Mens Tennis Forums banner

Are the amounts of ranking points players are getting too high?

  • Yes, players are getting too many points

    Votes: 3 60.0%
  • No, it's fine as it is

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Total voters
    5
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This year we changed the ranking system so that ranking points are now calculated by linear regression. This means that the ranking points players get are directly proportional to their scoring points for each tournament, unlike the old system where players received arbitrary amounts of points according to their position in the final standings. We did this in the interest of fairness, to eliminate the scenario where a single pick could translate into a disproportionate difference of hundreds of ranking points.

At the same time, the amounts of ranking points players are getting under the new system may "look" excessive, especially compared to the old system. Here are the points from AO and IW this year:



How do the players feel about this - should the system be modified so that less players get less points?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,129 Posts
Can you put AO14 and AO15 next to each other? And same for IW.

I dont have a problem with FITD pointing sistem. Now PAW is another matter. But here its not that bad.

I had more points in IW then AO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I think the concept that the new system is based on is fairer than the old system.

I posted this thread because it was suggested by RNW that players are getting too many points atm, so I was wondering what other people think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Well, I personally prefer the new system. If people think the ranking points are too high, the new system can be modified. That's what I'm suggesting, not returning to the old system.

But in the end the players should decide which system we use. It was discussed extensively in the managers thread but we never created a poll, so I'm making one now :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,626 Posts
Now with this kind of system you can always pick just the conservative way and you know you will earn as much points as most of the other players. That's strange. Players gain too much points (in general) and to be good in rankings you have to play EACH bigger tournament and never risk too much.
The fixed amount of "0 points" or "1 point" should not be the last player in a tournament but - let's say - the player who is ranked 2/3 below the players - so with 100 players it would be fixed for rank 66/67th to have 0/1 point.
With 50 players playing, it should be rank 33/34th who will have 0/1 point.

That's a statistical thing to avoid statistical dispersion/variation.
There is always one or more players who play extremely bad and therefore the 2nd last player already has 50 or 200 points which is absurd

For Australian Open 2015 (92 players) it would have been rank 62th (Zumzzet) with 0 points and 2000 points for the winner.
The players between rank 1 and 62th will get points in the same system as now, but of course not the same amount. It will be adjusted.

Because we don't know how many players will play a tournament it should be fixed with fractions like 2/3 or so.
And from then on we should go the same system and chart and increase to the top as now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,129 Posts
More points is better. Less points puts alot of pressure on you and if you miss a week or have a bad M1000 you get left behind. So you loose interest and hardly play the game. Leaving only a handful of players.

Like you said some play conservately they play week in and week out.

Maybe its not perfect, but i think its better then the old system, dont you agree RNW?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Now with this kind of system you can always pick just the conservative way and you know you will earn as much points as most of the other players. That's strange. Players gain too much points (in general) and to be good in rankings you have to play EACH bigger tournament and never risk too much.
The fixed amount of "0 points" or "1 point" should not be the last player in a tournament but - let's say - the player who is ranked 2/3 below the players - so with 100 players it would be fixed for rank 66/67th to have 0/1 point.
With 50 players playing, it should be rank 33/34th who will have 0/1 point.


That's a statistical thing to avoid statistical dispersion/variation.
There is always one or more players who play extremely bad and therefore the 2nd last player already has 50 or 200 points which is absurd


For Australian Open 2015 (92 players) it would have been rank 62th (Zumzzet) with 0 points and 2000 points for the winner.
The players between rank 1 and 62th will get points in the same system as now, but of course not the same amount. It will be adjusted.

Because we don't know how many players will play a tournament it should be fixed with fractions like 2/3 or so.
And from then on we should go the same system and chart and increase to the top as now.
Yes, this is one way we could reduce the ranking point amounts. It could be debated whether 2/3 or another fraction is used.

I wrote about another alternative in the manager thread that I've included below. It may be a slightly better option, since there will always be variation in terms of how well the 66th player out of 100 etc. did compared to the winner. But this is not the case if we use a percentage of the winner's score as the minimum score to earn ranking points.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue: At present, the amounts of ranking points that a large proportion of players are getting at slams & M1000s are arguably excessive.
[ex: approx. 800 pts for finishing 20th in a M1000]

Proposal: The amount of scoring points that corresponds to 1 ranking point will be equal to a certain percentage - say 75% - of the winner's scoring points.
All players that scored more than this amount of points in the tournament will get ranking points according to the resultant linear equation.

I will use Indian Wells as an example to elucidate the effect of this.

IW 2015: The score that was equivalent to 1 ranking point (2010 pts) is equal to 57.3% of the winner's score (3505 pts).
If the score that corresponds to 1 ranking point is instead set to 75% of 3505 = 2629:

Code:
	PLAYER		TOTAL	current	75%
1	Freak3yman84	3505	1000	1000
2	156mphserve	3425	946	909
3	*Jean*		3420	943	903
4	emotion		3415	940	897
5	Fargif		3390	923	869
6	MIJB#19		3375	913	852
7	digor		3300	863	766
8	Chadmild	3270	843	732
9	luppy55		3265	840	726
10	Rekanto		3265	840	726
11	_A_		3260	836	721
12	torakichi5025	3250	830	709
13	Eddy DoubleD	3230	816	687
14	Synesthetic	3230	816	687
15	J99		3210	803	664
16	Cheeky Chick	3210	803	664
17	Nightcrawl3r	3210	803	664
18	Loosie		3200	796	652
19	Björki		3190	789	641
20	scouver		3175	779	624
21	Delusionalist.	3170	776	618
22	Kooyong		3170	776	618
23	Black Friday	3165	773	612
24	Fickelgruber	3145	759	590
25	Kamui010	3140	756	584
26	Matthew2408	3140	756	584
27	EnriqueIG8	3135	753	578
28	nolesfan2011	3100	729	538
29	Szymon		3005	666	430
30	Taz Warrior	2970	642	390
31	sdmartin	2955	632	373
32	Vitor BM	2945	626	362
33	Dudisela75	2890	589	299
34	Pablo23		2890	589	299
35	Pratik		2870	576	276
36	chowdahead25	2870	576	276
37	ProdigyEng	2860	569	265
38	Sapeod		2860	569	265
39	supertec	2845	559	248
40	VamosRafaNadal	2840	556	242
41	Police of Mind	2805	532	202
42	tjindar		2805	532	202
43	Adder A216	2785	519	179
44	quenelle	2715	472	99
45	Mark Lenders	2695	459	77
46	paulxx23	2685	452	65
47	jervisjames	2665	439	42
48	Chilenaitor	2630	415	2
49	Trmooney888	2605	399	0
50	diego36arg	2590	389	0
51	swisht4u	2585	385	0
52	goOudinUSA	2525	345	0
53	lucky-go-happy	2515	338	0
54	cinnabar	2500	328	0
55	bry17may	2490	322	0
56	slazlo		2490	322	0
57	Yves.		2450	295	0
58	RHB1993		2405	265	0
59	GNK		2245	158	0
60	unknowndiamond	2140	88	0
61	BMT360		2060	34	0
62	RNW		2010	1	0
75% is just an estimate of an appropriate percentage. It seems to work well in the above example.

70% or 80% could be feasible too... for comparison:

Code:
	PLAYER		TOTAL	current	70%	75%	80%
1	Freak3yman84	3505	1000	1000	1000	1000
2	156mphserve	3425	946	924	909	886
3	*Jean*		3420	943	919	903	879
4	emotion		3415	940	915	897	872
5	Fargif		3390	923	891	869	836
6	MIJB#19		3375	913	877	852	815
7	digor		3300	863	805	766	708
8	Chadmild	3270	843	777	732	665
9	luppy55		3265	840	772	726	658
10	Rekanto		3265	840	772	726	658
11	_A_		3260	836	767	721	651
12	torakichi5025	3250	830	758	709	637
13	Eddy DoubleD	3230	816	739	687	608
14	Synesthetic	3230	816	739	687	608
15	J99		3210	803	720	664	580
16	Cheeky Chick	3210	803	720	664	580
17	Nightcrawl3r	3210	803	720	664	580
18	Loosie		3200	796	710	652	565
19	Björki		3190	789	701	641	551
20	scouver		3175	779	687	624	530
21	Delusionalist.	3170	776	682	618	523
22	Kooyong		3170	776	682	618	523
23	Black Friday	3165	773	677	612	515
24	Fickelgruber	3145	759	658	590	487
25	Kamui010	3140	756	653	584	480
26	Matthew2408	3140	756	653	584	480
27	EnriqueIG8	3135	753	649	578	473
28	nolesfan2011	3100	729	615	538	423
29	Szymon		3005	666	525	430	287
30	Taz Warrior	2970	642	492	390	238
31	sdmartin	2955	632	478	373	216
32	Vitor BM	2945	626	468	362	202
33	Dudisela75	2890	589	416	299	124
34	Pablo23		2890	589	416	299	124
35	Pratik		2870	576	397	276	95
36	chowdahead25	2870	576	397	276	95
37	ProdigyEng	2860	569	387	265	81
38	Sapeod		2860	569	387	265	81
39	supertec	2845	559	373	248	59
40	VamosRafaNadal	2840	556	368	242	52
41	Police of Mind	2805	532	335	202	2
42	tjindar		2805	532	335	202	2
43	Adder A216	2785	519	316	179	0
44	quenelle	2715	472	250	99	0
45	Mark Lenders	2695	459	231	77	0
46	paulxx23	2685	452	221	65	0
47	jervisjames	2665	439	202	42	0
48	Chilenaitor	2630	415	169	2	0
49	Trmooney888	2605	399	145	0	0
50	diego36arg	2590	389	131	0	0
51	swisht4u	2585	385	126	0	0
52	goOudinUSA	2525	345	69	0	0
53	lucky-go-happy	2515	338	60	0	0
54	cinnabar	2500	328	45	0	0
55	bry17may	2490	322	36	0	0
56	slazlo		2490	322	36	0	0
57	Yves.		2450	295	0	0	0
58	RHB1993		2405	265	0	0	0
59	GNK		2245	158	0	0	0
60	unknowndiamond	2140	88	0	0	0
61	BMT360		2060	34	0	0	0
62	RNW		2010	1	0	0	0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,626 Posts
Some good ideas, Synesthetic. Thanks for your work.
But please think also about a tournament where only 1 or 2 players have the right winner,
it will then look completely different.

80% seems good to me.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top