{"id":555,"date":"2011-11-03T18:23:58","date_gmt":"2011-11-03T22:23:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/heavytopspin.com\/?p=555"},"modified":"2011-11-03T18:23:58","modified_gmt":"2011-11-03T22:23:58","slug":"point-outcomes-by-game-score","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/2011\/11\/03\/point-outcomes-by-game-score\/","title":{"rendered":"Point Outcomes by Game Score"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/settesei\/2017\/10\/18\/lesito-di-un-punto-in-funzione-del-punteggio-nel-game\/\"><em>Italian translation at settesei.it<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<p>If tennis players were machines, each player would have the same probability of winning every point. \u00a0Winning the point at 40-15 would be equally likely as winning the point at 15-40. \u00a0It seems a safe bet that this isn&#8217;t the case, and today I&#8217;m going to start talking about the difference, and why it exists.<\/p>\n<p>To begin with, let&#8217;s look at the outcome of every grand slam men&#8217;s singles point in 2011, sorted by the score before the point was played. \u00a0(I&#8217;ll explain some of this in a minute.)<\/p>\n<pre>SCORE     PTS    WON   WIN%   REL  \ng0-0    10757   6820  63.4%  1.00  \ng0-15    3941   2390  60.6%  0.97  \ng0-30    1552    963  62.0%  0.98  \ng0-40     591    324  54.8%  0.88\u00a0\n\ng15-0    6823   4356  63.8%  1.02  \ng15-15   4858   3081  63.4%  1.00  \ng15-30   2741   1648  60.1%  0.97  \ng15-40   1416    866  61.2%  0.96  \n\nSCORE     PTS    WON   WIN%   REL  \ng30-0    4355   2826  64.9%  1.02  \ng30-15   4609   2890  62.7%  1.01  \ng30-30   3366   2155  64.0%  1.01  \ng30-40   2080   1234  59.3%  0.95\u00a0\n\ng40-0    2824   1895  67.1%  1.08  \ng40-15   3819   2507  65.6%  1.03  \ng40-30   3466   2209  63.7%  1.02  \ng40-40   4556   2806  61.6%  0.97\u00a0\n\ng40-AD   1749   1011  57.8%  0.93  \ngAD-40   2806   1748  62.3%  1.00  \n\nSCORE     PTS    WON   WIN%        \nALL     66309  41729  62.9%        \nDC CT   34679  22024  63.5%        \nAD CT   31630  19705  62.3%<\/pre>\n<p>One thing that sticks out is that as players get closer to winning a game (30-0, 40-0), they are more likely to win the next point. \u00a0When facing (or approaching) break point, they have less success.<\/p>\n<p>Much of that (and maybe all of it) is simply the bias of the sample. \u00a0If a player reaches 40-0, he&#8217;s more likely to be a player who is dominant on serve, or facing a returner who hasn&#8217;t found the range. \u00a0A disproportionate number of 40-0 points are served by players who are better-than-average servers. \u00a0Similarly, a disproportionate number of 0-40 points are served by players without dominant service games &#8230; or served against Novak Djokovic.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Deuce and ad courts<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>A more useful finding is that <strong>players win more points in the deuce court<\/strong>. \u00a0In this sample, the server won 63.5% of points in the deuce court and 62.3% of points in the ad court. \u00a0This may be because right-handers (who make up about <a href=\"http:\/\/summerofjeff.wordpress.com\/2011\/02\/12\/the-prevalence-of-lefties-in-mens-tennis\/\">85%<\/a> of this sample) are more successful when serving across their body, but I haven&#8217;t tested that yet.<\/p>\n<p>(If it is true that players are better serving across their body, then the difference is even more stark. \u00a0Assuming that righties and lefties have the same difference in success rates, the &#8220;serve across your body&#8221; success rate&#8211;deuce for righties, ad for lefties&#8211;should be about 63.8%, while the &#8220;serve away from your body&#8221; rate&#8211;ad for righties, deuce for lefties&#8211;should be 62.1%.)<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the difference between success rates at 0-0 and 0-15 isn&#8217;t as extreme as it looks at first; some of the 0-15 winning percentage is due to the difficulty of serving to the ad court. \u00a0That&#8217;s the purpose of the &#8216;REL&#8217; column, which shows how the winning percentage on that point relates to the average winning percentage in the relevant court.<\/p>\n<p>If this difference is universally true, it would require a change in <a href=\"http:\/\/summerofjeff.wordpress.com\/2010\/12\/03\/single-game-win-expectancy-tables\/\">win probability tables<\/a>. \u00a0For instance, when the returner reaches break point&#8211;which is more often in the ad court, at 30-40 or 40-AD&#8211;his chance of winning the game is a percentage point or two higher than previously estimated. \u00a0As long as he&#8217;s playing a right-hander, anyway.<\/p>\n<p>There&#8217;s plenty more to investigate here. \u00a0To determine whether players really raise or drop their performance levels (for instance, raising their game against break point, or taking it easy at 40-0), we&#8217;ll need to switch to a player-by-player basis, to reduce the skewing effect of dropping every player in the same bucket.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Italian translation at settesei.it If tennis players were machines, each player would have the same probability of winning every point. \u00a0Winning the point at 40-15 would be equally likely as winning the point at 15-40. \u00a0It seems a safe bet that this isn&#8217;t the case, and today I&#8217;m going to start talking about the difference, &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/2011\/11\/03\/point-outcomes-by-game-score\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Point Outcomes by Game Score<\/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":[96],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/555","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=555"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/555\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}