I've been doing these simulations since 2018 and have found that the four semi-finalists are usually in the top six to seven projected teams, and more often than you might think, I project the four semi-finalists perfectly. There are surprises sometimes and a mid-pack team overachieves and advances, that is why the matches are played on the courts and not on a computer. Still, it is interesting to do these simulations and see how the projections do.
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.
This year I'll be primarily just giving the data from the simulation and not writing a bunch of words. Most of it is self-explanatory, but the favorites and contenders will be listed in alphabetical order. The strengths are based on top-10 averages. If you want more details, I can do my simulation report for you.
On to the projections from the simulation, continuing with the 40 & Over 3.5 men.
Contenders: Hawaii, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Missouri Valley
A not insignificant chance of five undefeated, and even six could happen! Just seven favorites/contenders, two of the favorites are locks to advance.
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.
Do you have a sense for why your 3.5 men’s simulation was less accurate?
ReplyDeleteTexas made the semis, Southern was 5th and a match tie-break or a few games from being 3rd and had a better court record than 4th place Middle States, and Midwest was listed as a contender so those picks were all solid.
DeleteFlorida under-performed a bit, but the loss to Midwest had every court as expected, versus Hawaii they had just one very minor upset loss, they just didn't bring their best players with players 2 thru 4 and 7 all not playing a match. The simulation doesn't know that so can't factor it in.
I can vouch that Florida was missing #1 singles and #1 doubles unfortunately due to injuries as well as two other key players. I think your simulation would have been accurate if those players were available.
Delete