I wrote earlier than rain had arrived and there would be delays. They ended up not starting play until early afternoon, around 1pm, and using a short format with no-ad and sets to 4 rather than 6.
Even with these steps in place, it still appears it will be a late night as as of the writing of this (9:45pm EST) according to TennisLink, there are:
Seven 6.0 matches to play, one team hasn't played yet
Five 7.0 matches to play, two teams haven't played yet
Four 8.0 matches to play
Five 9.0 matches to play, two teams haven't played yet
Sounds like it will be a late night for some teams, while others have their two matches done for the day and are relaxing. Perhaps they are delayed entering scores, but I'm told they enter them promptly.
As I did last year, I will be doing simulations of each Nationals to predict who the most likely four teams are to make the semi-finals, and also look at other interesting things that may occur. Last year, the simulations did a pretty good job predicting who would advance to the semis including having all four teams predicted correctly several times.
Why do these simulations you ask? The primary reason is that the format for USTA League Nationals is now a flight-less random round-robin where each team plays four other random opponents. This introduces significant variations in schedule strength, the possibility of an undefeated team not making the top-4, and teams vying for the top-4 perhaps not having played head-to-head and unfortunate tie-breakers being used. The simulations aim to educate folks on how it all works and look at what may happen. Also see this write-up for some things to know about Nationals.
Nationals have entered the seventh and final weekend of competition, the 40 & Over 8.0 Mixed event being held in Orlando. Here is what the simulation says is likely to happen.
As a reminder, my simulations are done using my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings and looking at the average rating for the top group of players on each team, the actual schedule each team will play, and then doing a million simulations of the matches with some random variation in each team's expected result.
With 17 teams at the event the USTA never creates a schedule that can avoid more than four undefeated teams, and there is a less than 1% chance of five undefeated. There is just an 8% chance of four undefeated, so this means a competitive event and a good chance of teams at 3-1 vying for the last advancing spot.
That chance is 92%, that there will be a tie for the last spot (4-0 or 3-1) and it come down to tie-breakers. The most likely size of the tie is a healthy 4 at 37%, but three is pretty high at 23%, and five is 21%. The chances of larger ties diminish pretty quickly, but a 10-way tie is theoretically possible, but it appears a multi-way tie is a very high probability and it could be reasonably large.
Should there be a tie on team record, it comes down first to who has the best court record, then head-to-head (if applicable), then to who lost the fewest sets, then who lost the fewest games, and finally percent of games won. There is a 50% chance it comes down to the sets lost tie-breaker, and there is a 48% chance that is between two teams and a healthy 37% chance it is between three teams, If the controversial tie-breakers are going to come into play, this is the likely spot.
The schedule strengths do vary a bit, the team with the easiest schedule having an opponent average of 3.45 while the team with the toughest schedule having an opponent average of 3.73. This leads to an easier road for some teams than others, one of the predicted semi-finalists getting there due to an easier schedule.
So who is most likely to come out in the top-4? NorCal, Mid-Atlantic, PNW, and Hawaii are solid choices, NorCal the most likely by just a bit. Southern is really close to joining the fray and Intermountain and Texas will be there too, SoCal also lurking.
For those interested, I offer a variety of reports to make Nationals more fun and help captains prepare. I have a Simulation Report that has all of the details of the simulation including the average ratings for each team, each team's schedule strength, the most likely record for each team, and the chance of each possible record for each team. I also offer reports to help teams scout opponents in more detail, both a Flight Report with full roster averages, top-8 averages and played by court averages for each team, as well as full Team Reports with detailed ratings for each rostered player and stats who who plays with who and on which court and how they do together. Contact me if interested in any of these reports.
The weather report for this weekend's 40 & Over Mixed Nationals in Orlando wasn't good earlier in the week, and it still isn't good.
This will be the 4th of five Nationals held in Orlando having some amount of rain/delays, the 3rd it appears with significant delays and potential short format scoring being required.
Here it is as of Thursday evening.
It doesn't look promising for much of Friday. With those percentages, even if there are periods without rain, can the courts be dried and play start for any period of time before more rain arrives?
I hear that they are already planning for the start of play to be delayed until Friday afternoon, perhaps 2pm when the indoor courts become available, but it sounds like they are hoping outdoor courts are playable by then too.
I have not heard if they are preemptively going to short format scoring. Saturday looks good at this point so I'm sure they will try to catch up with more condensed scheduling so perhaps they can avoid a short format.
I'll update this post as I learn more, or create a new one with more significant updates.
Update: The decision was made Thursday evening to play sets to 4 rather than 6 and to use no-ad, on Friday at least. A revised schedule was posted planning to start play in the afternoon when the forecast says the rain will diminish, but teams are on standby to start earlier if weather permits.
As I did last year, I will be doing simulations of each Nationals to predict who the most likely four teams are to make the semi-finals, and also look at other interesting things that may occur. Last year, the simulations did a pretty good job predicting who would advance to the semis including having all four teams predicted correctly several times.
Why do these simulations you ask? The primary reason is that the format for USTA League Nationals is now a flight-less random round-robin where each team plays four other random opponents. This introduces significant variations in schedule strength, the possibility of an undefeated team not making the top-4, and teams vying for the top-4 perhaps not having played head-to-head and unfortunate tie-breakers being used. The simulations aim to educate folks on how it all works and look at what may happen. Also see this write-up for some things to know about Nationals.
Nationals are about to enter the seventh and final weekend of competition, the 40 & Over 8.0 Mixed event being held in Orlando. Here is what the simulation says is likely to happen.
As a reminder, my simulations are done using my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings and looking at the average rating for the top group of players on each team, the actual schedule each team will play, and then doing a million simulations of the matches with some random variation in each team's expected result.
With 17 teams at the event the USTA never creates a schedule that can avoid more than four undefeated teams, and there is a very healthy 14% chance of five undefeated. But there is a 1% chance of six undefeated too! It is possible to avoid this even with 17 teams, but the USTA did not do that. There is a quite good chance at 38% of four undefeated, but that still leaves a good chance of teams at 3-1 vying for the last advancing spot.
That chance is 62%, that there will be a tie for the last spot (4-0 or 3-1) and it come down to tie-breakers. The most likely size of the tie is a whopping five at 40%, but four is nearly as likely at 34%, and two is still 16%. The chances of larger ties diminish pretty quickly, but a 12-way tie is theoretically possible, but it appears a multi-way tie is a very high probability and it could be reasonably large.
Should there be a tie on team record, it comes down first to who has the best court record, then head-to-head (if applicable), then to who lost the fewest sets, then who lost the fewest games, and finally percent of games won. There is a 29% chance it comes down to the sets lost tie-breaker, and there is a 60% chance that is between two teams and a healthy 31% chance it is between three teams, If the controversial tie-breakers are going to come into play, this is the likely spot.
The schedule strengths do vary a bit, the team with the easiest schedule having an opponent average of 3.84 while the team with the toughest schedule having an opponent average of 4.05 This leads to an easier road for some teams than others, one of the predicted semi-finalists getting there due to an easier schedule.
So who is most likely to come out in the top-4? Florida, PNW, Mid-Atlantic, and Texas are solid choices, Florida the most likely. Hawaii and Middle States are really close, it drops off after that but SoCal could challenge.
For those interested, I offer a variety of reports to make Nationals more fun and help captains prepare. I have a Simulation Report that has all of the details of the simulation including the average ratings for each team, each team's schedule strength, the most likely record for each team, and the chance of each possible record for each team. I also offer reports to help teams scout opponents in more detail, both a Flight Report with full roster averages, top-8 averages and played by court averages for each team, as well as full Team Reports with detailed ratings for each rostered player and stats who who plays with who and on which court and how they do together. Contact me if interested in any of these reports.
I now go look at TennisLink and see that flights are being created and the standings now appear to be using the Points Per Position format!
For those that haven't seen it, here is what it looks like.
You notice the traditional Wins, Losses, Individual Wins, and Individual Losses columns are not present. Instead there are Matches Played and Points columns. This is the Points Per Position (PPP) format.
If you didn't read what I wrote earlier, PPP works by each court having an assigned number of points the winning team gets for winning that court, and rather than having a team win or loss for a team match, each team simply accumulates points based on the courts won. The standings are then based on the accumulated points, with tie-breakers done based on sets and games won/lost.
Now, what points will be assigned to the courts? That isn't clear yet, but I'd guess it will be what I wrote earlier, 1 point for all courts other than 1 doubles, and 2 points for that court. This means 5 points available per match, so in an eight match season, 40 total points are in play for a team. And while the "win" doesn't matter, this does mean one team will accumulate more points than the other team for the match so there is some satisfaction in the "win" this way.
So it appears we will find out how Points Per Position works and how captains will adapt to both the 4-court format and a new way of determining standings!
A recent change to the USTA League regulations for 2020 modified the format for 40 & Over at the National level, specifically changing it to a 4-court format with 1 court of singles and 3 courts of doubles. Sections are given the leeway to adopt it for local league play and Districts/Sectionals if they so choose, and I expect many to do so, and my section, Pacific Northwest, has said it will be used for 2020, and I've heard that NorCal will use it as well.
I highlighted a number of concerns in what I wrote above, and I know a group of players in PNW have lobbied the Section Coordinator to rethink the position, but I have not seen an official reply or response with any planned changes.
That doesn't stop me from speculating what might be done though.
Update 11/13 9:30pm: It appears my speculation was correct as the standings on TennisLink for the upcoming league now show the standings using Points Per Position.
If there really is a shortage of singles players, a 1 singles and 4 doubles format could be used to actually increase playing opportunities (9 players rather than 7 or 8) and avoid the issue with 2-2 ties. But that isn't happening for 2020, so let's move on.
One approach if a 2-2 tie really happens after the tie-breakers are exhausted is to just give the teams a "half win". The challenge here is that TennisLink doesn't support it so it would have to be manually managed/tracked. I believe this has been done in at least one section where a 4-court format was used in 2019.
Perhaps a better solution is something I noted could be done, that being to use a Points Per Position (PPP) format for standings. For those not familiar with it, rather than standings being based on team wins/losses, they are based simply on points, where a team accumulates points for winning courts throughout the season. This effectively removes the team win issue as teams wins are not something that is used for standings.
The PPP format allows for the points per position to be whatever is deemed appropriate by the section/district/area implementing it. The format has been used in several sections for several years with different points allocations, for example, in the Eastern section where PPP has been used for a few years, a 3-court 5.0+ flight uses 2 points for 1S and 1D, and one point for 2D (221), but 5-court flights use a 5 for 1S, 4 for 2S, 6 for 1D, 4 for 2D, and 3 for 3D (54643).
A simple approach for my section (PNW), or any section adopting this new 4-court format for the first time, would be to use PPP with a single point for each court. This effectively just makes the standings based on courts won/lost record rather than team wins, but does make it so a 2-2 team result is not an issue. You don't get the satisfaction of the "win", both teams just accumulate 2 more points towards their total in the standings.
An alternative that is subtle but perhaps addresses a few issues is to assign 1 point to all courts other than 1D which will be worth 2 points. This means each team match will have 5 points up for grabs. While the team "win" no longer matters, this would result in two teams splitting the four courts having the team that won 1D accumulating 3 total points and thus getting the "win" which lends a little more satisfying resolution to the team match.
This approach also has the benefit of discouraging stacking if you think that is an issue. In fact, PPP is often used with points allocations to discourage stacking as noted above. So not only does 1D being worth 2 points create the allure of a "win", but it would help ensure players play their better players on 1D to go after the 2 points.
Also, in 4.5+, by making 1D worth two points, a team may play their 5.0 on 1D some and not only 1S which may open up singles playing opportunities for 4.5s where they may not have had them before if the 5.0 always played singles. This at least partially addresses the concern that 4.5 singles opportunities will disappear with the 4-court format.
I think there are pros and cons to PPP where court 1 is weighted more heavily. It does discourage stacking to a degree, but also takes away a strategy for captains to use to try to win the team match. It could lead to a captain being less willing to play lower rated players at all as they can no longer lose that court and win the team match, losing the court is just lost points now and points accumulation may be at a premium. I'll be honest, I'm on the fence on this one until I see it in action or do some more research.
Regardless, while I still don't agree with the decision to move to 4 courts for 40 & Over, a move to Points Per Position would address some of the issues. It does not address the reduced playing opportunity in general, and the cutting in half of the singles playing opportunities, and this is really the bigger issue, but it is at least a step in the right direction and better than the original plan.
Note that an alternative to PPP as I outlined above would be to just make the winner of 1D be the tie-breaker in the team-match if the courts split 2-2. The problem with this is that this isn't an approved format that TennisLink supports, and unfortunately I think whatever is selected needs to be "TennisLink approved", and Points Per Position is.
If you are from PNW, what do you think? Would you like to see Points Per Position adopted for the 40 & Over league since we appear locked in to the 4-court format?
If you aren't from PNW, is what I've outlined above something you'd like to see your section do should they adopt the 4-court format?
Voice your opinion and vote in the poll.
Given the 4-court (1S/3D) format for 40 & Over, what is your preferred approach for flight standings?
As I did last year, I will be doing simulations of each Nationals to predict who the most likely four teams are to make the semi-finals, and also look at other interesting things that may occur. Last year, the simulations did a pretty good job predicting who would advance to the semis including having all four teams predicted correctly several times.
Why do these simulations you ask? The primary reason is that the format for USTA League Nationals is now a flight-less random round-robin where each team plays four other random opponents. This introduces significant variations in schedule strength, the possibility of an undefeated team not making the top-4, and teams vying for the top-4 perhaps not having played head-to-head and unfortunate tie-breakers being used. The simulations aim to educate folks on how it all works and look at what may happen. Also see this write-up for some things to know about Nationals.
Nationals are about to enter the seventh and final weekend of competition, the 40 & Over 6.0 Mixed event being held in Orlando. Here is what the simulation says is likely to happen.
As a reminder, my simulations are done using my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings and looking at the average rating for the top group of players on each team, the actual schedule each team will play, and then doing a million simulations of the matches with some random variation in each team's expected result.
First, there are just 15 teams for this event (NorCal had a team listed previously, but not anymore, and Hawaii is listed as a team, but is not on the schedule) and there is still a 3% chance of five undefeated. It should be possible to avoid this with just 15 teams. There is a quite good chance at 23% of four undefeated, still that leaves a good chance of teams at 3-1 vying for the last advancing spot.
That chance is 74%, that there will be a tie for the last spot and it come down to tie-breakers. That tie is likely at a 3-1 record. The most likely size of the tie is three at 36%, but four is nearly as likely at 28%, two is still 17%, and a 5-way tie 15%. The chances of larger ties diminish pretty quickly, but a 10-way tie is theoretically possible, but it appears a multi-way tie is a very high probability and it could be reasonably large.
Should there be a tie on team record, it comes down first to who has the best court record, then head-to-head (if applicable), then to who lost the fewest sets, then who lost the fewest games, and finally percent of games won. There is a 30% chance it comes down to the sets lost tie-breaker, and there is a 66% chance that is between two teams and a healthy 28% chance it is between three teams, If the controversial tie-breakers are going to come into play, this is the likely spot.
The schedule strengths do vary a bit, the team with the easiest schedule having an opponent average of 2.91 while the team with the toughest schedule having an opponent average of 3.10 This leads to an easier road for some teams than others, one of the predicted semi-finalists getting there due to an easier schedule.
So who is most likely to come out in the top-4? New England, Caribbean, Middle States, and Mid-Atlantic are solid choices, New England the most likely. PNW and Northern are close, it drops off after that with MoValley and Eastern the ones likely to disrupt things.
For those interested, I offer a variety of reports to make Nationals more fun and help captains prepare. I have a Simulation Report that has all of the details of the simulation including the average ratings for each team, each team's schedule strength, the most likely record for each team, and the chance of each possible record for each team. I also offer reports to help teams scout opponents in more detail, both a Flight Report with full roster averages, top-8 averages and played by court averages for each team, as well as full Team Reports with detailed ratings for each rostered player and stats who who plays with who and on which court and how they do together. Contact me if interested in any of these reports.
