{"id":725,"date":"2012-03-30T12:47:52","date_gmt":"2012-03-30T16:47:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/heavytopspin.com\/?p=725"},"modified":"2012-03-30T12:47:52","modified_gmt":"2012-03-30T16:47:52","slug":"three-simple-ways-to-improve-the-atp-ranking-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/2012\/03\/30\/three-simple-ways-to-improve-the-atp-ranking-system\/","title":{"rendered":"Three Simple Ways to Improve the ATP Ranking System"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/settesei\/2016\/10\/04\/tre-semplici-accorgimenti-per-migliorare-il-sistema-di-classifica-dellatp\/\"><em>Italian translation at settesei.it<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/cgi-bin\/player.cgi?p=RafaelNadal\">Rafael Nadal<\/a>\u2019s two-year ranking system would<a title=\"The Fatal Flaw of Nadal\u2019s Two-Year Ranking\u00a0System\" href=\"http:\/\/tennisabstract.com\/blog\/2012\/03\/29\/the-fatal-flaw-of-nadals-two-year-ranking-system\/\"> favor a few veterans at the expense of everyone else<\/a>. \u00a0My algorithm is too complex for players and fans to use on a weekly basis. \u00a0But there is always an undercurrent of dissatisfaction over the current system.<\/p>\n<p>The rankings serve two main purposes, each of which we must keep in mind as we think through a better system:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Entertainment.\u00a0<\/strong>The fans want to know who&#8217;s number one. \u00a0No system will ever be perfect, but if the ranking system told us that Nadal outranked Djokovic despite losing to him several times in a row, the system would lose credibility.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Tournament entry.\u00a0<\/strong>Rankings determine who gets direct entry into tournaments. \u00a0A biased ranking system would keep stronger players out of tournaments while letting in lesser players.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A system that is good for one of these purposes is generally good for the other. \u00a0In an ideal world, the rankings would show us who is playing the best\u00a0<em>right now<\/em>, carefully defining &#8220;right now&#8221; to avoid an unnecessary focus on current hot streaks. \u00a0Another way to look at is that the rankings should be as predictive as possible. \u00a0If underdogs are constantly winning, that doesn&#8217;t mean tennis is a sport full of triumphant underdogs, it means we&#8217;re ranking players incorrectly!<\/p>\n<p>The current system isn&#8217;t that bad. \u00a0There are three main problems, however:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Last week is equal to last year.<\/strong> \u00a0The winner in Miami this week will gain 1000 points. \u00a0Those 1000 points will be counted in his ranking next week, in six months, and in 51 weeks. In 53 weeks, though, he&#8217;ll have zero points. \u00a0If we&#8217;re trying to measure how good he is, a tournament 51 weeks ago isn&#8217;t nearly as informative as his tournament last week. \u00a0And if we insist on using his result from 51 weeks ago, why not his result from 53 weeks ago?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Surfaces are interchangeable.<\/strong> \u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/cgi-bin\/player.cgi?p=MilosRaonic\">Milos Raonic<\/a> won a slew of matches on indoor courts last spring, which earned him a seed at the French Open. \u00a0Now, I love Milos, but did he really deserve a seed at the French, despite virtually no professional experience on clay? \u00a0Performance on one surface translates to other surfaces to some extent, but (obviously!) all surfaces are not created equal.<\/li>\n<li><strong>All opponents are equal.<\/strong> \u00a0In the Miami third round, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/cgi-bin\/player.cgi?p=AndyRoddick\">Andy Roddick<\/a> beat <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/cgi-bin\/player.cgi?p=RogerFederer\">Roger Federer<\/a> &#8230; then lost. \u00a0He&#8217;ll get 90 points. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/cgi-bin\/player.cgi?p=KeiNishikori\">Kei Nishikori<\/a> beat <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/cgi-bin\/player.cgi?p=LukasRosol\">Lukas Rosol<\/a> &#8230; then lost. These sorts of differences sometimes even out over time, but must we trust that they will? \u00a0Roddick&#8217;s achievement this week is much more impressive than Nishikori&#8217;s, and should be treated as such.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>We can fix all of these problems with simple arithmetic, making tweaks to the system that any player or fan can understand.<\/p>\n<p>In these solutions, the exact details don&#8217;t matter. \u00a0The most important thing is simply to acknowledge that not all matches are equal.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Last week is worth more than last year.<\/strong> \u00a0In my system, last week is worth a little bit more than the week before, which is worth a little bit more than the week before that, and so on. \u00a0Here&#8217;s a simple way to incorporate that into the ATP system:\u00a0<em>After four months, tournaments are worth only 80% of their original points. \u00a0After eight months, tournaments are worth only 60% of their original points.<\/em> \u00a0That way, the drop off is more gradual, and Indian Wells is worth more than, say, the 2011 Rome Masters. \u00a0If Nadal still wants two years, this can easily be extended to cover two years of results&#8211;after a year, 45%; after 16 months, 30%, after 20 months, 15%. \u00a0Now everybody&#8217;s happy!<\/li>\n<li><strong>Separate surfaces, separate rankings.<\/strong> \u00a0There will always&#8211;and should always&#8211;be a single most important ranking list, encompassing all surfaces. \u00a0But for tournament entry, why not do better? \u00a0For example, create a clay list by doubling the point value of all clay tournaments and leaving the others alone. \u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/cgi-bin\/player.cgi?p=DavidFerrer\">David Ferrer<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/cgi-bin\/player.cgi?p=CarlosBerlocq\">Carlos Berlocq<\/a> will rise; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/cgi-bin\/player.cgi?p=JohnIsner\">John Isner<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/cgi-bin\/player.cgi?p=KevinAnderson\">Kevin Anderson<\/a> will fall. \u00a0Any tennis fan knows this happens, so tournaments should determine entry this way, as well. \u00a0After all, Wimbledon has long used this sort of approach for seeding, if not for direct entry.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Bonus points for beating top players.<\/strong> \u00a0The WTA used to do this, and it&#8217;s the least straightforward of my suggestions. \u00a0It&#8217;s so important, though, that a little complexity is worth a lot. \u00a0Let&#8217;s say 100 points for a win over anyone in the top 3; 75 points for beating anyone ranked 4, 5, or 6; 50 points for a win over anyone else in the top 10, 30 points for beating anyone ranked 11-15, and 10 points for a win over anyone ranked 16-20. \u00a0Mega-upsets like those scored lately by Isner, Roddick, and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/cgi-bin\/player.cgi?p=GrigorDimitrov\">Grigor Dimitrov<\/a> tell us something important, and the rankings should listen.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<div>This is all stuff you can do on a calculator&#8211;nothing is more complex than the rules governing protected rankings or zero-pointers. \u00a0Young players will see their rankings rise more quickly once they begin beating the top guys. \u00a0 All players will get into tournaments (and earn seeds) on surfaces where they have had more success . \u00a0And the fans will have a more accurate ranking system both to rely upon and to fuel arguments about which players are really better.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Italian translation at settesei.it Rafael Nadal\u2019s two-year ranking system would favor a few veterans at the expense of everyone else. \u00a0My algorithm is too complex for players and fans to use on a weekly basis. \u00a0But there is always an undercurrent of dissatisfaction over the current system. The rankings serve two main purposes, each of &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/2012\/03\/30\/three-simple-ways-to-improve-the-atp-ranking-system\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Three Simple Ways to Improve the ATP Ranking System<\/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":[49,91],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-725","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-harebrained-schemes","category-rankings"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/725","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=725"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/725\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=725"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=725"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tennisabstract.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=725"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}