Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
:wavey:

Can someone bring here all the important proposals we had last/this year about the ranking system, please? :wavey: This should be our main priority. If we can't agree to something by the end of December, we will continue with this actual system. So please speed up the discussions. Let's have some clear options and I'll make a separate thread for everyone to vote.

Also, if there are other proposals/suggestions, don't hesitate:wavey:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,261 Posts
Some of my questions are that need to be discussed are...

What is the importance in picks? Are R1 picks better than 1 finalists? Should it depend on the size of the draw?

Maybe make a rule saying that if two persons win with the exact same draw, then the one who posted the draw first gets the win? (this would not apply if there are two winners with two different draws)
Do you prefer scoring points inflated or deflated? In 2015, scoring points were divided by 5 from 2014.

There may be a flaw with the new ranking system, you say you want to reward people who do consistently well at non majors, but the reason why it looks like people do better is because they have 2-3 chances per week to have a good draw, so I'm not sure this works, if they should be rewarded for it.
Should the Doubles FITD events be worth ranking points?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,559 Posts
Maybe make a rule saying that if two persons win with the exact same draw, then the one who posted the draw first gets the win? (this would not apply if there are two winners with two different draws)

I don't agree with this, only because someone has a better time zone than you or more free time you that shouldn't be an adventage.

Do you prefer scoring points inflated or deflated? In 2015, scoring points were divided by 5 from 2014.

At the end it's the same I don't care about it.

Should the Doubles FITD events be worth ranking points?

No, maybe we could have a different ranking for doubles. But of course than we shouldn't mix singles and doubles results.



I think we need to change the ranking's system, it's impossible that someone who didn't play like 6 months was still No. 1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Bump, bump bump!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
If there is no feedback, I guess we won't change anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Tournaments start in two weeks. If we don't have anything in one week, then that's it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,095 Posts
You guys know my point of view. This scoring system is flaud. A Grandslam win and a M1000 is almost a shoe in for WTF. Even if a player doesnt play therest of the year.

I had a few sugestions in a piece of paper.

But it would change the whole thing. Starting with Round by round from a 250 standpoint.

Thats where we need to start. A 1st round pick in a 250 shouldnt have the same value as a 500, 1000 or a slam. I know it doesnt. But the diference is short when it needs to be reasenable. Ill explain later or tomorow. Need to find it again.


As for these questions.


More points, but maybe not as much as last years new scoring system.

We need tiebreakers, so we dont have equal draws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,095 Posts
It was faster then i expected, but i found that old piece of paper.


Here are my sugestions for scoring round by round, from 250s to slams. Its not balanced, in my opinion.


250 --------- 500 ------ M1OO O SL AM
64 Draw--- 32 Draw --- 64 Draw--- 32 Draw--- R1 - 2 R1 - 4
R1 - 1----- R1 - 2 R2 - 4---- R1 - 4 ---- R2 - 8
R2 - 2----- R1 - 2 ---- R2 - 4---- R1 - 4---- R3 - 8---- R2 - 8 ---- R3 - 16
R3 - 4----- R2 - 4 ---- R3 - 8---- R2 - 8---- R4 - 16---- R3 - 16 ---- R4 - 32
QF - 10---- QF - 10 ---- QF - 20---- QF - 20 ----- QF - 40---- QF - 40 ---- QF - 80
SF - 15---- SF - 15 ---- SF - 30---- SF - 30---- SF - 60---- SF - 60 ---- SF - 120
F - 25---- F - 25 ---- F - 50---- F - 50---- F - 100---- F - 100 ---- F - 200


This is my sugestion. Im not a math wiz, if there is an unbalanced stat let me know. I give more value to whoever picks the correct finalists correctly. And the diference between a 250 and a slam is always 8times more.

PS. numbers look like crap. Il post a print.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Hey everyone, some friends and I have been working on trying to semi-automate the process of entering picks and calculating scores/rankings for a similar fantasy tennis game at About | Tennis Draw Challenge

It might be of some help in potentially alleviating the manual work and possibly make entering picks faster for your FITD game too, though the scoring is a bit different. But overall the game mechanics are more or less the same. The site is still in beta and we've just had one year of ATP tournaments in 2015. For now it's basically a place to enter picks and view rankings, just wanted to let you guys know in case it may be useful for your game.

 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
21,302 Posts
Maybe make a rule saying that if two persons win with the exact same draw, then the one who posted the draw first gets the win? (this would not apply if there are two winners with two different draws)

I don't agree with this, only because someone has a better time zone than you or more free time you that shouldn't be an adventage.

Do you prefer scoring points inflated or deflated? In 2015, scoring points were divided by 5 from 2014.

At the end it's the same I don't care about it.

Should the Doubles FITD events be worth ranking points?

No, maybe we could have a different ranking for doubles. But of course than we shouldn't mix singles and doubles results.
Agree with all 3 answers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
740 Posts
I finally caught up with all the discussion in last years ranking systems. Must-ave been fun :) Seemed like good arguments on both sides of the house. :)

It looks like we are sticking to the old system, which is just as well.

Im a big fan of simplicity, so just for the fun of it, I'll try and add a "win%" column to the spreadsheets this year. Just a simple system that ignores the round of the tournament (R1, QF, SF etc) or the scale of the tournament (250, 500, GS). Basically a simple - how many did you guess right :)

If you guys are okay, lets try for a couple of months ? what say ?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,261 Posts
Yes, maybe the scores should not be based off points, but simply off of pick percentage correct. I think it'll force people to make bold predictions and pick who's right and not who they want to win.
Under the current system, 2 SF is often better than 13-16 first round picks. I think that should be changed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,559 Posts
I don't agree with that, it's so much harder to pick the finals rounds the first ones. At the start you know which are going to be the matche, in the later stages you don't have an idea in which form they are going to play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
740 Posts
BTW, I wasn't suggesting changing the ranking system. The way it is is just fine. Just adding another field on correctpicks%, just so if anyone wanted to look at it .. they can. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,273 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
BTW, I wasn't suggesting changing the ranking system. The way it is is just fine. Just adding another field on correctpicks%, just so if anyone wanted to look at it .. they can. :)
I think we can still keep the old system, but at the same time keep track of that percentage for everyone and see how much it influences the rankings. What do you think?
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top