Mens Tennis Forums banner

161 - 180 of 196 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,568 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

It is you who is spewing lies here about me, in stalking way too... this is not the first time. At no point have I falsified any stat or lied about anyone. In your first day over a month ago I may have misrepresented something you said but I never wrote lies about you. Let it go already. If you carry on this behaviour I will report you to mods, heck maybe even to Litotes. :)

Litotes, I think you invented this fight from nothing... I merely argued that Sampras' and Nadal's career win% is influenced by surface distribution... which is certainly true, is it not?
If you want to argue against it with stats that's ok but ad hominem against me was imo uncalled for. Even if I had been wrong I don't think that deserved personal insults in condescending manner.

Tennis is only a game ffs, not a matter of life and death...
Stalking? :lol: Hilarious. So you'll report me for calling you on inventing stats and lying? Sure, go ahead and do it. The hypocrisy of your last line being in direct contradiction to your empty threats will be lost on you I am sure. If you don't want people to call you out on lying or deliberately misrepresenting facts then make sure you are honest all the time.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,002 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

And about your brave fight against faulty statistics. Are you kidding? As if you haven't ignored plenty of faulty information on MTF.
The entire GOAT debate has never been straight-forward. One person simply counts major titles, the next one figures that Olympic Singles gold should also matter, yet another person thinks that the WTF titles are a factor, somebody else starts discussing h2h results. That's not even talking about era issues. Players from different eras, playing in different circumstances with different material are compared. It's simply not a matter of "faulty" statistics but it's a matter of selecting the context that fits you the best and you - like most on MTF - have chosen a very specific context in which you have drawn the line of "wrong" and "right".

Besides, you know what people say about statistics: there are lies, big lies and then, there are statistics.
Or, as one of my statistics professors used to say: you can prove just about anything with statistics as long as you know how to use specific numbers in a specific order within a specific context.

As I said, I don't have a problem with your bias for or against certain players. You're not a player basher either. But you have serious inconsistency issues as a moderator IMO.

I am perfectly aware of the limitations to statistics. That's why I try to get concrete facts right, and if I don't have good stats I avoid using them altogether. All of those you mentioned above are opinions. They can't be right or wrong, all one can do is give one's own. I just try to get the facts right, what conclusions you draw from them are up to you. So if someone mentions Nadal is GOAT for having won 14 slams, Olympic gold and 27 masters ++, fine, that's his prerogative. I can disagree and argue against it but I can't fault the information. However, if that someone should mention he thinks Nadal is GOAT for having won 14 slams, Olympic gold and 28 masters ++ than I might mention the correct number as of now is 27. Things like that.

As for the moderation part you have absolutely no idea what reports I or any other mod moderate, as that is privileged information. It surprises me to see so many guesses as to who moderates what. I can say, though, no other mod has suggested I am inconsistent in my moderating. And they see all responses to reports, plus all eventually deleted posts.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
374 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

I am perfectly aware of the limitations to statistics. That's why I try to get concrete facts right, and if I don't have good stats I avoid using them altogether. All of those you mentioned above are opinions. They can't be right or wrong, all one can do is give one's own. I just try to get the facts right, what conclusions you draw from them are up to you. So if someone mentions Nadal is GOAT for having won 14 slams, Olympic gold and 27 masters ++, fine, that's his prerogative. I can disagree and argue against it but I can't fault the information. However, if that someone should mention he thinks Nadal is GOAT for having won 14 slams, Olympic gold and 28 masters ++ than I might mention the correct number as of now is 27. Things like that.

As for the moderation part you have absolutely no idea what reports I or any other mod moderate, as that is privileged information. It surprises me to see so many guesses as to who moderates what. I can say, though, no other mod has suggested I am inconsistent in my moderating. And they see all responses to reports, plus all eventually deleted posts.
You are confusing greatest with most succesful/well achieved, when you name titles, weeks at 1,2,5,10 streas, etc Its nothing more than data to show how successful you are/were in determined span of time... It only measure achievements, The whole concept of greatness goes beyond that :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,568 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

You are confusing greatest with most succesful/well achieved, when you name titles, weeks at 1,2,5,10 strekas, etc Its nothing more than data to show how successful you are/were... It only measure achievements, and the whole achievement and stat thing is only a fraction of the whole Greatness.
:confused:

Greatness has everything to do with success. Achievements = greatness. Would Federer be great if he had 2 slams instead of 17? Would Nadal be great if he had 1 RG instead of 9? Achievements and numbers are an inseparable part of greatness.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,002 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

You are confusing greatest with most succesful/well achieved, when you name titles, weeks at 1,2,5,10 strekas, etc Its nothing more than data to show how successful you are/were... It only measure achievements, and the whole achievement and stat thing is only a fraction of the whole Greatness.
It seems almost everyone has an opinion about what being the greatest implies, but that few agree with each other on the definition. Hence the debates.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
374 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

It seems almost everyone has an opinion about what being the greatest implies, but that few agree with each other on the definition. Hence the debates.
I do agree here.

Achievements should be looked when consideration of greatness, but as Far as Im concerned they are not synnonyms per se.

Achievements are consequence of greatness, just like being a good player is, but they arent directly proportional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,954 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

As for the moderation part you have absolutely no idea what reports I or any other mod moderate, as that is privileged information..
Who is talking about the reports here?

I am a member on MTF since 2005, quite a bit longer than you have been. I've seen many moderators come and go. I've seen many policies applied and canceled again by mods and admins. Anybody who knows me a bit will tell you that I have often defended moderators on MTF because I do realise that it's not exactly an easy task and you will get criticised either way.

The "privileged" information you refer to, mister super-mod, is indeed something I don't see. However, this is not about the reports and what all of us, lower beings with no access to your "privileged" information, can see see is how you, mister super-mod, interact with others. You don't need access to privileged info to see the inconsistency you show as a super-mod.
You don't agree and since you are mister super-mod-with-privileged-information, so nothing I tell you will make any difference at all.

Still, allow me the freedom to be amused by it. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,181 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

I do agree here.

Achievements should be looked when consideration of greatness, but as Far as Im concerned they are not synnonyms per se.

Achievements are consequence of greatness, just like being a good player is, but they arent directly proportional.
No, you have that backwards. "greatness" can only be conferred in hindsight. You cannot call someone "great" in anticipation of what they will accomplish; you need people to achieve something first. However, I agree with you that it isn't just the trophies or records that matter (if that is what you mean by achievements). Other, less tangible, things are also important: behavior, how a person represents the sport, contribution to the game. An easy extreme example would be someone who has set records but was caught doping (Barry Bonds?) or someone who has a record of violent crimes (various NFL players). They would never be considered all-time greats.

I think people tend to be lazy when they just use numbers (trophies and records) as a shortcut when judging "greatness" - and even with this there is debate - so imagine what would happen if the fuzzy, ill-defined measures come to play. chaos.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,002 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

Who is talking about the reports here?

I am a member on MTF since 2005, quite a bit longer than you have been. I've seen many moderators come and go. I've seen many policies applied and canceled again by mods and admins. Anybody who knows me a bit will tell you that I have often defended moderators on MTF because I do realise that it's not exactly an easy task and you will get criticised either way.

The "privileged" information you refer to, mister super-mod, is indeed something I don't see. However, this is not about the reports and what all of us, lower beings with no access to your "privileged" information, can see see is how you, mister super-mod, interact with others. You don't need access to privileged info to see the inconsistency you show as a super-mod.
You don't agree and since you are mister super-mod-with-privileged-information, so nothing I tell you will make any difference at all.

Still, allow me the freedom to be amused by it. :)
So, tell me then. Which posts belonging to Nadal fans that you saw me delete should I not have deleted in order to appear consistent?

Originally you accused me (and the other current mods) of being too leninent. Not sure why you changed tack. If it is to inspire more action, it's not working.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,954 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

So, tell me then. Which posts belonging to Nadal fans that you saw me delete should I not have deleted in order to appear consistent?
You keep bringing up things that I didn't mention at all and then, you accuse me of "changed tack"? :lol:

Who's talking about deleting posts? I surely didn't. Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else. :scratch:

If you care to read back a few posts ago, I left a clue to what I view to be your inconsistency as a poster while being a super-mod with privileged information. If it's still too vague and you can't sleep at night without knowing, you can always send me a PM and I'll see if I can reply to you that way instead of here in GM.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,002 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

You keep bringing up things that I didn't mention at all and then, you accuse me of "changed tack"? :lol:
Who's talking about deleting posts? I surely didn't. Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else. :scratch:

If you care to read back a few posts ago, I left a clue to what I view to be your inconsistency as a poster while being a super-mod with privileged information. If it's still too vague and you can't sleep at night without knowing, you can always send me a PM and I'll see if I can reply to you that way instead of here in GM.
Since you're not talking about reports or deleted posts then there's not a whole lot left of the mod job. I assume you're not satisfied with something I'm not doing which you hope mods will do but in actual fact is not part of the mod job. The part I was asked to do upon agreeing to the job I am doing impartially, as far as I'm able. If there was something else, blame the people who never told me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,954 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

Since you're not talking about reports or deleted posts then there's not a whole lot left of the mod job.
Dear Litotes, read back.

If it's too vague for you, I'm willing to clarify via PM instead of continuing our back-and-forth argument in GM.
I'm about to go out and with the weekend in front of us, I can't promise to give you a swift reply but I do promise a reply should you care to have a talk about it.

I assume ....
You certainly are assuming a lot, yes :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,268 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

Nadal will most likely be remembered as the best player of this era when all is said and done.
What difference a year and a half makes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
454 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

Just saw this thread. Nice stats. Am looking forward to refreshed stats after 2015 finishes. Djokovic's percentages are bound to increase slightly, and Nadal's to dip.

About the one-year stats, Djokovic's 70-6 (92.1%) is the 6th all-time high. However, he had lost 2 of those matches due to injury. Ignoring them for correctness, it should be 70-4 (94.59%) which will then be 3rd all-time high after McEnroe 84, Fed 2005. We could even recompute the stats for all players ignoring the matches lost due to injury, which are not really "losses" IMHO.

Another interesting stat could be to ignore smaller tournaments -- just count Slams, Masters, WTF -- ignore, 250s, 500s etc. I think this stat would be more representative -- since the smaller tournaments wins are worth against lower ranked players, stakes are less, and even perhaps motivation is also not as high. For example, Djokovic's loss this year at Doha against Karlovic -- nobody cares.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,002 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

Just saw this thread. Nice stats. Am looking forward to refreshed stats after 2015 finishes. Djokovic's percentages are bound to increase slightly, and Nadal's to dip.

About the one-year stats, Djokovic's 70-6 (92.1%) is the 6th all-time high. However, he had lost 2 of those matches due to injury. Ignoring them for correctness, it should be 70-4 (94.59%) which will then be 3rd all-time high after McEnroe 84, Fed 2005. We could even recompute the stats for all players ignoring the matches lost due to injury, which are not really "losses" IMHO.

Another interesting stat could be to ignore smaller tournaments -- just count Slams, Masters, WTF -- ignore, 250s, 500s etc. I think this stat would be more representative -- since the smaller tournaments wins are worth against lower ranked players, stakes are less, and even perhaps motivation is also not as high. For example, Djokovic's loss this year at Doha against Karlovic -- nobody cares.
If you remove losses due to injury then I assume you remove wins due to injury too?

Finding out exactly who was injured and when will be very difficult, and you'll never get everyone to agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

Just saw this thread. Nice stats. Am looking forward to refreshed stats after 2015 finishes. Djokovic's percentages are bound to increase slightly, and Nadal's to dip.

About the one-year stats, Djokovic's 70-6 (92.1%) is the 6th all-time high. However, he had lost 2 of those matches due to injury. Ignoring them for correctness, it should be 70-4 (94.59%) which will then be 3rd all-time high after McEnroe 84, Fed 2005. We could even recompute the stats for all players ignoring the matches lost due to injury, which are not really "losses" IMHO.

Another interesting stat could be to ignore smaller tournaments -- just count Slams, Masters, WTF -- ignore, 250s, 500s etc. I think this stat would be more representative -- since the smaller tournaments wins are worth against lower ranked players, stakes are less, and even perhaps motivation is also not as high. For example, Djokovic's loss this year at Doha against Karlovic -- nobody cares.
And won seven matches due to opponents injuries.
 
161 - 180 of 196 Posts
Top