[Nikola Jokic]

I'm sensing my depression creeping in again... Can't watch any more recordings... Need some adrenaline shot or something.
So I updated the GOAT sheet... hoping to see some action when I post it here.
Based on (scarce) feedback I got so far - here's the current GOAT ranking.
Please do not resurface the "vanilla remarks" such as "where is rod laver?" and such - I've answered those questions before.
We have time now - and we can give this a solemn look, plus get some tennis juices going.

I'm asking for feedback...
Specifically - I'd like some about the 250/500 tourneys... should they be included? how should we weight them?
Also - H2H... Important metric IMO - but how should it be calculated?

Suggestion, critique, a sign of life... anything really...

Anywho - here it is:

GOAT big 3 v1.5

Sheet1 Grand Slams,Streaks,Leader,max ATP,EFFICIENCY T10 Relevance/Factor,2,1.2,0.72,Max no of Majors on one surface,Consecutive Grand Slam streaks,1,1.35,5,4,3,0.12,/1000,10,10 Grand Slam titles,Grand Slam finals,Grand Slam SFs,Grand Slam Streaks Addend,Max Slams at one venue,Calendar Slam,Car...

docs.google.com

 

[BodyServe]

I agree with low weight for 250/500.. There are some 500 which are of good quality but most of these tournaments are irrelevant for this discussion outside H2H encounters.

I would scrap "records" section entirely as it looks so absurd and highly subjective. I would give half points to OG medals that were obtained in doubles as it was a team effort.

Davis Cup from last year on has been diminished, not sure it still has the same level of importance. ATP cup is very recent, although it was a good event i wouldn't give it a higher factor than Davis Cup..

Other than those few points, a solid effort. We can see that Sampras is clearly lagging behind.

 

[Nikola Jokic]

I agree with low weight for 250/500.. There are some 500 which are of good quality but most of these tournaments are irrelevant for this discussion outside H2H encounters.

I would scrap "records" section entirely as it looks so absurd and highly subjective. I would give half points to OG medals that were obtained in doubles as it was a team effort.

Davis Cup from last year on has been diminished, not sure it still has the same level of importance. ATP cup is very recent, although it was a good event i wouldn't give it a higher factor than Davis Cup..

Other than those few points, a solid effort. We can see that Sampras is clearly lagging behind.

Thanks man. The most productive/constructive feedback I've gotten so far.
Much appreciated.

 

[Bella&Mirka]

The biggest problem is 'strength of opposition'... how do you gauge that?

Federer leads Djokovic 8-7 in your categories, leads in Slams, titles and No 1 weeks, yet Djokovic is already GOAT? Something wrong with your calculation there. Maybe in 2-3 years if Djokovic keeps going at the current rate, but certainly not now.

 

[Nikola Jokic]

The biggest problem is 'strength of opposition'... how do you gauge that?

Federer leads Djokovic 8-7 in your categories, leads in Slams, titles and No 1 weeks, yet Djokovic is already GOAT? Something wrong with your calculation there. Maybe in 2-3 years if Djokovic keeps going at the current rate, but certainly not now.

"strength of opposition"... that's a great question. i thought about it - but couldn't figure out how can be done (or even if it's possible, or more - appropriate). If you have a suggestion - lets discuss.

also - this is work in progress - that's why I'm posting it - expecting suggestions/adjustments/etc. Current "ranking", to that regard, is misleading. Maybe I should remove the "final" calculation - so the conversation shifts to actual individual columns/weighting/etc.

 

[Servebots=GOAT]

I’ll give you the respect of putting this together regardless of our differing opinions cause I’m sure it took a while.

 

[paca]

To me, the "Streaks" and "H2H" sections simply shouldn't exist. The Olympics is also being over-valued.

I really don't like this haphazard approach to GOAT rankings, where we just throw a bunch of highly subjective metrics into an algorithm and hope they balance each other out.

All we really need is to apply a partial modifier to each tournament won, based on the surface ELO score of the players the champion beat en route. Tally up those tournament points, and then apply a weak "surface diversity" multiplier that rewards success on all surfaces, relative to the distribution of surfaces across the ATP tour. In my opinion, that would give us the simplest and most accurate GOAT ranking.

 

[Nikola Jokic]

I’ll give you the respect of putting this together regardless of our differing opinions cause I’m sure it took a while.

Thanks - at least half of the credit goes to slasher (although he might not take it) - however, any suggestions are appreciated and welcomed.

 

[Nikola Jokic]

To me, the "Streaks" and "H2H" sections simply shouldn't exist. The Olympics is also being over-valued.

I really don't like this haphazard approach to GOAT rankings, where we just throw a bunch of highly subjective metrics into an algorithm and hope they balance each other out.

All we really need is to apply a partial modifier to each tournament won, based on the surface ELO score of the players the champion beat en route. Tally up those tournament points, and then apply a weak "surface diversity" multiplier that rewards success on all surfaces, relative to the distribution of surfaces across the ATP tour. In my opinion, that would give us the simplest and most accurate GOAT ranking.

that's one of the approaches I've considered - it's a bit narrow (I thought), but if you "put it on paper" - I'd love to discuss it.

P.S. -
Re "Streaks" and H2H:
- Streaks are important (imo) because they show dominance. It's hard to challenge the fact that winning 3 GS in a row or 4 in a row is an incredible and RARELY achieved feat.
That's why we still remember Don Budge.
- H2H wouldn't be a metric really if we were not in an extraordinary ERA where 3 GOATS are playing at the same time for ~15 years. To me, given this CRAZY ERA, H2H is very to most important metric.

 

[Phillo]

We can hypothesize that FedaIovic wouId have stiII fared better in Laver's peak era due to better overaII athIetes than vice versa & perhaps due to advances in racquet technoIogy & homogenization, very difficuIt to compare top tier ATG's of the Borg/Connors era with today.

 

[florentine]

We can hypothesize that FedaIovic wouId have stiII fared better in Laver's peak era due to better overaII athIetes than vice versa & perhaps due to advances in racquet technoIogy & homogenization, very difficuIt to compare top tier ATG's of the Borg/Connors era with today.

In Laver's peak era, racquet technology was wood, smal fram , strings natural gut, heavy, imprecise. It's same in Borg/Connors era.

Athletic and power was't the key but technic and skill

 

[Phillo]

Sorry but technicaI savvy aIong w/ athIeticism give the modern era eIite the wide edge over the Iikes of Laver, Emerson, Rosewall, or Roche. Then, the only comparison that remains is that involving racquets.

 

[florentine]

Yep but you said "In Laver's peak era ", not Laver in the " Fedalovic era.

Every era his material.

So, Fedalovic with Laver era's material: wood, smal fram , strings natural gut etc and I'm not sure that "evidence"..

For me, I think that Federer's skill is an advantage.