What is the most arbitrary stat? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What is the most arbitrary stat?

Gabe32
03-22-2012, 02:36 AM
To me, it is the "year-end #1 ranking." It is arbitrary and severely misleading. The point system is year round. It is not like the players are collecting points as the season progresses. Why is grabbing the number 1 spot on December 31st more important than grabbing it on any other day? What if a player peaks at certain tournaments that tend to lead him to drop in the rankings around late December/early January (Nadal maybe?)

It seems "consecutive weeks at #1" and "total weeks at #1" are much clearer and fairer stats.

Are there any more misleading/arbitrary stats?

BroTree123
03-22-2012, 02:37 AM
Just sounds cool and awesome :shrug:.

Gabe32
03-22-2012, 02:46 AM
Just sounds cool and awesome :shrug:.

It does, yeah.

But again, it is not like a player starts out with 0 points on January 1st and slowly collects points until the end of the year. THEN it would make sense.

But so many people add it so player's resumes like it is a bigger achievement than reaching #1 on April 8th. But it isn't!

Ziros
03-22-2012, 02:46 AM
How is it misleading? The person who is year end #1 is the person who has collected the most points in the year,it's as simple as that

leng jai
03-22-2012, 02:47 AM
Number of slams

Ajde.

Gabe32
03-22-2012, 02:49 AM
How is it misleading? The person who is year end #1 is the person who has collected the most points in the year,it's as simple as that

Player A can be the #1 player for 51 weeks out of the year.

Player B can be the #1 player for 1 week out of the year and get to add the coveted "Year End #1" to his resume.

Which is the more impressive achievement?

rocketassist
03-22-2012, 02:49 AM
How is it misleading? The person who is year end #1 is the person who has collected the most points in the year,it's as simple as that

So if they sneak into no 1 after doing well in the WTF it makes them the best player of that year?

Nah. If they've won the most slams that year maybe but if they did they'd already be at the 1 spot.

jonas
03-22-2012, 02:53 AM
Player A can be the #1 player for 51 weeks out of the year.

Player B can be the #1 player for 1 week out of the year and get to add the coveted "Year End #1" to his resume.

Which is a more impressive achievement?

I agree with you in the OP. But the scenario above I think is truly impossible...

BroTree123
03-22-2012, 02:55 AM
Exactly. If they sneak through at the closing stages of the season, then so be it. He/she has tallied up the highest points out of everyone else just in time before the end of the season. Can't argue against that. It's just the way it is.

Oh and yeah one more thing......number of aces racked up in a slam week is arbitrary because it doesn't entail whether it contributed to winning a grand slam or not :rolleyes::rolleyes:.

Gabe32
03-22-2012, 02:55 AM
I agree with you in the OP. But the scenario above I think is truly impossible...

Really? I admit, I am not too well versed in the whole ranking system, but surely someone can fall out of the #1 spot on the last week of the season, right? Say if ... the #2 player (Player B) won the USO in September and the WTF in December while Player A played poorly/was injured.

I may be wrong though, but I'd appreciate an explanation as to why my scenario is impossible.

Johnny Groove
03-22-2012, 02:55 AM
Happened in 2001 :shrug:

Hewitt wasn't #1 all year, #1 switched with Guga and Safin, but Lleyton won the TMC and finished the year #1 :shrug:

jonas
03-22-2012, 02:56 AM
Happened in 2001 :shrug:

Hewitt wasn't #1 all year, but won the TMC and finished the year #1 :shrug:

Sure. But the same player wasn't ranked #1 the other 51 weeks. :lol:

BroTree123
03-22-2012, 02:58 AM
Rankings in general don't indicate current form :shrug:. Thread = over :shrug:.

rocketassist
03-22-2012, 02:59 AM
Happened in 2001 :shrug:

Hewitt wasn't #1 all year, #1 switched with Guga and Safin, but Lleyton won the TMC and finished the year #1 :shrug:

I suppose Hewitt could have a case that year being that all the slams were shared out and he won the TMC and USO.

Ziros
03-22-2012, 03:00 AM
I think this is more of a women's tennis question,in men's tennis,the best player of the time is almost always the year-end #1 are they not?

emotion
03-22-2012, 03:07 AM
So if they sneak into no 1 after doing well in the WTF it makes them the best player of that year?

Nah. If they've won the most slams that year maybe but if they did they'd already be at the 1 spot.

Well...yeah, you are. Being #1 at the end of the year means you were the best of that year overall. It's as simple as that. Being #1 most of the year means you were the best between that year and however long into the previous season

Andresito
03-22-2012, 03:08 AM
Prize money.

By far.

Gabe32
03-22-2012, 03:11 AM
Well...yeah, you are. Being #1 at the end of the year means you were the best of that year overall. It's as simple as that. Being #1 most of the year means you were the best between that year and however long into the previous season

I get that the stat is nice/clean because the "calendar" goes from January - December.

But is being number #1 from May 2011 to May 2012 any less impressive than being #1 from January 2011 to January 2012?

It is simply a nice, clean way of organizing things. But a year is a year and December 31st isn't the "last" day of tennis, it is a circular calendar.

asotgod
03-22-2012, 03:14 AM
I get that the stat is nice/clean because the "calendar" goes from January - December.

But is being number #1 from May 2011 to May 2012 any less impressive than being #1 from January 2011 to January 2012?

It is simply a nice, clean way of organizing things. But a year is a year!

If you are #1 fro May 2011 to May 2012 - you end December as #1, right - year end ranking? So, well-deserved still. As others have said, year-end #1 is a reflection of who captured the most points in that year. The issue you discussed happens more on the women's side.

fast_clay
03-22-2012, 03:17 AM
% 2nd serve won

BroTree123
03-22-2012, 03:22 AM
Double faults. You can theoretically win a match even if you serve like 5 double faults in all ur service games.

Johnny Iznrr
03-22-2012, 03:30 AM
Win streaks since they don't count withdrawls or retirements, meaning that certain, more unscrupulous players :angel:, can rack up huge win streaks from avoiding certain tournaments and retiring/withdrawing before they lose.

jonas
03-22-2012, 03:33 AM
Win streaks since they don't count withdrawls or retirements, meaning that certain, more unscrupulous players :angel:, can rack up huge win streaks from avoiding certain tournaments and retiring/withdrawing before they lose.

Wrong. Retirements do count.

finishingmove
03-22-2012, 03:50 AM
titles 'defended'

Pirata.
03-22-2012, 09:27 AM
titles 'defended'

Typical Nole fan :p

Evitman
03-22-2012, 09:57 AM
Consecutive Grand Slam Semifinals :D

Lopez
03-22-2012, 10:02 AM
Player A can be the #1 player for 51 weeks out of the year.

Player B can be the #1 player for 1 week out of the year and get to add the coveted "Year End #1" to his resume.

Which is the more impressive achievement?

So? When you measure who was the best player in one season, the time begins at January 1st and ends at December 31st. So yeah, that player was the best in that calendar year.

The same situation as a football team snatching the top spot in the league in the last second. That team was then best that season, irrelevant who was the top the rest of the time.

So if they sneak into no 1 after doing well in the WTF it makes them the best player of that year?

Nah. If they've won the most slams that year maybe but if they did they'd already be at the 1 spot.

Ummmmm.... Yes? Why is this so difficult to grasp? Anyone accumulating the most ranking points from January to December is the nr.1 at the year's end.

Lopez
03-22-2012, 10:34 AM
I get that the stat is nice/clean because the "calendar" goes from January - December.

But is being number #1 from May 2011 to May 2012 any less impressive than being #1 from January 2011 to January 2012?

It is simply a nice, clean way of organizing things. But a year is a year and December 31st isn't the "last" day of tennis, it is a circular calendar.

Yeah but the season ends at the end of December on the ATP level at least. The Tour Finals are at the end of the year. Therefore the YE nr.1 is the best player of a particular season.

ossie
03-22-2012, 01:20 PM
all stats except slams are arbitrary.

Macbrother
03-22-2012, 01:20 PM
Some of you people are acting like you can play dog shit for the first 11 months, then win the WTF, and make #1. If winning the WTF puts you over the top then that means you had a pretty damn good year to begin with and were just shy of making it.

As other people have said, if you finished the year #1, you had the best overall performance, period. Is it more important than total weeks #1? Probably not, but it's nice to go back and see who was the best player for X year.

Mystique
03-22-2012, 01:26 PM
OP's point is true really.
I think it was Bozo (or was it that silly Sampras-tard Bud Collins) who made such a huge deal out of this "year-end" number 1 thing once Pete got the record :ras:

Saberq
03-22-2012, 01:29 PM
number of Slams

echf
03-22-2012, 01:34 PM
It does, yeah.
But again, it is not like a player starts out with 0 points on January 1st and slowly collects points until the end of the year. THEN it would make sense.

But it *is* exactly like this. At the end of the year, whatever points a player may have started out with on January 1st are irrelevant and not counted. So it does make sense in that respect.
On the other hand, of course being year-end number one is not any more meaningful that being ranked first on any other day. It's quite arbitrary.

out_grinder
03-22-2012, 01:48 PM
number of Slams

Please.

This is actually the only stat that matters.

And I speak this as someone who hates Federer and Nadal (and Djokovic and Murray and the rest of the top 100) - so don't call me a Fedtard.

Arakasi
03-22-2012, 02:20 PM
It is pretty arbitrary.

Being #1 means you were the best player for the previous 52 weeks. Having those 52 weeks coincide with the calendar year doesn't make it anymore of an achievement. #1 is #1. Year-end #1 is a nice stat to look back on because we tend to think in years but it doesn't actually have any special significance.

I suspect people started making a big deal out of it because of Sampras and his 6 consecutive year-end finishes at #1.

Just to illustrate the point: Federer was #1 on July 31st every year from 2004-2009. That is 6 consecutive "July-end" finishes at #1. That is no less an accomplishment that Sampras's feat. It's just less clean because it doesn't coincide with the calendar year.

BlueSwan
03-22-2012, 02:21 PM
If you are #1 fro May 2011 to May 2012 - you end December as #1, right - year end ranking?
No!! If you are #1 covering the PERIOD from may 2011 to may 2012, that means you are #1 in may 2012. Not that you are #1 in december.

I think it should be pretty obvious to anyone that being the best player over the previous 52 weeks is equally impressive whether it's from january to december or from february to january.¨

Likewise with the coveted "grand slam". If Nole wins RG this year (and completes the "Nole slam", I fail to see how that is any less impressive than if he had won RG last year (and completed a calendar year grand slam). In both cases he possesses all four grand slams at the same time. Whether it is over a january to december period or a july to june period ought to be irrelevant.

finishingmove
03-22-2012, 02:23 PM
The year end #1 might have had some importance when it used to be decided at the year end championships. Nowadays you can tank the last three months of the season and still remain #1.

Saberq
03-22-2012, 02:40 PM
Please.

This is actually the only stat that matters.

And I speak this as someone who hates Federer and Nadal (and Djokovic and Murray and the rest of the top 100) - so don't call me a Fedtard.

so if some guy wins 17 Slams one day he is greater than Fed even though some other stats are worse than his

Arakasi
03-22-2012, 02:44 PM
Likewise with the coveted "grand slam". If Nole wins RG this year (and completes the "Nole slam", I fail to see how that is any less impressive than if he had won RG last year (and completed a calendar year grand slam). In both cases he possesses all four grand slams at the same time. Whether it is over a january to december period or a july to june period ought to be irrelevant.

Well there are a few things that make the calendar grand slam harder than the non-calendar grand slam.

1. If Nole does W-US-AO-RG then he won't have to win RG and Wimbledon back to back which is obviously not easy to do. Also, it's probably easier to sustain hardcourt form from the US to AO because you don't change surfaces whereas having to do it at the start and end of the season with clay and grass in between is different.

2. There is CONSIDERABLY less pressure for the non-calendar grand slam compared to the calendar grand slam. Only now that Novak has won 3 in a row do people start tentatively talking about him winning RG. Compare that to starting with the AO. People start talking about the grand slam before clay even starts! I cannot imagine the pressure a player would face if he won AO and RG, let alone if he won Wimbledon as well. The run up to the US Open would be a media frenzy.

I actually think the second point is more important than the first. But, I don't think there is any significant difference between NCGS and a CGS. They're both amazing achievements.

BauerAlmeida
03-22-2012, 03:06 PM
It's the same being N°1 at March, July or December. What matters it's the amount of weeks you're there.

The same goes for the GS. If Djokovic wins RG, he is winning the four GS in a row, which is pretty much the same as winning it all of them in the same year.

shadows
03-22-2012, 03:17 PM
winner/ue ratio at roland garros. >_<

MaxPower
03-22-2012, 03:21 PM
I don't find year-end #1 an arbitary stat. If you are #1 at the end of the year that's that. What you make of it is another question. It's a race over the season and if you collect the most points you "win". Usually the best player of the year also ends at #1 so it's not that big of a deal really but the fact that it's actually a real season race adds some excitement if it's close. That was obviously the point by those who developed the system. In some sense i'd like the WTF to be a real playoff and matter more to the top positions ranking spots than it really does (1500p aint much when the top guy can have 10k by then)

If you want arbitrary stats look at UE/winner calculations between tournaments. Some tournaments seem to be very friendly barely counting UEs and adding every winner. Others the opposite. It's a shame really because such stats would be so interesting if done correctly.

One of my biggest stat wishes is that they could actually find a way to collect those stats in a non-arbitary way so they could be followed over a season just like most of the serve stats. Would tell much about a players form and also expose the worst pushers out there

Chirag
03-22-2012, 04:58 PM
Likewise with the coveted "grand slam". If Nole wins RG this year (and completes the "Nole slam", I fail to see how that is any less impressive than if he had won RG last year (and completed a calendar year grand slam). In both cases he possesses all four grand slams at the same time. Whether it is over a january to december period or a july to june period ought to be irrelevant.

I dont about you but the NCYGS just doesnt compare to the CYGS ;) The reasons I believe so is because

1)The NCYGS is 3 times easier to achieve :) I mean that if you fail in 1 leg of the calender slam ,then the feat is over for you and you have to wait for the next year to begin again that if you don't win the Australian Open then you have to wait until the following year to have another crack at beginning the sequence. The next three majors are meaningless in respect of attempting the feat whearas on a non-calendar slam, you have more attempts at it - i.e. You lose Australia but you can try again to start the streak at the next major in Paris and if that fails too wimbledon is always to begin your streak .
That is why the real holy grail of tennis is the calender year grand slam :)

drazyc
03-22-2012, 05:17 PM
Well there are a few things that make the calendar grand slam harder than the non-calendar grand slam.

1. If Nole does W-US-AO-RG then he won't have to win RG and Wimbledon back to back which is obviously not easy to do. Also, it's probably easier to sustain hardcourt form from the US to AO because you don't change surfaces whereas having to do it at the start and end of the season with clay and grass in between is different.

2. There is CONSIDERABLY less pressure for the non-calendar grand slam compared to the calendar grand slam. Only now that Novak has won 3 in a row do people start tentatively talking about him winning RG. Compare that to starting with the AO. People start talking about the grand slam before clay even starts! I cannot imagine the pressure a player would face if he won AO and RG, let alone if he won Wimbledon as well. The run up to the US Open would be a media frenzy.

I actually think the second point is more important than the first. But, I don't think there is any significant difference between NCGS and a CGS. They're both amazing achievements.

Really well put. I actually think your arguments should indicate that there is a significant difference between CYGS and NCYGS. I mean, the transition between clay and grass is (at least traditionally) recognized as very difficult. In a NCYGS between Wimby and RG you do not need to handle that transition at all. The NCYGS between Wimby and RG is probably the weakest NCYGS you could have. A NCYGS between RG and AO is for example more impressive.

This discussion made me remember how hard it indeed has been in history to win AO and Wimbledon in the same year. Probably the pressure has a lot to do with it. You have to go back to Jim Courier in 1992 to find the last time it happened. The pressure on Djokovic is huge this year so it will for sure be very impressive if he wins RG.

Over to the topic of the OP: Net points won % is often very irrelevant as good net players may have a low percentage and bad net players may have a high percentage.

I really would have liked to make "returns back in play" an official stat. I think that is one of the more interesting stats during a match.

156mphserve
03-22-2012, 05:54 PM
I dont about you but the NCYGS just doesnt compare to the CYGS ;) The reasons I believe so is because

1)The NCYGS is 3 times easier to achieve :) I mean that if you fail in 1 leg of the calender slam ,then the feat is over for you and you have to wait for the next year to begin again that if you don't win the Australian Open then you have to wait until the following year to have another crack at beginning the sequence. The next three majors are meaningless in respect of attempting the feat whearas on a non-calendar slam, you have more attempts at it - i.e. You lose Australia but you can try again to start the streak at the next major in Paris and if that fails too wimbledon is always to begin your streak .
That is why the real holy grail of tennis is the calender year grand slam :)

it's only 3 times harder because of the way it's labelled though. I mean if they Calender went from April to March, then the real Calender GS would be RG-W-US-AO, and you would be labelling that one 3 times harder than the rest. individually all 4 of them are equally likely ignoring pressure affects from the media.

On the topic of year end number 1, it's also a calender induced thing. It's great to be #1 on december 31st, but it's not at all more meaning for as being #1 on April 23rd. The ranking still includes 52 weeks, 4 grand slams, 9 1000's, 1 WTF, and the other results. You accumulated more points over those events than everyone else. It's the same as if someone won more points in a calender year, they were the best over those same 4 GS, 9 1000, WTF, and the others.

TigerTim
03-22-2012, 06:38 PM
Consecutive Grand Slam Semifinals :D

yes :D

Gabe32
03-22-2012, 06:58 PM
It is pretty arbitrary.

Being #1 means you were the best player for the previous 52 weeks. Having those 52 weeks coincide with the calendar year doesn't make it anymore of an achievement. #1 is #1. Year-end #1 is a nice stat to look back on because we tend to think in years but it doesn't actually have any special significance.

I suspect people started making a big deal out of it because of Sampras and his 6 consecutive year-end finishes at #1.

Just to illustrate the point: Federer was #1 on July 31st every year from 2004-2009. That is 6 consecutive "July-end" finishes at #1. That is no less an accomplishment that Sampras's feat. It's just less clean because it doesn't coincide with the calendar year.

Yes! Exactly, thank you. For some reason I wasn't conveying my point well.

And the "consecutive semi-finals" IS a pretty dumb stat unless you are Federer. His streak is simply insane.

156mphserve
03-22-2012, 08:04 PM
The most arbitrary stat is 2nd serve aces served in the deuce court saving a mp in the 2nd set tiebreak on wednesday from 2 to 3 PM in July

stewietennis
03-22-2012, 11:30 PM
IMHO 'Unforced Error'. Where do you draw the line between a forced error and an unforced error? Maybe the ball was hit with a little more pace/spin. Maybe the ball hit a small pebble and changed the trajectory slightly… etc

BlueSwan
03-27-2012, 05:16 AM
Well there are a few things that make the calendar grand slam harder than the non-calendar grand slam.

1. If Nole does W-US-AO-RG then he won't have to win RG and Wimbledon back to back which is obviously not easy to do. Also, it's probably easier to sustain hardcourt form from the US to AO because you don't change surfaces whereas having to do it at the start and end of the season with clay and grass in between is different.

2. There is CONSIDERABLY less pressure for the non-calendar grand slam compared to the calendar grand slam. Only now that Novak has won 3 in a row do people start tentatively talking about him winning RG. Compare that to starting with the AO. People start talking about the grand slam before clay even starts! I cannot imagine the pressure a player would face if he won AO and RG, let alone if he won Wimbledon as well. The run up to the US Open would be a media frenzy.

I actually think the second point is more important than the first. But, I don't think there is any significant difference between NCGS and a CGS. They're both amazing achievements.
That's actually totally true. I retract what I wrote about this.

Pipsy
03-27-2012, 05:50 PM
IMO, the following stat is more abritrary:

Weeks spent at world #67 divided by the weeks spent at world #66