First up, the double bump. Bumps up and down happen, in typical years about 15% of players are bumped, around 9% go up and 6% go down. It varies from year to year but that is roughly what you can expect. Bumps up or down just one level are the most common of course, but do double bumps happen? If so, how often?
For bumps up, I show 29 players whose 2023 year-end C rating was at least 1.0 higher than their C rating they were using for 2023. So it does happen, but not a lot. What about a triple bump up? I found one, sort of, but it was actually a glitch (see below).
For bumps down, I only found one player that has this, sort of. I say sort of because they were a 2022 year-end 4.5C, but were able to appeal down to 4.0, and at 2023 year-end received a 3.5C. So they were a double bump down, but "benefited" from appealing down and being able to play 4.0, although they still played 4.5 and only played one Tri-Level match on the 4.0 court. To be honest, the 3.5C doesn't appear warranted, but the USTA gave it to them.
There is always interesting year-end ratings around some players that go to Nationals. Here are a few I've seen that are a little baffling:
- A team finishes 3rd at Nationals, and no one is bumped up other than a player who went 4-5 on the year. Others on the roster won 70+% of their matches on the year including 3-0, 4-1 or 5-1 at Nationals and weren't bumped up.
- A 5.5C takes time off and comes back as a 5.0S and goes 9-0 including 4-0 at Nationals and gets a 4.5C.
For what it is worth, my ratings don't agree with either of the above.
How about some bumps that appear to be glitches or bugs or due to something other than the algorithm?
- A 5.0C takes time off and comes back as a 5.0S and goes 1-2 playing 5.0. What is their year-end rating? 2.5C! Clearly something amiss here, I'm guessing it will be fixed and changed at some point, and in fact as I just checked as I write this it has been, so good on the USTA for fixing it. I saw a few more similar to this that have also been fixed.
- A 3.5S played in 2022 and was DQ'd to 4.0 mid-year, but somehow got a 2.5C year-end rating. Clearly a glitch and it was fixed, but not for months it seems so the 4.0C they got this year looked like a triple bump but wasn't once the fixed 4.0C from last year was recorded.
- A 4.5S plays only Mixed, loses two matches early, then goes 14-1 and gets an M rating as expected, but it is a 4.0M! My ratings had them closer to a 5.0 than a 4.0.
- A 5.0T self-rates as a 5.0 and plays 5.0, does go 0-3, but ends up as a 3.5C!
For some of these that are glitches, the USTA does correct them as I note so that is good. But a few are outstanding and make one scratch their head.
What crazy bumps have you seen?
I have seen a 3.0C went 1-7 at 3.5 matches and got bumped to 3.5
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure you are the level you play. I’ve known players to only “play up” for several years hoping it will earn them their bump to that level, and it doesn’t. It really does all depend on the (dynamic) level of the person you play and how you do against them (not merely won/lost but score). So some people with losing records such as 1-7 can still be bumped (perhaps the scores were close and they played all high rated 3.5s), while others with poor scores or wins against opponents who are also “playing up” do not.
DeletePlaying up is a great way of bumping up if you're trying to do that, but yes, no guarantee.
DeleteThe system is far from perfect. I was gonna say hypothetically a beginner player(let's say is 2.5) and plays 5.0 league matches. Even if this player loses 0,0 every match, they couldn't get lower than a 4.5 rating. But guess it depends on the other players on the court, too. But, you said a 5.0 player bumped down to 3.5 after only 3 matches. That has to be a glitch. How is that possible? I wish the USTA would look closer at everyone's ratings after they're published, and alter them manually if necessary if it's obviously incorrect, even if the computer is saying something differently.
"A 5.5C takes time off and comes back as a 5.0S and goes 9-0 including 4-0 at Nationals and gets a 4.5C."
ReplyDeleteI was stunned when I saw this as well. Did you happen to see any patterns with these ratings anomalies such as the sections these are occurring in? Or does it seem random?
Not specifically, no, seems random.
DeleteSo but if there are blatant mistakes, can these by fixed ex officio? does it require a grievance to be filed?
DeleteThere is an odd “bump” of sorts that was recently found by a friend. A 3.0T player self rated 3.0S for this year’s 2024 mixed doubles early start league. After ratings he now shows as a 3.5S, while making no changes himself.
ReplyDeleteSimilar issue with a mixed early start league, a friend had 5 matches before 11/12 but stayed at a self rating instead of receiving a mixed rating.
My apologies, apparently the first scenario was not the case. He had to self rate for a January men’s team but was able to compete in mixed doubles with the 3.0T. I don’t understand that because the system says for leagues (and mixed is a league) players will need to self-rate again no lower than their T rating. But he didn’t have to.
DeleteHonestly, this is all far more confusing and less transparent than it should be.
E-mail me who the players are and I can take a look: ratings@teravation.net
DeleteI see you’ve already covered it but I saw the guy that got bumped down to 4.5 as well. Remember seeing him at
Delete5.0 nationals this year. Top end 5.0 at worst in my opinion.
Last year, we had a 5.0s women on our mixed team, she went 7-1 in locals and sectionals and they gave her a 4.0m rating. This year she had about the same record, including 5-0 at 9.0 sectionals, she’s now a 4.5m. We had another who was a 4.0s and last year she had a good record in 9.0 mixed and they gave her a 3.5m as well. Back to a 4.0m this year though.
DeleteI think the USTA's M ratings have some gaps and leave a bit (a lot?) to be desired.
Delete