idea of who plays with who and on what court and if teams stack their line-ups or if they play straight up.

But what about once you are on the court?  A customer, let's call him Bob, just shared his experience with me from a recent match where knowing the opponents estimated ratings helped he and his partner have a strategy from the start that allowed them to win a match they might not have otherwise.

The opponents for the upcoming match were both 4.0s, but one was just bumped up from 3.5 and the other down from 4.5.  The impulse reaction would probably be that Bob and his partner should try to avoid hitting to the bumped down 4.5 and attack the bumped up 3.5, and this is exactly what Bob's partner and teammates all advocated.  But Bob had gotten a report on the opponents and knew that the bumped up 3.5 actually had a higher estimated dynamic rating than the bumped down 4.5, 3.9 vs 3.6, and had a game plan to take advantage of that.

With the game plan in hand, Bob and his partner went after the bumped down 4.5.  Bob describes how the match went the best:

The former 4.5 was a big hitter, who could hit two great shots in a row, but not three. The former 3.5 guy was very solid, steady, and didn’t miss much, but he was one-dimensional and climbed on the net.

So, I lobbed the steady guy to get the ball to the big hitter, got in rallies with him, and waited for him to miss, which he did, confirming his rating. The former 3.5 guy got very frustrated, got impatient, and got worse as the match went on, trying to finish points as soon as possible.

Without the ratings, I would have played the match exactly wrong. Maybe I would have figured it out along the way, maybe not. Going in with the ratings on their foreheads helped me a lot.

Like he says, the strengths and weaknesses could perhaps have been figured out.  But given that the 4.5 was a big hitter who could hit great shots, how quickly would one have deduced that we was actually the weaker player?  And in league play where the third set is a 10-point tie-break, figuring this out after losing the first set means that at best if you win the second set you are playing roulette with the 10 pointer.  Knowing the ratings ahead of time and trusting them (to a point), allowed Bob have the right game plan and stick to it even when the guy they were attacking could hit a few great shots.

As always, contact me if you are interested in any reports on any USTA League player or team.

Note: Names and specific (but not relative) ratings were changed in the above to protect those who wish to stay anonymous

Should there be separate NTRP ratings for singles and doubles? Updated Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Reports: Separate stats and match ratings for singles and doubles

In USTA League play, some players play doubles exclusively.  This is because in the standard adult leagues, 75% (for a 2 singles 3 doubles format) or 80% (for a 1 singles 2 doubles format) of the players in a team match play doubles, and in the senior leagues and several other additional leagues, only doubles is played.  And even in the standard leagues, the players that play singles are oftentimes singles specialists and there isn't much of an opportunity for the "doubles guys/gals" to get on a singles court.

Some teams do change things up and some players get a mix of singles and doubles during a league year.  When this happens and you get a "doubles gal/guy" on a singles court or vice-versa, you may see some strange results when compared with the expected result based on the dynamic ratings and a common question is if there should be separate ratings for singles and doubles.

There is some merit to the idea as in today's game, singles and doubles are quite a bit different.  While there are certain exceptions to these generalizations, singles is dominated by baseline play while doubles is dominated by or at least requires adept net play.

So when someone does play both singles and doubles, it would be interesting to know if they rate higher at singles or at doubles.  With my updated as of today Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Reports, now you can know.

I've modified the report format to include some singles and doubles specific summary stats, and then display the singles vs doubles match ratings in the chart using different colors.  The result is, you can see pretty clearly if a player that plays both rates higher at one or the other.

Here is an example for a player in the Northern section that played 16 singles matches and 11 doubles matches.

Current NTRP: 4.5C
Estimated DNTRP: 4.29
Match Record: 19-8
Singles Record: 13-3
Doubles Record: 6-5
Sets Won-Lost: 43-20
Games Won-Lost: 281-191
Best Match Result: 4.82 on 3/18/13
Worst Match Result: 4.01 on 7/17/13
Highest Estimated DNTRP: 4.49 on 3/18/13
Lowest Estimated DNTRP: 4.26 on 7/17/13
Singles Average Match Rating: 4.4
Doubles Average Match Rating: 4.25

I've highlighted in bold the new information in the summary, the records for both singles and doubles and then the average match rating for both singles and doubles.

As you might expect for someone that plays more singles than doubles, this player both had a better record at singles and his average match ratings were a full 0.15 higher in singles than doubles.  Also, his best match result and results are all in singles while his worst is in doubles, although his second worst result was in singles.

All new reports from this point forward will be in the new format, so contact me if you would like to get one, or if you've gotten a 2014 report already, you know you can get updates to your report for a discount and this new report format is an added reason to get an update today.

And as a reminder, I can generate reports for any USTA League player in any section and can still do reports for last year (2013) as well as reports for matches played so far in the 2014 season.

Let me know what you think of the new report format!

Do women want their USTA NTRP level bumped up more than men?

In USTA League play, players often want to be bumped up at year-end.  Reasons for this vary.

For some, it is a sense of accomplishment and achieving a goal to be bumped up and validates that a player has improved their game.  For others, it is a status symbol, the ability to say "I'm a 4.5".  And related to this, at some clubs, players aren't allowed to "play up" so getting bumped up may be required to get to play on a certain team or with friends.  Some relish the opportunity to play stronger opponents at the next higher level.

Of course, some players want to be bumped down.  Sometimes this is because someone wants to sandbag and be bumped down so they can play and clean-up at a lower level, or be part of a team that wants to make a run to Nationals, but occasionally it is for a slightly better reason.  These include there being limited to no playing opportunities in their area at the higher level, or age or injury are affecting their game and they want to get down to the level that better reflects their ability.

Since I do a lot of Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Reports, I usually find out if someone is wanting to be bumped up or down.  What I've observed is that most people want to be bumped up, but a few want to be bumped down.

As far as the split between men and women, I'd say more women want to be bumped up than men.  Of course, this can be influenced by what level the player is presently at too as it is more common for lower level players to want to be bumped up and higher level players to want to be bumped down.  I'd say the sweet spot for women is 4.0 and men is 4.5.

This passes the smell test as it balances the desire to have a high NTRP level and be recognized as a good player, but not so high that they aren't able to compete and win.

What do you think?  What level do men and women aspire to getting to but not exceeding?

We are 2 months into 2014, what direction is your USTA League NTRP rating going?

It is the beginning of March and the winter that will never end is lingering over much of the country.  But that isn't stopping USTA League tennis from being played.  In the southern states, they get to play outdoors year round, but the rest of the country gets to play indoors to get their tennis fix in the winter.

Of the 17 USTA sections, 15 have already had matches played in at least one of the 18 & over, 40 & over, or 55 & over divisions for the 2014 season.  And played matches means dynamic ratings are being updated.  And updated dynamic ratings means players are interested in what they are doing.

After a quiet January, requests for Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Reports has heated up in February, especially the last week, as players have gotten enough matches under their belts that they are curious what their dynamic rating is.  I've even had some interested in team reports already, to see how their team is stacking up or to scout upcoming opponents.

And that means I'm off and running calculating ratings for 2014.  I can calculate an estimated dynamic rating for any player in any section, so drop me an e-mail if you are interested in finding out where your rating stands.

Or if you are just interested in musings and statistical information about USTA League play, follow this blog or like the NTRPRatings page on Facebook.

It is only February, but the 3 strike DQs have begun in USTA League

In USTA League play, new players self-rate at a certain level based on answering a series of questions.  When answered correctly, this usually results in the player beginning play at the proper level.  However, sometimes, whether deliberate or not, a player self-rates too low.

To try to avoid uncompetitive and unfair situations where a self-rated player is playing at too low a level, the USTA has a 3-strike DQ process where if a player's dynamic rating exceeds a level specific threshold 3 times, they are disqualified at that level and promoted to the next.

I recently learned about an unexpected DQ after just 3 matches and was asked to generate an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Rating Report for the player.  The report confirmed that my estimated ratings agreed that 3 strikes had occurred.

While there very may have been other DQs already in 2014, this was the first I did a report on.  Since the DQ was in just 3 matches, the chart is kind of boring so I won't show it, but each match rating was above the strike threshold resulting in each dynamic rating being over as well.

I'm often asked why strikes occur and the simple answer is that the player has demonstrated that they are playing well above level.  In this case, the player played with a lower rated partner and beat some higher rated opponents.  The specifics varied a bit from match to match, but the consistent theme was that he carried the weaker partner to wins and that is a recipe for getting strikes.

As is usually the case, there are fears and concerns that the player won't be able to compete at the promoted level.  This usually isn't the case, although the player likely won't win most of their matches at the higher level.  This doesn't mean they aren't now at the right level though.

Players like to win and if they have a losing record for a season they think they should get bumped down.  But what many like to forget is that for every winner there is a loser and losing a match to a strong opponent may be expected and the loss doesn't mean their rating should go down.  Not all losses hurt a rating, a loss could actually raise your rating, and similarly not all wins raise a rating.

So if you get DQd or bumped up, relish the opportunity to raise your game and embrace the challenge.  It is the DQ or bump wasn't appropriate, your rating will come down and you'll move down to the appropriate level, but given enough matches and as long as players aren't trying to manipulate ratings, they work for 99% of players.

More interesting USTA League stats - Comparing the 40 & over and 18 & over divisions

In 2013, the USTA introduced new age divisions in the Adult leagues, a new 40 & over league to go along with the existing 18 & over league, and the prior 50 & over league became a 55 & over league.  In effect, the 18 & over league was split into two leagues, one that was the same as before and another only for those 40 or over.

I don't know the exact driver for it but it was probably some combination of an an interest by middle aged USTA members for more league play (and the corresponding opportunity to make more money through league fees) and a response to complaints from older "under 50s" about having to play the young guns in league play, or perhaps even young players complaining about having to play the old guys.  Regardless, depending on your section and district and how it was implemented, there have been those that love the new division and those that aren't so enamored with it.

A recent thread on Talk Tennis started in support of the 40 & over division elicited some good discussion about the merits of it and also if it was resulting in a 40 & over 4.5 no longer being the same as an 18 & over 4.5.  Some say that an 18 & over player will generally be more athletic and have more stamina and will have an advantage over the same rated 40 & over player.  Others say that the algorithm looks at scores and if the 40 & over players are indeed losing, their ratings will go down accordingly.

I fall in the latter camp, that a 4.5 is a 4.5 regardless of age, and if the older 4.5 can't hack it, they will ultimately get bumped down to 4.0.  Note that this hypothesis requires that there be some cross-play between the 40 & over crowd and the younger players for these adjustments to be made, but there are a large number of the older players that continue to play in the 18 & over league so I believe this is the case.

Now, if I'm right, what about the perception that the over 40 players don't do well when they face the younger players in the 18 & over division?

My first response is that this perception may not be accurate and may be skewed by a handful of results that people focus on from playoffs at the local, district, and national level where some young player crushes and older player 1 & 1 and thus not representative of comparing the play of different ages.  It is probably more an indication of the under self-rating and sandbagging that is more likely to take place in the 18 & over division and an indication that the young player should be rated higher.

But another important point is that when you compare two players that are at the same level, they could be at opposite ends of the half-point range and thus if the younger player is say a 4.45 and the older player is a 4.05, the result is expected to be a fairly easy win by the younger player, but both players can be correctly rated as 4.5s.  In fact, given age does catch up with all of us, it is probably reasonable to hypothesize that the distribution of actual ratings for 4.5 rated players is a bit lower for the over 40 players than for the under 40 players.

To test this hypothesis, I took a look at the data I have to estimate Dynamic NTRP ratings to see if any trends stuck out.

First, I took a look at the average dynamic rating I calculated for all players that ended the 2013 year rated a 4.5 and found it to be 4.23.  This makes sense, you'd expect the average to be somewhere around the middle of the range, and the fact that it is a little lower than the exact mid-point just means the distribution of ratings is a little biased towards the lower half, also something you'd expect at a fairly high level like 4.5.

Next, I changed the players I looked at to only those that played in the 40 & over division.  The average dropped to 4.21.  Two hundredths isn't a huge difference, but it is significant enough that I think it supports the hypothesis.  Note also that the 4.23 above includes these 40 & overs, so if they were to be taken out, the average for the under 40s would be a bit higher and gap would be more than two hundredths.

So I would contend that a 40 & over 4.5 is not any less a 4.5 than a 22 year old 4.5, but they very well may have a slightly lower actual rating and that is the reason for the perception that the old guys of the same NTRP level can't keep up with the young guys.  It is just the nature of a rating system where a given level has a range of 0.5 rating points that this will happen, particularly at a higher NTRP level.

Thoughts?