Will points per position result in an unexpected flight winner at PNW USTA League 40 & Over Sectionals?

The Pacific Northwest section of the USTA is having its 40 & Over Sectionals this weekend in the Portland area.  Because of canceled seasons due to COVID last year, this is the first Sectionals event in PNW using the new 4 court format that was introduced in 2020.

In this format there can obviously be 2-2 ties as far as courts won (which is not ideal), but rather than use the USTA's tie-breakers for a 2-2 tie, the PNW elected to use the points per position format for regular season league play.  PNW elected to allocate points to the courts with the singles court and court 2 and 3 doubles being 1 point, and court 1 doubles 2 points.  While one team will "win" the match with more points, team "wins" don't matter, and instead teams simply accumulate points during the season and the team with the most points wins the flight.  

In many cases the team that "wins" the most team matches will also accumulate the most points, but that isn't a given.  This can lead to odd situations where a team could "win" all their matches 3-2 but another team, that the first team beat, could finish ahead of them in the standings.  Obviously there are other permutations where it could happen too.

In playoffs when teams play head to head with the winner advancing, the points accumulation doesn't matter.  But at PNW Sectionals, teams are split into two flights of usually four teams each and standings will be determined based on accumulated points.

So, it will be possible for a team to "win" all their matches 3-2, and accumulate 9 points in flight play, but another team that lost to the first team 3-2 could win their other two matches 4-1 and stand at 10 points and win the flight.

Is this bad?  An argument can be made each way and it is certainly different and puts less value on pulling out the 3-2 win if you don't back it up with accumulating enough points.

Will it happen?  I can't say, but I'll be looking.

Many folks like points per position in the regular season as it helps discourage stacking, but what do you think, it is a good thing in playoffs too?  Especially with flight play and flight winners advancing?

The USTA didn't publish 2020 year-end ratings, so how far out of level are C rated players now?

The USTA made the decision, one that I consider to have been a mistake, to not publish ratings at the end of 2020.  This meant players that had played enough to get a year-end rating, and perhaps be bumped up or down, weren't, and they continued to play at their 2019 year-end level in 2021.

I wrote that this would likely cause issues this year and indeed I looked at the rate of DQ's in 2021 and it was higher than in 2019 which would support what I wrote about.

Well, I came across another interesting side-effect of not publishing, this being a team of largely C rated players that is now clearly above and headed to Sectionals.  I saw this team while doing some reports for someone for Sectionals.

Specifically, it is a 3.5 team where every 3.5 on the roster has a C rating, and all but two of them held C ratings at the end of 2018 too.  So this is not a team of appeal or self-rated players.

As of right now, my ratings show a full nine (!) players rated at 3.50 or higher, and a top-8 average of 3.60.  That's right folks, a 3.5 team with 8 players that can probably be competitive in many 4.0 matches.

Now, you  might say this is normal, a strong team at Sectionals has to have players playing above level and that is true, but I don't often see this many above level, especially when there are no self-rates or players that appealed down.

I would hypothesize that this occurred because no one was bumped up in 2020, and as a result players have had two years to improve and you'd expect significant improvement like this.  The problem is you have the majority of at level players who are legitimately at level and didn't improve and have to play these players, or lost out to them in playoffs.

For my hypothesis to hold water though, these players would have had to have been in position to be bumped up at 2020 year-end, which had ratings been published, made them ineligible to play 3.5 in 2021.

Again, using my ratings, I count 5 of the top 8 that almost certainly would have been bumped up 1 that probably would have been, and 2 others that were borderline.  If just the 5 obvious ones had been bumped up, this team would have been far more like a normal team, and it would have been fairer to the majority of other at-level players.

It will be interesting to see what happens at Nationals as we are likely to see a bunch of teams with a lot of out of level players.  On one hand, it may be an even playing field and fair to all teams at Nationals, but it still likely made local leagues a bit of a farce when everyone knew who would win and was dominated by them.

What do you think?  Is this a problem?  Or all sections had two years to improve so it is no big deal?

2021 USTA League Sectionals continue this weekend

A bunch of teams have already won their Sectionals and qualified for USTA League Nationals, and more will punch their ticket this weekend, including:

• Eastern - 40 & Over Sectionals
• Middle States - 18 & Over Sectionals
• Missouri Valley - 18 & Over Sectionals
• Missouri Valley - 55 & Over Sectionals
• Northern - 40 & Over Sectionals
• SoCal - 40 & Over Sectionals

The following weekend has more including:

• Hawaii - 40 & Over Sectionals
• Northern - 18 & Over Mixed Sectionals
• Pacific Northwest - 40 & Over Sectionals
• Texas - 40 & Over Sectionals

I've been fortunate to help a number of teams make it to these Sectionals events, but a few teams have already won Sectionals and are headed to Nationals.  We'll see if more make it this weekend!

Good luck to all those playing.

The road to 2021 USTA League Nationals is in full flight in August

As we move into the middle of August, USTA League playoffs are going on in many sections inching us closer to 2021 USTA League Nationals.

Some upcoming Regionals and Sectionals include.

August 13-15:

• Eastern 18 & Over Sectionals
• Eastern 40 & Over Sectionals
• Florida 18 & Over Sectionals
• Intermountain 18 & Over Sectionals
• Mid-Atlantic 18 & Over Sectionals
• Michigan 18 & Over Regionals
• Michigan 40 & Over Regionals
• Ohio 18 & Over Regionals
• Ohio 40 & Over Regionals
• New England 40 & Over Sectionals
• Northern 18 & Over Sectionals
• Pacific NW 18 & Over Sectionals
• Southern 40 & Over Sectionals
• Southwest 18 & Over Sectionals

August 20-22:

• Eastern 40 & Over Sectionals
• Missouri Valley 18 & Over Sectionals
• Missouri Valley 55 & Over Sectionals
• Northern 40 & Over Sectionals

If you are going to any of these events and want to scout opponents to prepare and maximize your chances of doing well and advancing, my flight reports and team reports are a great resource.  In either case, you get ratings and statistics helping captains know what to expect and how to arrange line-ups to give their players the best chance of winning.

A number of teams and captains have gotten reports and already played and advanced.  See my testimonials page with some quotes of the nice things folks have said about the reports.

If you are interested in getting a report, contact me for more information.

The USTA sends out another survey, but requires agreeing to non-disclosure to take it?

I received an e-mail from the USTA this morning with a survey to fill out.  The e-mail contained this description of the purpose for the survey.

As we all get our bearings in this new world, we're looking to understand how we're doing among those closest to us: you!  We've commissioned a third-party research firm, the U30 Group, to conduct a very brief four-question survey to provide critical information to help the USTA understand what we're doing well and how we can improve.

This sounds good, I like survey's, and doing surveys shows a willingness on the part of the USTA to listen to their constituents, so all good right?

But upon clicking the link, it had a very ominous sounding introduction.  It reads:

By your participation in this survey, you hereby agree to keep all information about this survey and its contents completely confidential. You will neither use nor disclose to any other person or any other party any of this information. Further you agree not to attempt to copy, print or download any of this information.

You also agree that this information will remain the sole property of the organization, for whom this survey is being conducted, as will your responses to the survey questions, including any ideas or suggestions that may be contained in your responses.

This was presented to me before agreeing or disagreeing to anything so don't believe I've strayed outside of any rules by sharing the above, but what do you think of a survey beginning with this preamble?

Did you receive the survey e-mail?  Did you agree to the terms and take the survey?

Did the USTA intend for the survey to have this requirement?  Or is this boilerplate the survey firm uses for all surveys?

Should I agree and take the survey and then not be allowed to write about it?  Or should I protest and not take it?

Note, I don't dispute there are some surveys that genuinely need this sort of language as the questions may offer hints into what an organization may be planning to do and they don't want that disclosed to competitors.  I'm just curious why the USTA would feel such strong language is required for "brief four-question survey"?

What do you think?

2021 Southern 18 & Over Sectionals are this weekend - Who are the favorites?

The Southern section is the largest in the USTA, and as such Sectionals are very competitive with the best teams from nine states coming together to decide who will advance on to Nationals.  The 18 & Over division has its event this weekend, and here is a quick preview.

I won't go into a ton of detail for this, but just highlight, in alphabetical order, the highest rated teams that are likely to advance to the semis.  For this analysis I'm using my Estimated Dynamic NTRP Ratings.

At the 2.5 level, for the women, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee are most likely to make the semis, while for the men, Georgia and Mississippi are the top-2 teams out of the five there.  And none of these teams are really 2.5s with several of these teams having top-5 averages over 2.8 or even 2.9.

At the 3.0 level, the women are likely to have Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee in the semis, with the men likely to have Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee.  A bunch of these teams have top-8 averages over 3.1, a few over 3.2.

For the 3.5s, the top women's teams are both Alabama teams, Georgia, and Kentucky, while the men's are Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, and North Carolina.  Some of these teams have top-8 averages over 3.6.

The 4.0s women have as their top teams Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.  The men have Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina.  For the men, a team with a top-8 average of over 4.00 is going to miss out on the semis.

At 4.5, the women are led by Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and the men have Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee.  None of these teams have top-8 averages over 4.5.

At 5.0 the women have the two South Carolina teams at the top of a five team flight, and the men have Georgia and North Carolina at the top of a six team flight.  Just one of all these teams has a top-5 average over 4.9.

I do offer reports for teams going to Sectionals to help, plan, scout, and prepare and it isn't too late to get them for this weekend, or any playoffs in any section or district.  I can do flight reports with a nice summary of all the teams, or team reports giving detailed information on a team.  Contact me if interested for more details.

Are USTA League matches competitive? Interesting Tennis League Stats

The USTA uses the NTRP rating system to determine players levels for play in USTA League and NTRP tournaments.  You can read all about the system and how it works on my NTRP Rating FAQ.

A common discussion point about the system is how wide a band of players and abilities each level covers, and if the matches played between players of the same level are competitive.  I discussed this a bit in my review of a recent USTA League / NTRP Webinar held by the USTA, but I wanted to take a deeper look at it.

There is a perception by a few that two players at the same level are "equal", but common sense tells you that can't be true as there are only 6 levels to slot recreational league players into and clearly more differentiated is needed than that.  The more accurate characterization and expectation is that players of the same level are of "similar" ability.

The USTA actually uses two different terms, competitive and compatible, to describe players abilities, and states that players of the same level are expected to be "compatible".  My understanding of these terms being the former indicates a close match potentially won by either player, while the latter expands things to allow for one player to win the majority or even all the time, but they are still able to play on the same court without one player being completely overwhelmed.

Many players believe same level players should always have a competitive match, but given the USTA's explanation, it would seem that isn't what you should always expect.

Given all this, a reasonable question is how often are matches "competitive" vs "compatible"?  Or perhaps a better question is how often are matches between same level players a blow-out?

To look at this in detail, I looked at 2019, that being the last full year of USTA League play, and looked at the percentage of matches between same-level players that had a 6-0,6-0, 6-0,6-1, or 6-1,6-0 score.  I did this for both 18 & Over and 40 & Over divisions for singles matches only, and looked at it by level as well.

For 18 & Over, just 7.6% of matches resulted in a lopsided score, and for 40 & Over it was just 6.3%.  Neither number is very large and so isn't very surprising to me.  It seems reasonable that in one in 15 or so matches, you get a lopsided score when a top of level player plays a bottom of level one, or someone has a good/bad day, or a style match-up accentuates the difference between to players.

What is interesting is breaking it out by level.  First, 18 & Over:

• 2.5 - 15.8%
• 3.0 - 9.7%
• 3.5 - 6.6%
• 4.0 - 6.0%
• 4.5 - 6.6%
• 5.0 - 8.4%

And then for 40 & Over:

• 2.5 - 11.9%
• 3.0 - 8.2%
• 3.5 - 6.1%
• 4.0 - 5.1%
• 4.5 - 6.6%
• 5.0 - 5.9%

We see a clear trend of lopsided scores occurring more at lower levels, but interestingly the lowest being at 4.0 and a slight increase from that at 4.5 and 5.0.  Why might this be?

I think the general decrease makes sense.  Whether they are existing or new players, there is more likely to be significant improvement at these levels and when an improved player (that will be bumped up at year-end) plays a low to mid rated player, the lopsided score is expected.  You also have new players that may be out of level but not (yet) DQ'd and the lower levels have a greater tolerance for this so you actually expect to see players on the same court with a broader range of ratings and abilities at these levels.  Perhaps more simply put, there is more volatility at the lower levels.

Why might the trend tick up for 4.5 and 5.0 levels though?  I think this is an indication that these levels likely have a slightly broader range of abilities than 3.5 and 4.0.  At 5.0 that is because it is the catch-all for really good players that have avoided a bump up to 5.5 and this group is often former college players or top juniors that are still in their 20s or 30s, but 5.0 also has established (ok, older) players that just barely got the bump up to 5.0.  And you see the jump up at 5.0 is greater in 18 & Over where these younger former collegians/juniors will be.

I think 4.5 has a similar effect, particularly in 40 & Over where being a 5.0 can really limit playing opportunities, so players will appeal down or (unfortunately) manage their rating a bit to stay a 4.5 when their real ability is low 5.0, and then couple that with strong 4.0s just getting bumped up playing against these strong 4.5s and you get lopsided scores.

I don't know that the USTA does this, but in order to have critical mass for teams at the 4.5 and 5.0 levels, they could also adjust things from time to time to keep enough players at these levels for areas to have flights and play.

All that said, the percentage at 4.5 and 5.0 is still well below the 2.5 and 3.0 levels, so those are certainly more volatile and any broader range of abilities at the higher levels is only marginally higher than 3.5 and 4.0.

What do you think?  Are the ranges too broad?  Should two players of the same level be able to always expect a competitive match?  Or is it ok for players at opposite ends of a level to have lopsided scores at times?