{"id":1879,"date":"2015-10-06T13:33:19","date_gmt":"2015-10-06T13:33:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/?p=1879"},"modified":"2015-10-06T13:33:19","modified_gmt":"2015-10-06T13:33:19","slug":"forecasting-the-effects-of-performance-byes-in-beijing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/2015\/10\/06\/forecasting-the-effects-of-performance-byes-in-beijing\/","title":{"rendered":"Forecasting the Effects of Performance Byes in Beijing"},"content":{"rendered":"

To the uninitiated, the WTA draw in Beijing this week<\/a> looks a little strange. The 64-player draw includes four byes, which were given to the four semifinalists from last week’s event in Wuhan. So instead of empty places in the bracket next to the top four seeds, those free passes go to the 5th, 10th, and 15th seeds, along with one unseeded player, Venus Williams<\/a>.<\/p>\n

“Performance byes”–those given to players based on their results the previous week, rather than their seed–have occasionally featured in WTA draws over the last few years. If you’re interested in their recent history, Victoria Chiesa wrote an excellent overview<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I’m interested in measuring the benefit these byes confer on the recipients–and the negative effect they have on the players who would have received those byes had they been awarded in the usual way. I’ve written about the effects of byes before<\/a>, but I\u00a0haven’t\u00a0contrasted different approaches to awarding them.<\/p>\n

This week, the beneficiaries are Garbine Muguruza<\/a>, Angelique Kerber<\/a>, Roberta Vinci<\/a>, and Venus Williams. The top four seeds–the women who were atypically required to play first-round matches, were Simona Halep<\/a>, Petra Kvitova<\/a>, Flavia Pennetta<\/a>, and Agnieszka Radwanska<\/a>.<\/p>\n

To quantify the impact of the various possible formats of a 64-player draw, I used a variety of tools: Elo to rate players<\/a> and predict match outcomes, Monte Carlo tournament simulations<\/a> to consider many different permutations of each draw, and a modified version of my code to “reseed” brackets<\/a>. While\u00a0this is complicated stuff under the hood, the results aren’t that opaque.<\/p>\n

Here are\u00a0three\u00a0different types of 64-player draws that Beijing might have employed:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Performance byes to last week’s semifinalists.\u00a0<\/strong>This gives a substantial boost to the players receiving byes, and compared to any other format, has a negative effect on top players. Not only are the top four seeds required to play a first-round match, they are a bit more likely to play last week’s semifinalists, since the byes give those players a better chance of advancing.<\/li>\n
  2. Byes to the top four seeds.<\/strong> The top four seeds get an obvious boost, and everyone else suffers a bit, as they are that much more likely to face the top four.<\/li>\n
  3. No byes: 64 players in the draw instead of 60.<\/strong> The clear winners in this scenario are the players who wouldn’t otherwise make it into the main draw. Unseeded players (excluding Venus) also benefit slightly, as the lack of byes mean that top players are less likely to advance.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Let’s crunch the numbers. For each of the three scenarios, I ran simulations based on the field\u00a0without<\/em> knowing how the draw turned out. That is, Kvitova is always seeded second, but she doesn’t always play Sara Errani<\/a> in the first round. This approach eliminates any biases in the actual draw. To simulate the 64-player field, I added the four top-ranked players who lost in the final round of qualifying.<\/p>\n

    To compare the effects of each draw type on every player, I calculated “expected points” based on their probability of reaching each round. For instance, if Halep entered the tournament with a 20% chance of winning the event with its 1,000 ranking points, she’d have 200 “expected points,” plus her expected points for the higher probabilities (and lower number of points) of reaching every round in between. It’s simply a way of combining a lot of probabilities into a single easier-to-understand number.<\/p>\n

    Here are the expected points in each draw scenario (plus the actual Beijing draw) for the top four players, the four players who received performance byes, plus a couple of others (Belinda Bencic<\/a> and Caroline Wozniacki<\/a>) who rated particularly highly:<\/p>\n

    Player               Seed  PerfByes  TopByes  NoByes  Actual  \nSimona Halep            1       323      364     330     341  \nPetra Kvitova           2       276      323     290     291  \nVenus Williams                  247      216     218     279  \nBelinda Bencic         11       255      249     268     254  \nGarbine Muguruza        5       243      202     210     227  \nAngelique Kerber       10       260      224     235     227  \nCaroline Wozniacki      8       208      203     205     199  \nFlavia Pennetta         3       142      177     144     195  \nAgnieszka Radwanska     4       185      233     192     188  \nRoberta Vinci          15       120       91      94      90<\/pre>\n
    As expected, the top four seeds are expected to reap far more points when given first-round byes. It’s most noticeable for Pennetta and Radwanska, who would enjoy a 20% boost in expected points if given a first-round bye. Oddly, though, the draw worked out very favorably for Flavia–Elo gave her a 95% chance of beating her first-round opponent Xinyun Han<\/a>, and her draw steered her relatively clear of other dangerous players in subsequent rounds.<\/p>\n
    Similarly, the performance byes are worth a 15 to 30% advantage in expected points to the players who receive them. Vinci is the biggest winner here, as we would generally expect from the player most likely to suffer an upset without the bye.<\/p>\n
    Like Pennetta, Venus was treated very well by the way the draw turned out. The bye already gave her an approximately 15% boost compared to her expectations without a bye, and the draw tacked another 13% onto that. Both the structure of the draw and some luck<\/a> on draw day made her the event’s third most likely champion, while the other scenarios would have left her in fifth.<\/p>\n
    All byes–conventional or unconventional–work to the advantage of some players and against others. However they are granted, they tend to work in favor of those who are already successful, whether that success is over the course of a year or a single week.<\/p>\n
    Performance byes are easy enough to defend: They give successful players a bit more rest between two demanding events, and from the tour’s perspective, they make it a little more likely that last week’s best players won’t pull off of this week’s tourney. And if all byes tend to the make the rich a little richer, at least performance byes open the possibility of benefiting different players than usual.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
    To the uninitiated, the WTA draw in Beijing this week looks a little strange. The 64-player draw includes four byes, which were given to the four semifinalists from last week’s event in Wuhan. So instead of empty places in the bracket next to the top four seeds, those free passes go to the 5th, 10th, … Continue reading Forecasting the Effects of Performance Byes in Beijing<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[40,96,112,127],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-forecasting","category-research","category-the-rules","category-wta"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1879","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1879\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}