GS 2nd Week Evaluation of the Big Four (9 years from USO 2008 to Wim 2017)

[AZ]

******
GS 2nd Week Evaluation of the Big Four (9 years from USO 2008 to Wim 2017)
******

The era of the Big Four (i.e. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray) started when Murray become world number four at the end of 2008, after losing to Fed in the 2008 USO final. Since then exactly nine years have passed. How did the Big Four perform in the Big Week (2nd week) of the Big Events i.e. Grand Slams (36 of them) over this period? I will consider two metrics for this analysis: reaching a certain level, and converting to the higher level after having reached a certain level.

******

Grand Slam quarters or more:
Djokovic (33); Murray (30); Federer (29); Nadal (21)

Comment: Nadal has the worst consistency among big four in terms of consistently reaching the second week of Grand Slams (58%). Djokovic is at 92%, followed by Murray (83%) and Federer (81%). In sum, Djokovic = A+; Murray and Fed = A; Nadal = D

******

Grand Slam semis or more:
Djokovic (26); Federer (23); Murray (20); Nadal (17)

Comment: Again, Djokovic comes out at top; Federer is better than Murray this time; Nadal comes out the worst, again. If we count efficiency over number of slams played, then Djokovic has 72% (B), Federer 64% (C), Murray 55% (D), and Nadal 47% (F).

But when we are talking about converting those QFs to SFs, Nadal is marginally the best (81%), closely followed Federer (79%) and Djokovic (78%), and Murray is way low at 66%. This QF-to-SF rate is the more revealing statistic that separates the top three from Murray. Murray is much less likely to make the final once he reaches the SF; but the other three are much more reliable and have almost the same chances.

******

Grand Slam finals or more:
Djokovic (19); Nadal (15); Federer (13); Murray (11)

Comment: Once more, Djokovic is the best performer here with 53%, Nadal moves ahead to second in this 2nd most important category with 42%, Federer 36% and Murray the worst at 30%.

As far as SF-to-Final conversion rate goes, Nadal again comes out as top at 88% (A), Djokovic 73% (B), Federer way below at 57% (D) and Murray 55% (D). So when the rubber hits the road, Nadal much more likely to move on to the final from a SF situation than the rest of the Big Four. Djokovic is not bad either.

******

Grand Slam wins:
Djokovic (11); Nadal (10); Federer (7); Murray (3)

Comment: Djokovic (31%) marginally comes out on top against Nadal (28%). Fed is winning slams at a 20% rate (meager compared to his pre Big-Four win rate of 57% !!!) while Murray is picking up scraps at a pitiful 8%.

Final-to-Win conversion rate? Nadal again at the top at 67%, Djokovic 58%, Federer 54%, and Murray 27%.

******

Conclusion:
Djokovic is the top dog when it comes to overall consistency in creating chances; but 2nd best in converting them. Nadal is the top dog in converting his chances, even though he is the worst among the four at creating them; ultimately the balance works out for him. Federer is a somewhat respectable third, always in the 2nd or 3rd position in these two metrics. Murray gets progressively worse as he gets closer to the final, 3rd or 4th in both metrics but the least important one (creating QF chances), ultimately the worst of the Big Four.

Conclusion (quantitative):
I also wanted to capture the conclusion in a quantifiable form. Let’s give 1 to reaching QF, 2 to reaching SF, 4 to reaching Finals and 8 to winning the thing. An exponential weight/reward scheme which I think is just, as it not only takes into account sheer numerical consistency in reaching certain levels but also rewards handsomely for converting from a lower level to a higher level.

Djokovic has : 33 + 26x2 + 19x4 + 11x8 = 249 points
Nadal has : 21+ 17x2 + 15x4 + 10x8 = 195 points
Federer has : 29 + 23x2 + 13x4 + 7x8 = 183 points
Murray has : 30 + 20x2 + 11x4 + 3x8 = 138 points

So, again, numerically as well,

Djokovic >>> Nadal > Federer >>> Murray

Here the greater-than signs (>) are trying to visually capture the performance gap between the players.

If we give the standard-bearer Djokovic a score of 100% , then Nadal is at 78%, Federer is at 73% and Murray is at 55%.

In other words, in a weighted grading scale, if Djokovic is an A+, Nadal is a B, Federer a B- and Murray is a D.

[AZ]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 3:29:56 AM UTC+6, AZ wrote:
> ******
> GS 2nd Week Evaluation of the Big Four (9 years from USO 2008 to Wim 2017)
> ******

> But when we are talking about converting those QFs to SFs, Nadal is marginally the best (81%), closely followed Federer (79%) and Djokovic (78%), and Murray is way low at 66%. This QF-to-SF rate is the more revealing statistic that separates the top three from Murray. Murray is much less likely to make the final once he reaches the SF; but the other three are much more reliable and have almost the same chances.
>

Correction: Murray is much less likely to make the Semifinal once he reaches the QF.

[joh]

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 23:33:00 UTC+2 schreef AZ:

In other words: Murray not of the same class as the other 3,
Fed not as good as he was, but still pretty good,
Nadal close too unbeatable at FO, but rather vulnerable at the other slams,
and Djok in his prime.

[AZ]

If we apply the same formula on to specific slams, what happens? Let's take Wimbledon.

Wimbledon 2nd week performance among Big Four

Murray : 9 QF + 7 SF (x2) + 3 F (x4) + 2 W (x8) = 51
Federer : 8 QF + 6 SF (x2) + 5 F (x4) + 3 W (x8) = 64
Djokovic : 8 QF + 6 SF (x2) + 4 F (x4) + 3 W (x8) = 60
Nadal : 2 QF + 2 SF (x2) + 2 F (x4) + 1 W (x8) = 22

So,

Federer > Djokovic >> Murray >>>>>> Nadal

If Federer is at 100%, Djokovic is at 93%, Murray 80%, Nadal 34%

Weighted Grade Scale : Federer is an A+, Djokovic is an A+, Murray is a B, Nadal is an F.

Conclusion: Federer is still the top dog in Wimbledon among the Big Four. But Djokovic and Murray are close behind. Nadal has been comparatively very poor in Wimbledon during the Big Four era.

[StephenJ]

Some intereting stuff here, thanks!

But the conclusion is flawed. You can't call a guy with 11 slams an A+ and a guy with 10 a B. Much closer than that.

[Carey]

Nice work!

[AZ]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 3:59:14 AM UTC+6, StephenJ wrote:
> Some intereting stuff here, thanks!
>
> But the conclusion is flawed. You can't call a guy with 11 slams an A+ and a guy with 10 a B. Much closer than that.

I am not just counting slams here. That's a different, more simplistic analysis with a smaller range of data. The grades above are not given based on that. You can give grades based on just slam win counts as well. That's not my objective here. That's not how the analysis was set up in the first place. It considered the entire range of 2nd week performances with two metrics in mind: reaching a certain stage and converting wins at a certain stage. Then I assigned weights considering these metrics. May be you do not agree with these premises. Or may be you have a different, simpler, smaller range analysis with different premises in your mind.

[AZ]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 4:07:53 AM UTC+6, Carey wrote:
> Nice work!

Thanks.

[AZ]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 3:59:14 AM UTC+6, StephenJ wrote:

> Some intereting stuff here, thanks!
>

Thanks to you too.

[AZ]

Same analysis for

US Open (2008-2016)

Djokovic : 9 QF + 9 SF (x2) + 6 F (x4) + 2 W (x8) = 67
Nadal : 5 QF + 5 SF (x2) + 3 F (x4) + 2 W (x8) = 43
Federer : 7 QF + 6 SF (x2) + 3 F (x4) + 1 W (x8) = 39
Murray : 6 QF + 3 SF (x2) + 2 F (x4) + 1 W (x8) = 28

So, in this particular analysis which tries to fairly reward success and consistency at different levels,

Djokovic >> Nadal > Federer > Murray

If Djokovic is at 100%, Nadal is at 64%, Federer 58%, Murray 42%

Weighted Grade Scale : If Djokovic is the standard-bearer A+, Nadal is a C, Federer is a D, Murray is an F.

In other words, Djokovic has been consistently bringing an A game to the USO, win or lose. Nadal had a brief period of brilliance but ultimately has huge ups and downs and he gets an overall bad grade. Federer and Murray has had consistent but wins diminishing with later rounds, Murray slightly worse than Fed.

Those who have qualms about the grading, remember that 1) this is not about mere trophy count. That's a different thing. I am trying to gain a bit more insight than that, taking into account consistently good performance spread over the highest 4 levels of a slam. Also attempting to numerically capture it. And also 2) the grade is relative, assigning A+ to the top guy and giving the remaining three grades compared to that.

[AZ]

Same analysis for

French Open (2009-2017)

Murray : 7 QF + 5 SF (x2) + 1 F (x4) + 0 W (x8) = 21
Federer : 6 QF + 3 SF (x2) + 2 F (x4) + 1 W (x8) = 28
Djokovic : 8 QF + 6 SF (x2) + 4 F (x4) + 1 W (x8) = 44
Nadal : 7 QF + 6 SF (x2) + 6 F (x4) + 6 W (x8) = 91

So,

Nadal >>>>> Djokovic >> Federer > Murray

If Nadal is at 100%, Djokovic is at 48%, Federer 30% and Murray 23%

Weighted Grade Scale : If Nadal is the standard-bearer A+, Djokovic is an F (barely), while Federer and Murray are worse, very poor compared to the extremely high standard set by Nadal. Nadal is far, far ahead of the rest of the big four. They are left to pick up scraps when Nadal's form falters on rare occasions ($hit happens).

[AZ]

Same analysis for

Australian Open (2009-2017)

Murray : 7 QF + 6 SF (x2) + 5 F (x4) + 0 W (x8) = 39
Djokovic : 8 QF + 5 SF (x2) + 5 F (x4) + 5 W (x8) = 78
Nadal : 7 QF + 4 SF (x2) + 4 F (x4) + 1 W (x8) = 39
Federer : 8 QF + 8 SF (x2) + 3 F (x4) + 2 W (x8) = 52

So,

Djokovic >>> Federer >> Nadal & Murray

If Djokovic is at 100%, Federer stands at 67%, Nadal and Murray tied at 50%.

Weighted Grade Scale : If Djokovic is the standard bearer A+, then Federer is a C+ and Nadal and Murray are Ds.

Djokovic is the clear leader in AO among the Big Four, Federer a distant second (because of his wins and many semis) whereas Nadal and Murray are distant thirds (many finals but lack of wins).

[AZ]

Slamwise conclusion:

Australian Open : Djokovic top dog by a big margin. (Federer second)
French Open : Nadal top dog by a huge margin. (Djokovic second)
Wimbledon : Federer top dog by a tiny margin. (Djokovic second)
US Open : Djokovic top dog by a big margin. (Federer second)

Djokovic is number 1 in two slams, number 2 in the other two. Overall Top dog.

Nadal is number 1 in one slam (but a huge winner at that slam), otherwise below average. He is a distant number two overall.

Federer is number 1 in one slam (but slim winner), number 2 in two others. Consistent but ultimately less slam wins than Nadal. Close number 3 overall.

Murray is neither number 1 nor 2 in any of the slams (at best number 3 in Wimbledon). Way behind in the big picture overall.

[PeteWasLucky]

Putting Federer in the same bucket for comparison and he is five years older is wrong.

[AZ]

Sorry, ignore the above. There is a mistake about Nadal.

Slamwise conclusion:
Australian Open : Djokovic top dog by a big margin. (Federer second)
French Open : Nadal top dog by a huge margin. (Djokovic second)
Wimbledon : Federer top dog by a tiny margin. (Djokovic second)

US Open : Djokovic top dog by a big margin. (Nadal second)

Djokovic is number 1 in two slams, number 2 in the other two. Overall Top dog.

Nadal is number 1 in one slam (but a huge winner at that slam), number 2 in another. He is a distant number two overall.

Like Nadal, Federer is also number 1 in one slam (but slim winner), number 2 in one other. Consistent but ultimately less slam wins than Nadal. Close number 3 overall.

[AZ]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 5:29:16 AM UTC+6, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Putting Federer in the same bucket for comparison and he is five years older is wrong.

All four have been active during these 36 slams. Age or absence due to injury are not taken into account. If you are fit to enter the tournament, no excuse. But if we must talk about age, Federer has been doing great for his age. A close third and way ahead of the fourth. In terms of slam counts he has been quite good also, thanks to this season.

[PeteWasLucky]

> All four have been active during these 36 slams. Age or absence due to injury are not taken into account. If you are fit to enter the tournament, no excuse. But if we must talk about age, Federer has been doing great for his age. A close third and way ahead of the fourth. In terms of slam counts he has been quite good also, thanks to this season.

If you are just describing their performance for a certain period independently of their age and peak level, then it's fine as long as the title of the chart says so but even then I don't understand the purpose of this ranking.

Comparing performance of players from different age groups during the same period is fundamentally wrong.

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 4:38:27 PM UTC-7, AZ wrote:

> All four have been active during these 36 slams. Age or absence due to injury are not taken into account. If you are fit to enter the tournament, no excuse. But if we must talk about age, Federer has been doing great for his age. A close third and way ahead of the fourth. In terms of slam counts he has been quite good also, thanks to this season.

Good info and nice summary of performances of the top 4 over the last decade.

[Shakes]

Well, they did play each other a LOT of times so I think it's interesting info. It's not like we are comparing them to the players from the 80's or 90's. And he's not saying Fed is bad either. :)

[Tuan]

So a guy who gets 1 final and 1 slam (100% conversion) is somehow better than a guy who gets 20 finals and 10 slams (50% conversion). Something wrong in this logic!

[*skriptis]

Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Exactly. Finally something useful and interesting from him and
then the other fedfucker chimes in crying how the stats aren't
flattering to Federer. lol

nice job, though, putting recent years, ie big 4 era in perspective.

But he should post some data for eg 2005 to please whekdr.



--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Tuan]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:10:06 AM UTC+10, AZ wrote:

According to this logic the ATP should award NEGATIVE ranking points to losing semifinalists and finalists (and probably earlier stages as well), say -500 for losing SF and -1000 for losing F!

[reilloc]

Really, a fine effort that only has the one failing: while it purports
to be carefully selected to cover the era of the "Big Four," it winds up
being the "Big Three" plus Andy Murray. So, while appearing to have the
respectable "Big Four" raison d'etre, it actually works to deprive the
rightful A+ player, Federer, of his due by disregarding his most
productive years.

Mind you, I'm not accusing you of bias or calculated willful omission
and I applaud your work. It's just that I've seen similar analyses
subverted by partisans for their own purposes and don't like to provide
them with any fodder--and this is great fodder, given its meticulous
workmanship.

LNC

[RaspingDrive]

Good point. Nice work by AZ as well. Although the caveat "Big 4 era" may provide sustenance for this type of analysis, note that, in reality, to make matters 'worse' the "right-tail" behavior is fully incorporated for Federer but not as much for the other three. In fact, Federer stats suffer from left-tail deprivation (to his detriment) and right-tail incorporation (again to his detriment since the same is not possible for the other three). How well will the other three do if their record up to age 35 is included? Also, how well will the other three do if one were to include their records from age 26+ until the hypothetical 35?

Before Skriptis rushes with his pet peeve, let me add that I consider Djok, Nadal, and Federer elite level, with little to separate them when they are playing at their best.

[AZ]

No. The first guy will get 15 points, while the second will get 220 points, way better.

[AZ]

Well, the term Big Four kind of works because Murray is much, much closer to the Big Three than he is to the rest of the field. Then again, Wawrinka might mind that distinction with his three slams. I might throw him in just for comparison. I don't think he will do well in this analysis since he only started going deep for the last 4 years.

If we create a big five with Wawrinka in it starting 2013 FO, he might come out higher than Murray.

[AZ]

Thanks Btw.

[AZ]

Here is a Wawrinka v. Murray comparison since Stan's breakout in 2013, starting at 2013 FO.

Looking at performance from FO 2013 through Wimbledon 2017:

Wawrinka has : 13 QF + 9 SF (x2) + 4 F (x4) + 3 W (x8) = 71 points.
Murray has : 15 QF + 9 SF (x2) + 5 F (x4) + 2 W (x8) = 79 points.
Djokovic has : 16 QF + 13 SF (x2) + 11 F (x4) + 6 W (x8) = 134 points
Nadal has : 8 QF + 6 SF (x2) + 6 F (x4) + 4 W (x8) = 76 points
Federer has : 11 QF + 9 SF (x2) + 5 F (x4) + 2 W (x8) = 65 points


So, since the breakout of Stanislas Wawrinka in FO 2013 and him becoming a a top 5 fixture by the end of that year, Murray has barely been ahead of him. We might as well say that for the last 4 years we have a Big Five (way ahead of the rest of the tour) with an internal positioning of

Djokovic >>>>> Nadal=Murray > Wawrinka=Federer (>>>>>> REST OF THE TOUR)

[AZ]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 11:17:52 AM UTC+6, RaspingDrive wrote:

>
> Good point. Nice work by AZ as well. Although the caveat "Big 4 era" may provide sustenance for this type of analysis, note that, in reality, to make matters 'worse' the "right-tail" behavior is fully incorporated for Federer but not as much for the other three. In fact, Federer stats suffer from left-tail deprivation (to his detriment) and right-tail incorporation (again to his detriment since the same is not possible for the other three). How well will the other three do if their record up to age 35 is included? Also, how well will the other three do if one were to include their records from age 26+ until the hypothetical 35?
>

Thanks.

I don't think the conclusion of the analysis casts Federer in a negative light. Federer is supposed to fade out in the beginning of the 2010s. The next gen of Nadal-Djokovic-Murray were supposed to dominate him at the business end of the slams. In fact, Nadal and Djokovic have both won 10 slams or more in this period, which is beyond natural expectations. Given that a generation older, supposedly "right tail"/mostly past-his-prime Federer had to contend with not one, but TWO top-tier all time greats of Sampras-Borg caliber, and that he still came out a respectable third with 7 GS trophies is a testament to Federer's talent, self care, consistency in delivering results and longevity. It elevates his career profile even more.

[PeteWasLucky]

> Well, they did play each other a LOT of times so I think it's interesting info. It's not like we are comparing them to the players from the 80's or 90's. And he's not saying Fed is bad either. :)

I didn't even read what the metrics are about, I stopped reading once I noticed the initial flaw.

[stephenJ]

Like I said, I found your numbers on how often these guys advance to the
second week, and then how often they advance to subsequent rounds within
the second week, interesting. E.g., Nadal is kind of like Serena - he
has a greater chance than some to lose before the second week, he's more
prone to upsets early, but if he makes it to the second week, he's
trouble, and often wins the title. Whereas in the old days, a guy like
Lendl was a sure thing to make the second week, almost never lost early
to categorically inferior players, but frequently failed to win the title.

My only objection was to how you translated your analysis in to
*overall* grades. An overall grade should reflect title wins and little
else, as that is the point of making the second week. It is appropriate,
e.g., to look at how often players advance from the quarters to the
semis, and if player X does so at an 80% rate and Y at a 50% rate, to
give X a grade of "A" on that and Y a grade of "C". But once we take the
analysis all the way to the title, the title has to be what matters.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[AZ]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 3:19:19 PM UTC+6, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Well, they did play each other a LOT of times so I think it's interesting info. It's not like we are comparing them to the players from the 80's or 90's. And he's not saying Fed is bad either. :)
>
> I didn't even read what the metrics are about, I stopped reading once I noticed the initial flaw.

?? Ok. Thanks for the input.

[AZ]

Thanks for the comment. The grades are scaled against the baseline of the top performer (giving him 100 points and the rest as percentage of that performance), not raw overall performance. You have to consider that.

Titles do matter in this analysis, but may be their weighting is not to your liking. In my calculations, GS titles matter twice as much as finals, four times as much as SFs, eight times as much as QFs. I think that's fair.

You seem to think winning the title should be awarded with more points as it matters much more than any other kind of performance. Do you want to give specifically winning the title a bigger weight? Like three times as much as the finals?

In that scenario, with slam titles given 50% more more weight (12 instead of 8)

Djokovic has : 33 + 26x2 + 19x4 + 11x12 = 293 points
Nadal has : 21+ 17x2 + 15x4 + 10x12 = 235 points
Federer has : 29 + 23x2 + 13x4 + 7x12 = 211 points
Murray has : 30 + 20x2 + 11x4 + 3x12 = 147 points

Again, with Djokovic at 100%, Nadal is at 80%, Federer at 72%, and Murray at 50%

In letter grade schemes:
Djokovic is A+ (perfect score), Nadal A, Federer B, Murray D.

Does this solve your problem with the grades?

[*skriptis]

AZ <arnab....@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Well for what it's worth there are only two reasonable approaches
here.

Option 1
Slams titles are worth 100% and everything else 0. That's a
historical perspective. But that would render your analysis
unnecessary.

Option 2
Your scheme of 1-2-4-8 is actually overly rewarding for slam
winners in terms or these ranking calculations, as the ATP uses
Fibonacci sequence which is much more logical and natural, from
QF onwards it's 360-720-1200-2000.
That's 1-2-3-5 at its core.

I'm actually thinking you should have used that. Of course 1 slam
title historically trumps 15 finals, but that's not the point.


If we're trying to determine which guys are imposing themselves in
later rounds of the slams and how much over the years were they
successful in doing that, then surely one successful slam run
that resulted in a slam title for e.g. Gaston Gaudio shouldn't
trump the careers and many years of later round presence of
someone like eg David Ferrer. Or Thomas Johsnson over Davydenko
or Henman.


Calculate it using 1-2-3-5, the final result will be players being
much closer in numbers, but that's how it should be, as you're
trying to compare their consistency and slam presence.


And then to please Stephen's view, you could compare the stuff
that's actually important (slam titles they won) relative to
number of pts accumulated under this scheme.

[Pelle Svanslös]

This is debatable. Simply the 20 SFs, 3 more than Rafa, puts him into
the big threat company. Of the big 4, he sings like Ringo, no doubt. But
he is Ringo.

If you make the assumption that differences in the quality of players
explain their results, then powering things to 2 expands these
differences. The final score is an exaggeration, unless it's shrunk back.

This doesn't matter for the purposes of Arnab, but if you ogle the
numbers 249 and 138 for a while and forget how they come about, you
might reach out of bound conclusions.

> So, while appearing to have the
> respectable "Big Four" raison d'etre, it actually works to deprive the
> rightful A+ player, Federer, of his due by disregarding his most
> productive years.
>
> Mind you, I'm not accusing you of bias or calculated willful omission
> and I applaud your work. It's just that I've seen similar analyses
> subverted by partisans for their own purposes and don't like to provide
> them with any fodder--and this is great fodder, given its meticulous
> workmanship.

There's partisans all over the place.

[stephenJ]

Since winning a title is qualitatively different than anything else, i
would just refrain from lumping it in quantitatively with other
advancements. Just keep them separate.

E.g., grades for (1) making the QFs, (2) advancing from QF to Semis, (3)
advancing from semis to Finals, and (4) winning the Final.

So if Nadal makes the QFs 50% of the time, advances from the QFs to
Semis 80% of the time, advances from the semis to the finals 50% of the
time, and wins his finals 90% of the time, he would have grades of say
B, A, C, and A for those four things. But I just wouldn't try to combine
them into an overall grade.

[RaspingDrive]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 6:26:30 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
> On 8/15/2017 5:10 PM, AZ wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 3:59:14 AM UTC+6, StephenJ wrote:
> >> Some intereting stuff here, thanks!
> >>
> >> But the conclusion is flawed. You can't call a guy with 11 slams an A+ and a guy with 10 a B. Much closer than that.
> >
> > I am not just counting slams here. That's a different, more simplistic analysis with a smaller range of data. The grades above are not given based on that. You can give grades based on just slam win counts as well. That's not my objective here. That's not how the analysis was set up in the first place. It considered the entire range of 2nd week performances with two metrics in mind: reaching a certain stage and converting wins at a certain stage. Then I assigned weights considering these metrics. May be you do not agree with these premises. Or may be you have a different, simpler, smaller range analysis with different premises in your mind.
> >
>
> Like I said, I found your numbers on how often these guys advance to the
> second week, and then how often they advance to subsequent rounds within
> the second week, interesting. E.g., Nadal is kind of like Serena - he
> has a greater chance than some to lose before the second week, he's more
> prone to upsets early, but if he makes it to the second week, he's
> trouble, and often wins the title. Whereas in the old days, a guy like

Out of the 37 times Nadal made the fourth round in slams, he won the title 15 times. The success proportion is 15/37, which is about 40%.

[AZ]

That's a different approach to analysis.

The overall grade (weighted against the top performance) in my analysis here is a just a corollary to the final points tally. It's the alphabetical shortcut representation of something that is already captured by those numbers. (I also had a visual representation using the > sign) It does not mean anything in the real world. It has no legacy value, which is what you seem to be worried about. The grade is something that might be practical for an analyst, if he wishes so, to summarize the overall conclusion without mentioning numbers.

Also, the numbers do not just represent level-conversion rate. They also take into account the number of times a certain level has been reached. So it's a combination of two metrics: presence and conversion success.

You might say that the grading is unnecessary. I see it as a shortcut alphabetical manifestation to quickly get an idea of the big four performance based on the two metrics. It's worth lies entirely within the purview of this analysis. It means nothing beyond that.

[stephenJ]

That's fine, and as my example indicates, I don't have an issue with
converting a number into a letter grade. For the reasons stated, I just
wouldn't do it with respect to combining winning a title with other
forms of advancement.

[Patrick Kehoe]

Interesting analysis and great series of postings.

P

[The Iceberg]

what is Wawrinka's h2h vs Fed?

[AZ]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 5:34:56 PM UTC+6, *skriptis wrote:
> lcom> Wrote in message:

That's very interesting. I wasn't aware of the Fibonacci connection.

> If we're trying to determine which guys are imposing themselves in
> later rounds of the slams and how much over the years were they
> successful in doing that, then surely one successful slam run
> that resulted in a slam title for e.g. Gaston Gaudio shouldn't
> trump the careers and many years of later round presence of
> someone like eg David Ferrer. Or Thomas Johsnson over Davydenko
> or Henman.
>
>
> Calculate it using 1-2-3-5, the final result will be players being
> much closer in numbers, but that's how it should be, as you're
> trying to compare their consistency and slam presence.
>

I don't know if Fibonacci is more logical, or natural or whether that's how it should be. But that's another way of looking at it I guess. I prefer the exponential system myself. The stakes at each stage is higher than the previous one, but why would it be worth the sum of the previous two rounds? In fact the exponential system mimics the progression of the stages in a more symmetrical way.

8 Quarterfinalists - 1 point per QF i.e. 1/8 th value of winning the title
4 semifinalists - 2 points for SF i.e. 1/4 th value of winning the title
2 finalists - 4 points for F i.e. 1/2 the value of winning it.
1 winner - 8 points for win i.e. full value of a win.

>
> And then to please Stephen's view, you could compare the stuff
> that's actually important (slam titles they won) relative to
> number of pts accumulated under this scheme.
>

That might over complicate things.

[ahonkan]

On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 17:29:56 UTC-4, AZ wrote:
> ******
> GS 2nd Week Evaluation of the Big Four (9 years from USO 2008 to Wim 2017)

Surely you realize that you are comparing off-peak Federer to peak others.
Off-peak Fed is not too shabby compared to the other three at peak.

[Patrick Kehoe]

There IS NO COMPARISON during Federer's prime because they weren't relevant (too young)... this particular time framing analytics places Federer as his prime was ending into the beginning of Rafa and Nole's prime years and just beyond their prime years - the decade of prominant overlap.

P

[Guypers]

Yes, good point!

[AZ]

Well duh. It's not a Fed-centric analysis. It's a Big Four centric one, of Fed is a part.

[AZ]

*of which Fed is a part.

[Whisper]

On 16/08/2017 7:29 AM, AZ wrote:
> ******
> GS 2nd Week Evaluation of the Big Four (9 years from USO 2008 to Wim 2017)

A guy who reaches 8 slam q/f's but wins all 8 slams would accrue 120
pts. Murray has 138. Tough to swallow a 8 time slam champ being so far
behind a 3 slam champ? Nobody would consider a 3 slammer being
better/greater than a 8 slammer.

This proves your system is not measuring the better/greater tennis
players, rather something far less important. If your system puts the 8
slammer miles ahead of a 3 slammer you'd be on the right track. So it
needs significant tweaking to be useful. I strongly suggest weighting
slam prestige too.











---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Whisper]

Yes, because an 8 time slam winner shouldn't rank behind a 3 slammer.
If he does then the system is measuring something far less important
than tennis greatness.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[*skriptis]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

>> I also wanted to capture the conclusion in a quantifiable form. Let?s give 1 to reaching QF, 2 to reaching SF, 4 to reaching Finals and 8 to winning the thing. An exponential weight/reward scheme which I think is just, as it not only takes into account sheer numerical consistency in reaching certain levels but also rewards handsomely for converting from a lower level to a higher level.

>>
>> Djokovic has : 33 + 26x2 + 19x4 + 11x8 = 249 points
>> Nadal has : 21+ 17x2 + 15x4 + 10x8 = 195 points
>> Federer has : 29 + 23x2 + 13x4 + 7x8 = 183 points
>> Murray has : 30 + 20x2 + 11x4 + 3x8 = 138 points
>>
>> So, again, numerically as well,
>>
>> Djokovic >>> Nadal > Federer >>> Murray
>>
>> Here the greater-than signs (>) are trying to visually capture the performance gap between the players.
>>
>> If we give the standard-bearer Djokovic a score of 100% , then Nadal is at 78%, Federer is at 73% and Murray is at 55%.
>>
>> In other words, in a weighted grading scale, if Djokovic is an A+, Nadal is a B, Federer a B- and Murray is a D.
>>
>>
>
>
> A guy who reaches 8 slam q/f's but wins all 8 slams would accrue 120
> pts. Murray has 138. Tough to swallow a 8 time slam champ being so far
> behind a 3 slam champ? Nobody would consider a 3 slammer being
> better/greater than a 8 slammer.
>
> This proves your system is not measuring the better/greater tennis
> players, rather something far less important. If your system puts the 8
> slammer miles ahead of a 3 slammer you'd be on the right track. So it
> needs significant tweaking to be useful. I strongly suggest weighting
> slam prestige too.

But that's similar to ATP rankings.
4 slam SF (2880pts) outweigh one slam title (2000pts).

Of course, historically it's all binary, 0 and 1. Titles matter,
rest is irrelevant.

But in practical terms, those who don't win titles, still get
their fair share of money, ranking points and are in the mix.
Those who win slam titles aren't suddenly gods and untouchable
quality wise. They were just little better and have won the main
prizes.

[Whisper]

Simple is not always the best.

In your system even if Murray lost all his slam finals he'd still have
114 pts. That means a guy who won 0 slams would rate higher than a guy
who won 7 slams (105 pts).





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[stephenJ]

Yes, and that last part is the real rub: Proponents of these systems
often say that they aren't trying to assess "greatness" or anything like
that, they are just presenting a system for ... who knows what purpose,
so why is anyone objecting?

But truth is, their motivation is to present their system as assessing
greatness.

[stephenJ]

Wow, thanks for doing the math. That's a crazy result.

[AZ]

Thanks for your input. But I am not measuring prestige here. I am not measuring the better/greater tennis players. This is not an over-arching general system to measure every event and every player or every career. It is not supposed to be a perfect system that covers all externalities. Everybody else got it. You didn't.

[AZ]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 9:26:38 PM UTC+6, *skriptis wrote:
> Whispe> Wrote in message:

Yes, you got it. Whimpy is trying to drive the discussion away to something entirely different. Broadening its scope and its analytical/predictive reach for which it was not conceived. I am not interested.

[Whisper]

I agree, but the guys who don't win slams are forgotten by history & not
rated, no matter how much $$ they win.

Under this system a 7 slam winner can rank behind Murray even if he lost
all his slam finals. It's hard to care about a system that rates 0
slammer above 7 time champ.

[stephenJ]

But there's a rational basis for what the ATP (and WTA) do: A major
purpose of the rankings is to generate seedings for tournaments, and to
do that, you can't have a binary system where the 4 slam winners have
all the points and everyone else has nothing. You need a system that
assigns proportional points on a sliding basis depending on advancement
in tournaments.

The ATP/WTA rankings only seem to not make sense when people interpret
the rankings to mean that if player X is #1 and player Y is #2, that
means that X has been the greater player for the past year, has achieved
more, etc. Oftentimes, it is the case that the #1 ranked player has had
the best results over the past 52 weeks, but sometimes he hasn't, like
right now. But that's the fault of the person drawing that inference,
not the system per se.

> But in practical terms, those who don't win titles, still get
> their fair share of money, ranking points and are in the mix.
> Those who win slam titles aren't suddenly gods and untouchable
> quality wise. They were just little better and have won the main
> prizes.

No question, a player can have excellent outcomes - can become rich and
famous and live a top 1% life as a tennis pro who never wins a slam.
Many have done just that, so I don't think anyone has ever suggested
that if you don't win a slam, that means you are mud. E.g., had Andy
Roddick never won the USO, he'd still be a famous multi-millionaire
retired in his early 30s with a gorgeous wife, etc.


---

[stephenJ]

Seriously then, what exactly are you trying to measure? When you assign
grades like A, B, etc. and do so in a way that combines slam wins with
other forms of advancement, it does seem like you are trying to measure
greatness.

If not, then what?



---

[AZ]

Murray has been to 11 Slam finals. So had he lost all his Slam finals, i.e. zero slam win, his points will come out to:

11 QF x 1 + 11 SF x 2 + 11 Fx 4 + 0 W x 8 = 77 points way below than 105 (a hypothetical 7 slam winner). So Murray gets a nod for his finals, but the system assures he never catches a guy, in fact he is quite a few notches below the guy with 7 slam wins.

So you made a huge mistake there.

[AZ]

That's just unproductive psychological coulda-woulda overly assumptive discussions about my motivations, which were clearly stated at the beginning of the thread, and reiterated with further clarity in the ensuing posts. I get that you love this kind of discussions, so ignoring my statements and reinterpreting them as something sinister makes things more dramatic I guess. Go nuts. :)

[Whisper]

I got it.

Your system has some use in determining the most consistent performers,
but it is limited as an overall quality index. A guy who makes a lot of
slam finals but loses them all will score huge points, however it
wouldn't be useful in determining likely slam winners. Yes in theory it
*could* do that, but it can also fail spectacularly. Needs to be more
robust & not allow such results.

[AZ]

It's like talking to Arnold in Terminator 3. "There is a system. But it's not about measuring greatness. But my algorithms say all systems are about measuring greatness. Preliminary assumptions mismatch....Cannot compute...Searching the system for greatness...No greatness found...system overload...ARRRGGHHHH!...inifinite loop... greatness.... greatness... greatness...."

[Whisper]

Yeah, I see it kinda like arguing a guy who 'makes an income' every week
for 10 yrs straight & earns total $1 mil, has higher rating than a guy
who only made an income for 1 year but made $50 mil.

Ok the system tells us 1 guy was 'productive' much longer than the other
guy, but what's the value of that when you compare their bank balances?





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[AZ]

That was not its purpose. It's like saying your washing machine works marvelously well, but can it wash my car? That makes no sense. The system was not built for that purpose.

You still don't get it.

A guy who makes a lot of
> slam finals but loses them all will score huge points, however it
> wouldn't be useful in determining likely slam winners.

I have not yet thought about the analysis's predictive capacity. So far, I have used it as an analytical tool for performances that have already happened. And it worked well IMO. Lots of people agreed.

> Yes in theory it
> *could* do that, but it can also fail spectacularly. Needs to be more
> robust & not allow such results.

This is not designed to be a predictive system that is foolproof for eternity. That's just stupidly ambitious. It's a looking-back-at-things analysis. It's not that ambitious.

You do not get it. Because you are always looking for systems with predictive power. This ain't it. To a hammer everything looks like a nail. Cannot be truer than in your case.

[AZ]

Yes it is a crazy result. Because it is wrong. :)

[Whisper]

On 18/08/2017 1:50 AM, AZ wrote:

Are you sure?

This is what you had for Murray in your original post:

"Murray has : 30 + 20x2 + 11x4 + 3x8 = 138 points"

Had Murray lost all his slam finals then you simply exclude the '3x8'
bit (becomes 0X8) - leaves him with 114 points no?





--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[AZ]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 10:02:58 PM UTC+6, Whisper wrote:
> On 18/08/2017 1:45 AM, stephenJ wrote:
> > On 8/17/2017 10:26 AM, *skriptis wrote:

> >> Whispeemail.com> Wrote in message:

That makes no sense at all. You don't get it. Thankfully we have had enough rational discussions before you jumped in.

[Whisper]

Hey I'm trying to help you. Good on you for having a go. This could be
a stepping stone for maybe something useful with further development.

[Whisper]

Hope you're not a teacher marking test papers?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[AZ]

Yep. But I compared Murray losing 11 slam finals in a row and Some imaginary guy winning 7 slams in a row. To me it looked like a reasonable comparison.

In what planet does a guy enter the tour and win 7 slams and never reaches quarters/semis/finals before or after that ever again? That has NEVER happened. It will NEVER happen. The chances of this happening are inifintesimally low. Probably one in a million.

The fact that you have to criticize the analysis by imagining a scenario whose chance of happening is very very very slim, probably one in a million, actually validates it.

[AZ]

Nah. I think you learnt a lesson here. Not make up bullshit scenarios that will probably never happen.

If you were in charge of nukes, we would all be dead because you thought there is a one in a million chance that some rogue nation might attack us and then pushed the button.

[AZ]

Even if I were, my test papers would not have questions that say "If pigs could fly, what would be their ground speed?" Which is what your contribution has been to this discussion. Thanks for playing.

[stephenJ]

But ... didn't you just admit to whisper in another post that his math
was correct?

[Whisper]

That's just an extreme example, but more realistic cases are very
likely. Have you looked at someone like Stan v Berdych for eg?

[Whisper]

7543 is very robust - eg it gives zero slam winners zero points every
time. No chance for 'accidents' or unforeseen outcomes.

: )

[*skriptis]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

But Berdych wouldn't come on top?

QF
Berdych 16
Wawrinka 15

SF
Berdych 7
Wawrinka 9

F
Berdych 1
Wawrinka 4

W
Berdych 0
Wawrinka 3

[stephenJ]

Here's where I think you went off the rails (original post):

*********************************************

Conclusion:
Djokovic is the top dog when it comes to overall consistency in creating
chances; but 2nd best in converting them. Nadal is the top dog in
converting his chances, even though he is the worst among the four at
creating them; ultimately the balance works out for him. Federer is a
somewhat respectable third, always in the 2nd or 3rd position in these
two metrics. Murray gets progressively worse as he gets closer to the
final, 3rd or 4th in both metrics but the least important one (creating
QF chances), ultimately the worst of the Big Four.

Conclusion (quantitative):
I also wanted to capture the conclusion in a quantifiable form. Let’s
give 1 to reaching QF, 2 to reaching SF, 4 to reaching Finals and 8 to
winning the thing. An exponential weight/reward scheme which I think is
just, as it not only takes into account sheer numerical consistency in
reaching certain levels but also rewards handsomely for converting from
a lower level to a higher level.

**********************************************

Your first conclusion is fine, it doesn't say anything about overall
performance. It separates two aspects of performance, creating chances
and converting chances, which are indeed two distinct things and should
be treated as such.

But the second conclusion, the one you call conclusion (quantitative) is
problematic, because it combines these two distinct things into what can
only be fairly called a measure of overall performance. And in fact,
what you end up saying is:

"So, again, numerically as well,

Djokovic >>> Nadal > Federer >>> Murray

Here the greater-than signs (>) are trying to visually capture the
performance gap between the players.

If we give the standard-bearer Djokovic a score of 100% , then Nadal is
at 78%, Federer is at 73% and Murray is at 55%.

In other words, in a weighted grading scale, if Djokovic is an A+, Nadal
is a B, Federer a B- and Murray is a D."

So when someone says that, based on their analysis, X >>> Y > Z, and
that X is an A+ and Y is a B, etc. how is it unreasonable to conclude
that the author is saying that X is greater than Y, etc.?

That's where you made your error, when you combined creating and
converting chances, because (a) now you have a situation where someone
who creates chances can have a higher score than someone who converts
them, and (b) once you combine two different things, creating and
converting, it is inescapable that you are proposing a measure of
overall performance, which is the same as 'greatness'.

Problem is, creating chances has nothing directly to do with overall
performance, only converting them does.

[Whisper]

On 17/08/2017 8:13 AM, ahonkan wrote:

> On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 17:29:56 UTC-4, AZ wrote:
>> ******
>> GS 2nd Week Evaluation of the Big Four (9 years from USO 2008 to Wim 2017)

> Surely you realize that you are comparing off-peak Federer to peak others.
> Off-peak Fed is not too shabby compared to the other three at peak.
>


But counting Fed's earlier success inflates his results as the other
'big 3' weren't around. Seems unfair to count the other 3 playing in an
environment of the 'big 4', but inflate Fed's with easier era where
there was only 'big 1' - himself.

No?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[stephenJ]

FWIW, Roddick pulled a Jimbo a few months ago, he threw at all his
tennis trophies, except for his USO trophy:

http://nypost.com/2017/07/13/andy-roddicks-wife-reveals-why-he-threw-away-all-his-trophies/


---

[Whisper]

That's just at the top of my head. This system isn't robust enough to
prevent anomalies - eg I'm sure looking back at guys like
Rafter/Kafelnikov/Bruguera etc (all multi slam champs) you'd find 0
slammers with better numbers. If you want to say Djoker (or any player)
was the most consistent in slams in a subset of years that's fine, but
that's all it means.

[*skriptis]

Absolutely true.

> Under this system a 7 slam winner can rank behind Murray even if he lost
> all his slam finals. It's hard to care about a system that rates 0
> slammer above 7 time champ.

But 'this system' feels more like some sort of career ranking, not
greatness ranking.


What e.g. if Federer or Djokovic hadn't won FO, but have reached
all those multiple finals,10 semis etc.

They played so many memorable matches, finals, were present for a
decade, etc, their presence was certainly stronger than that of
Gaudio who had one successful tournament and ran away with the
title.

He gets the glory and his name , honors roll, but imo, if they
were making some fictional FO draws for a computer game of
all-time best guys at FO, with, only 16 guys, Federer and
Djokovic would have been there, I doubt about Gaudio.


At least it would made more sense to have them, so that fans can
re-create Federer Nadal, or Djokovic Nadal matches.

[Whisper]

Yeah I saw that. No surprise really. Tune-ups are essential for tour
viability, but they don't mean much aside from watching some top quality
tennis & guys honing/practicing for bigger things.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Whisper]

Lots of past players have lost many slam finals - eg Becker lost 4 at
Wimbledon, Borg 4 at USO, Lendl 5 at USO, Rosewall 4 at Wimbledon,
Connors 4 at Wimbledon etc. None of them get credit for extra slams.

My big problem with systems like this (eg Mikko's too) is they can
produce results way out of kilter with reality. Nobody is going to take
lots of slam r/ups over wins. I'm sure Murray would trade his 5 AO
finals for 1 win. Roddick & Connors binned all the trophies they won
except for the slams. They didn't keep the r/up plates.

[*skriptis]

stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:

Silly.

1. It's not very environmental friendly.
2. He could have earned money for himself, or donate money if he
auctioned them.

But of course, they don't mean much.

[AZ]

His math was correct in the sense that "You said your washing machine can finish washing in 30 mins. But what if I try to put 1 ton clothes in your machine? My math says it would break down. So your machine is bad".

The result is wrong because you are inputting things in a system which is not designed to process them because it is unrealistic. The choice of input is suspect.

If you put more gas into the engine and burn more of it per second, the car will get more horsepower and can move faster. In general. But that doesn't mean there is no limit to how much gas you can put in per second. If it exceeds the capacity of the engine, no matter how much more gas you put in it, it will not move faster and faster ad infinitum. So the math relation between burnt gas and speed increase won't work any more. The math isn't wrong. The choice of input is. Whimpy's scenario is such an unrealistic scenario. He is putting in unrealistic numbers.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

AZ is basically measuring tour impact. A guy making 11 slam finals but losing them all makes an overall bigger impact on the tour than a one-off winner, even though the one-off winner will be considered greater (as titles are the measure of greatness). Think of his percentages per slam as an impact index for the time period measured.

[AZ]

It is unreasonable at this point because I have clarified in no uncertain terms that it is not the case. Many posts ago. Especially replying to you. But you continue to choose to ignore my rejoinder. Why? May be you have hang ups about grading schemes or greater than signs. This is a semiotic problem. Signs and significance.

> That's where you made your error, when you combined creating and
> converting chances, because (a) now you have a situation where someone
> who creates chances can have a higher score than someone who converts
> them,

But that situation is an extremely unlikely situation that never happened and might never happen. So what's the point? Besides it is not supposed be a foolproof predictive tool. I never claimed it to be such a thing. Aren't you picking nits the size of a micron here?

and (b) once you combine two different things, creating and
> converting, it is inescapable that you are proposing a measure of
> overall performance, which is the same as 'greatness'.
>

What? No. Just because you cannot escape from your obsession with "greatness" doesn't mean that we have to accept your series of false equivalences. First you falsely equate my analysis as an overall performance thing (possibly because of a semiotic hangup with symbols and grades, as discussed above), then you falsely equate that to "greatness", your pet term. But the three are three very different things. The equivalences were never implied by me, and I have explicitly written against such things. That's a double whammy of an error you are making there, perhaps unconsciously, because you cannot help it.

> Problem is, creating chances has nothing directly to do with overall
> performance, only converting them does.

Ok. You strongly believe, without much proof, that the two metrics I used are orthogonal to each other and cannot be combined in a meaningful way. But again, your assumption is based upon an exceptionally unrealistic scenario presented by your pal Whimpy. I believe this is extreme nitpicking and therefore doesn't support your doubt. So, I will stick to my thing. But your right to doubt the efficiency of the analysis is acknowledged.

[AZ]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 12:28:41 AM UTC+6, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:
> AZ is basically measuring tour impact.

That's not what I intended to measure. At least I don't have a well defined term for it. For me, it's just a combination of two performance metrics with pre-chosen weights. But I am curious about your interpretation.

>A guy making 11 slam finals but losing them all makes an overall bigger impact on the tour than a one-off winner, even though the one-off winner will be considered greater (as titles are the measure of greatness). Think of his percentages per slam as an impact index for the time period measured.

That goes beyond my analysis. But one could go in that direction I suppose.

[AZ]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 10:53:54 PM UTC+6, Whisper wrote:
> On 18/08/2017 2:39 AM, *skriptis wrote:

> > Whisper <beavermail.com> Wrote in message:

I don't know what you are rambling about other than coulda woulda stuff. This is not supposed to be a robust system with unparalleled predictive capacity that can handle outrageous situations. It's a post facto analysis. I think you got it, but just trying to sound smart with gotcha/what if situations.

[AZ]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 10:39:52 PM UTC+6, *skriptis wrote:
> Whisper <beavermail.com> Wrote in message:

Voilà ! Whimpy is being quite nitpicky. Stan has gotten more ATP ranking points than Berdych in slams. My system would actually reward Stan even more.

Whimpy is being a bit desperate. Throwing in stuff without thinking through.

[RaspingDrive]

He is fighting for his 7-5- whatever.

[AZ]

He is afraid that my post facto analysis may look better than his idiotic "system" in the marketplace of ideas that is rst. He has to protect his product. Which nobody cares for. Already made a little publicity. Lol. The hapless little twit.

[AZ]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 10:54:08 PM UTC+6, *skriptis wrote:
> Whisper <beavemail.com> Wrote in message:

> > On 18/08/2017 1:26 AM, *skriptis wrote:

> >> Whisper <beavmail.com> Wrote in message:

I really like this last interpretation. Nicely put. Well done, skript.

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 8:07:46 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
> Lots of past players have lost many slam finals - eg Becker lost 4 at
> Wimbledon, Borg 4 at USO, Lendl 5 at USO, Rosewall 4 at Wimbledon,
> Connors 4 at Wimbledon etc. None of them get credit for extra slams.
>
> My big problem with systems like this (eg Mikko's too) is they can
> produce results way out of kilter with reality. Nobody is going to take
> lots of slam r/ups over wins. I'm sure Murray would trade his 5 AO
> finals for 1 win. Roddick & Connors binned all the trophies they won
> except for the slams. They didn't keep the r/up plates.

Of course anyone would trade tons of rups for a big trophy. But this issue is way more about seeding and a player's probability to go deep/win a title. Not about actual absolute achievements.

.mikko

[AZ]

He didn't get it at first. Jumped on it. He thought it was about goat-boat stuff. And now that he got it, it doesn't matter that much for him. Tried to slip in a little publicity for his goat formula. :)

[stephenJ]

Those read like weasel words to cover for the fact that his math was
correct and you falsely said it was wrong.

Allegedly extreme cases are good stress-tests for ranking systems,
because oftentimes, what seems to be unrealistic turns out to be very
realistic. E.g., if 15 years ago anyone were to suggest that in 2017,
we'd have a guy not named Sampras with 19 grand slam titles and another
guy with 10 titles at Barcelona, Monte Carlo, and the French Open each,
you would have surely been laughed down as clownishly unrealistic. But
here we are.

Whisper's example is good because it shows where your system falls
apart. You should re-think accordingly.

[stephenJ]

Last post, you claimed you had been clear about your meaning since the
first post, so I go back to the first post and quote from that, showing
that what you said in that post could very rationally be interpreted as
meaning player X > player Y, and yet now you criticize me for doing
that? Weird.

More importantly, you haven't clarified your meaning, in fact, you keep
double-downing on the meaning whisper and i have ascribed to you. E.g.,
I gave you a chance to clarify exactly what the combined create/convert
grade is supposed to mean, if it doesn't mean "greatness" or "best" as I
have said it does, and what did you do? You babbled incoherently about
the Terminator and me being obsessed with 'greatness', totally dodging
the question posed.

But OK, here's another chance. If your combined grade doesn't reflect
greatness, what does it mean to you? This space reserved:

>> That's where you made your error, when you combined creating and
>> converting chances, because (a) now you have a situation where someone
>> who creates chances can have a higher score than someone who converts
>> them,
>
> But that situation is an extremely unlikely situation that never happened and might never happen. So what's the point? Besides it is not supposed be a foolproof predictive tool. I never claimed it to be such a thing. Aren't you picking nits the size of a micron here?
>

Unlike whisper, I never critiqued your combined grade for not having
predictive validity. I don't care about that one way or the other. I've
critiqued it for being a poor expression of past performance- to me, its
meaning is incoherent, because it combines creating and converting
chances. Since converting chances is the whole ball game, no amount of
creating chances should trump converting chances, so just leave them
separate, and you will have accomplished a lot here.

[Whisper]

You think I couldn't find examples of multiple slam champs ranking lower
than 0 slammers?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Whisper]

On 18/08/2017 4:28 AM, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:
> AZ is basically measuring tour impact. A guy making 11 slam finals but losing them all makes an overall bigger impact on the tour than a one-off winner, even though the one-off winner will be considered greater (as titles are the measure of greatness). Think of his percentages per slam as an impact index for the time period measured.
>
>

Doesn't make an historical impact though. Murray for eg is 'impactful'
in current era as he's made 11 slam finals & many semis etc, but
historically his impact is that of a 3 slam champ (2 gold also helps).

[John Liang]

Find it to solidify your argument...