THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

It really is the feel-good era of men’s tennis, at least at the top.  Even the nominal “bad guy”, Djokovic, shows really good sportsmanship a majority of the time. 

I think the replay system is a big factor, since it really cuts down a lot of the ugly on-court situations that lead to hard feelings.  The fact that by rule the top players mostly play the same events (majors, the 9 Masters events, and year end championships) and thus have to spend a lot of time together probably helps as well.

Hard to say how Federer and Nadal rate against each other.  Nadal has a big head-to-head lead, but it’s almost entirely determined by when and where they play.  He’s not likely to age as well as Federer, who mostly gets by now with an elite serve (which Nadal lacks).

Should be a good match, might have to alter my work schedule to watch it and the likely Murray-Djokovic semi.

Federer - Rivera is a great comparison. Maybe Pujols too?

Mens tennis has turned into what Womens tennis was mocked for when I was younger - upsets are shockingly rare, even for the 3rd and 4th best players (How many of the last 20 Grand Slam semi didn’t include at least two of Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic? I’m guessing 3 or 4?)

Turns out that’s a good thing and those criticisms of the womens game (Graf in particular)were almost certainly just being petty. Womens tennis is a freaking mess as it is now - I hope a new star or two emerge soon.

I wouldn’t include Pulos due to his bat flip when he hits a HR.  Not as classy as Federer or Rivera, but still a great champion.

We talked about how often we want the top dog to win.  From what I remember, we don’t want the top team or top player to have a 50% chance of winning the championship.  Even Tiger I think was 2:1 against.  I think somewhere around 2:1 to 4:1 for the top dog sounds about right.

So, if you give odds for the Big 3 (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) at 3:1, 4:1, 5:1 to win (in whatever order you want), that gives the top 3 a 62% chance of winning a tournament.  (Almost 75% if you extend to top 4.)

If you instead make it 5:1, 6:1, 7:1 odds of winning, the top 3 will win 43% of the time.  (Just over 50% if you extend to top 4.)

Or think March Madness.  How often do the top 4 schools end up winning?  Do you like that or not?  That’ll tell you what you kinda want in your competition.

Interestingly, Federer, by his own admission, behaved quite poorly on the court during his early teens. In fact, his parents were embarrassed by the anger and frustration he directed at himself during tournaments. Federer only changed his behavior when a tennis coach convinced him that his tantrums wasted energy and caused him to lose focus, thereby negatively affecting his game.

"How many of the last 20 Grand Slam semi didn’t include at least two of Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic? I’m guessing 3 or 4”

From 2007 AU through 2012 AU (21 slams), I can only think of 2007 AU (Federer only), 2009 French (Federer only), and 2010 French (Nadal only).  Last year, out of 16 semi slots, only 2 were not from the Top 4.

Out of 32 slams from 2004-2011, only three were not won by Federer (15), Nadal (10), or Djokovic (4).

It really is amazing how good they have been.

Women’s tennis’ basic problem is simple: injuries.

The best two players in the world (Serena Williams and Kim Clijsters) are injured so much they miss a lot of tournaments and don’t accumulate the ranking points to rank where they should.  When they’re fit, they come into a tournament ranked at 12 or so and tear through the draw.  Sharapova is similar if not quite as good as those two - but is having a period of being less injured at the moment.

The world number 1 (Wozniacki) has a game perfect for avoiding getting injured, and still playing a full schedule every year.  She’s also very consistent - she always loses to the really top players and beats everyone else.  Given that the really top players are rarely there, she wins a lot of tournaments.  The number 3 (Azarenka) is similar.

The player who might break through this problem is Petra Kvitova.  She’s inconsistent, but that means that her best is really really good and she seems to be managing to produce her best at the majors.  If that’s actually an ability and not a coincidence, then she’ll probably be a deserved world number 1.

It seems that injuries is not being modeled well, for ranking purposes.

I understand that you don’t want to give points to someone who doesn’t play, but the reality is that when Serena comes back from a prolonged absence, she performs better than her rankings.

I’d like to see Jeff Sackmann or the other tennis-quants quantify this.

Basically, give players “replacement-level” points.  If a #1 ranked player doesn’t play for a year, consider that player to have performed as if they were the #20th ranked player in the injury year (or something like that).  Mario Lemieux, Michael Jordan, Strasburg, Smoltz, etc, when they come back from a prolonged absence, don’t count as if they did zero in the prior year.

@8 - As far as I know, the tournaments are not required to seed according to the rankings. However, I remember situations in the past where the majors have received a great deal of flak for deviating more than 1 or 2 positions from the rankings.

What is gained/lost by adjusting the rankings to reflect current true talent vs. rewarding performance?  I haven’t thought this through yet and am looking to hear what you guys think.

@6 - the consistency of results on the Men’s side is truly remarkable.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/bruce_jenkins/01/24/Nadal.Federer/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_wr_a1

Fun article.  I liked the closing paragraph:

“Now comes the 27th encounter, housing all of the excitement and anticipation we’ve known for years, with an added twist. The old guy seems downright youthful. The 25-year-old feels the ravages of time. And the tennis year gets a very early jolt of significance.”