This weekend has five events, 40 & Over 3.5 in Orlando, and then 18 & Over 2.5W and 5.0 in Scottsdale, 3.0 in San Diego, and 4.0 in Surprise.
I've been doing 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.
Because of the more compressed schedule, I likely won't have the time to do previews/simulations of all events, but will try to do a few. Let me know which you'd like to see!
Like I did last 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. Contact me if you want to learn more.
On to the projections from the simulation, next, the 18 & Over 4.0 men.
Chance of 4 undefeated: 4.0%
Chance of 5 undefeated: <1%
Chance of tie for last spot / most likely size: 94% / 4
Strongest / weakest team strength: 4.08 / 3.82
Toughest / easiest schedule: 4.00 / 3.94
Favorites: Intermountain, Midwest, Missouri Valley, SoCal
Contenders: Middle States, NorCal, Pacific Northwest, Southern
The simulation likes the top-4 teams, but just one has a most likely record of 4-0, but three of them have a 38% or greater chance of going 4-0. The contenders aren't far behind most also projected at 3-1. Court records and the tie-breakers will be important.
What do you think?
Edit: Found an error and corrected it that adds Southern as a contender
Pretty sure you’re underestimating southern
ReplyDeleteVery well could be. If so, that is likely because their best player only played three matches and so the simulation, looking at playing trends, is likely not giving enough credit to them. The simulation works well when a team continues the trends they showed during playoffs and their best player played sparingly there. If he plays all the matches at Nationals, that will be different.
DeleteActually, thanks to your note I found an error. Correcting it now.
DeleteThe SoCal team is strong. Fun fact: they only crept into sectionals as a wild card, after having a self rated player DQd mid season. They still have at least 1 self rated ringer who has a 21.XX WTN.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that DQ was interesting. Administrative? And yeah, HD has rolled, just managed to be in spots to not have his rating shoot up.
DeleteNot sure what the story was. Heard rumors about his playing background having been rather more extensive in another country than was disclosed at time of self-rating. But unconfirmed.
DeleteLooks like Fowkes is in prime position to win again. Intermountain's schedule looks like an easier schedule through pool play, too, especially with the Texas team defaulting #2 singles each match.
ReplyDeleteMoValley with a strange first match-losing all 5 courts in supers and they all won the 2nd sets only on each court.
IM did have the easiest schedule there, but ran into Southern as you note below.
DeleteSouthern ended up winning over Fowkes. Looks like some kinda joke with Morgan/Barone each winning 6 singles matches at Nationals pretty easily for Southern, each without dropping a set including 3 double bagels from Morgan. I'm sure each team had a bunch of guys with no business playing 4.0, but this seems like a completely different joke. Barone somehow qualifies for districts playing only 1 match during the regular season as a self rate, so that's not a good rule-make him play at least 2x. Then, he was unleased after that after being hidden.
ReplyDeleteHas the system failed us if a player like GM gets a 4.0C and then plays like this the following year? How was he not bumped up going 8-1 last year including 4-0 without dropping a set at Sectionals and 2-0 with no sets dropped at Districts?
DeleteNB had a match and two defaults, in Southern that is enough to qualify for playoffs. National requires more for self-rates to qualify for Nationals, but sections don't have to have stricter rules for local/district/section playoffs. He'll certainly be a DQ after Nationals, but who cares at this point.
But he did play 7 before Nationals dropping only one set, and the system didn't 3-strike DQ him. I can't say he held back and managed scores or not, but his results at Nationals certainly were a lot higher rated.
Hey I am a player for the southern team. Just wanted to let y’all know it feels good to win and not have to whine about anything. Sucks to suck. Smoking on that Utah pack 😮💨
DeleteTrue about Morgan. We probably all see a few players like this who dominate the previous year, but still maintain their previous rating, 4.0C in this case. Records can be misleading sometimes and depends who all else is on the court, but if he does that well in a competitive sectionals, how is he not bumping up? Right. He seems nowhere near the 4.0 level either. He was doing well at 4.5 sectionals this year.
ReplyDeleteYes about Barone, but it seems like he should have to actually play at least 2x before playoffs. I'm guessing he was very close to striking out before nationals. I'm sure lots of too underrated players at nationals, but this seems too extreme obviously.
The challenge is, if Southern didn't have these players and IM won, then we'd be noting how out of level the IM team was. Now, perhaps this IM team wasn't as out of level as some of this captain's prior teams were, and that is why they lost this time. It is hard to know where to draw the line, but there will always be someone out of level on the team that wins, that is why they win. Take them away and then someone else be be the out of level player on the winning team.
DeleteWhat the hell is this website and why they talking on here? Explains a lot
DeleteSure. We've talked about this before. It's not there's a line, but where is that line? Obviously, many of these players are clearly above whatever the line is. Naturally, one or more players will be above the top of level by the time playoffs comes even if nothing shady is done. But a lot of these teams winning will have many players closer to the next level than the current level they're playing at. There usually isn't much of a difference between finishing 1st or 2nd at nationals. Maybe this Intermountain team was less extreme than the times they won, but most likely still very extreme. A great achievement on the surface: making 4 Finals in 6 years, winning 3 of them, but makes the rest of us wonder how is this possible without having many clearly above level players each time. The probability of this happening without these players just doesn't add up.
DeleteMichael, this is good analysis. Would you consider IM a dynasty at this point? And what does it say about southern section and their team this year? Team of destiny?
DeleteBy the definition of dynasty, they were/are a dynasty since they won in 2019, 2021, and 2022. Fowkes then abandoned 4.0 for 4.5 in 2023 and finished 6th at nationals. Then, back to 4.0 this year, finishing 2nd. If you have a captain with unlimited resources, time, and energy in a highly populated area with the ability to find many 4.5 level players who are able to have a 4.0 rated and are committed to a full season, then sure, anyone could have the potential to becoming a dynasty. But good luck with all of that.
DeleteSouthern found 2 ringers who look like they have no business being 4.0s and were able to at least hide 1 of them long enough so he had less of a chance to strikeout before nationals. They guaranteed themselves 2 courts each match, and only had to win 1 dubbs court of the 3 each match to get the team win. The Southern section is almost always strong, naturally because they're the largest section.