31 Jul 2004 18:20:25 |

Hops |

Toronto SF rankings |

Final is rematch of last years' SF, the only time Roddick has defeated Federer. re: the gap between #2 and #3 - it is amazing, wg. I have rankings going back ten years, this is the largest it's ever been: Roddick 5185 over Coria 3195 gap 1990 62% previous high 2/17/03 Agassi 4495 over Ferrero 3070 gap 1425 46% 1 (1) 5955 Federer, Roger* 2 (2) 5185 Roddick, Andy* 3 (3) 3195 Coria, Guillermo 4 (4) 2625 Moya, Carlos 5 (6) 2465 Nalbandian, David 6 (5) 2340 Henman, Tim 7 (7) 2330 Ferrero, Juan Carlos 8 (8) 2095 Schuettler, Rainer 9 (9) 1995 Gaudio, Gaston 10 (10) 1945 Hewitt, Lleyton 11 (11) 1890 Agassi, Andre 12 (12) 1630 Grosjean, Sebastien 13 (13) 1575 Massu, Nicolas 14 (14) 1430 Safin, Marat 15 (15) 1385 Srichaphan, Paradorn 16 (17) 1325 Chela, Juan Ignacio 17 (16) 1319 Pavel, Andrei 18 (25) 1250 Kiefer, Nicolas 19 (19) 1220 Gonzalez, Fernando 20 (18) 1210 Fish, Mardy 21 (23) 1200 Kuerten, Gustavo 22 (21) 1170 Spadea, Vincent 23 (20) 1168 Hrbaty, Dominik 24 (22) 1165 Novak, Jiri 25 (24) 1120 Schalken, Sjeng 26 (26) 1110 Ljubicic, Ivan 27 (27) 1075 Robredo, Tommy 28 (28) 1061 Ancic, Mario 29 (29) 1050 Dent, Taylor 30 (30) 1035 Lopez, Feliciano 31 (33) 1014 Johansson, Joachim 32 (31) 984 Canas, Guillermo 33 (34) 925 Mirnyi, Max 34 (32) 911 Verdasco, Fernando 35 (36) 878 Arazi, Hicham |

31 Jul 2004 20:39:36 |

Robert B. Waltz |

Re: Toronto SF rankings |

In article <IrqdnY66K4b82JHcRVn-pg@giganews.com >, "Hops" <kev8128nossssspam@yahoo.com > wrote: > Final is rematch of last years' SF, the only time Roddick has defeated > Federer. re: the gap between #2 and #3 - it is amazing, wg. I have > rankings going back ten years, this is the largest it's ever been: > > Roddick 5185 over Coria 3195 gap 1990 62% > > previous high > > 2/17/03 Agassi 4495 over Ferrero 3070 gap 1425 46% Although we should note that a little of that gap is fluke, because of the presence of an extra Masters Series for Roddick. Come two weeks from now, it will probably be a little closer to the Agassi/Ferrero number. Of course, that's still at the high end of the scale. But even *that* is unlikely to last. The other side of it is the strong clumping of the players from #4 to #7, who could, I believe, have ended in *any* order after this week. And Coria is wearing back toward that group. It's not so much. that #1 and #2 are vastly exceeding the average (though their results are, I think, better than the average), but that the mid-level guys are so close together. Another point: The data from before Required and Optional isn't really relevant. Prior to that, of course, players could only count 14 events, which meant that their maximum totals were about 800 points less than they are now. Of course, no one ever equalled the maximum -- but the principle does stand, and it will be precisely the top players who will be most likely to have big points in tournaments #15-#18. -- A man can always maintain his convictions in the face of apparently hostile evidence if he is prepared to make the necessary ad hoc assumptions. But... a proposition whose validity we are resolved to maintain in the face of any experience is not a hypothesis at all, but a definition. -- A. J. Ayer |

31 Jul 2004 19:06:17 |

Hops |

Re: Toronto SF rankings |

"Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com > wrote in message news:waltzmn-7295BF.20393631072004@corp.supernews.com... > In article <IrqdnY66K4b82JHcRVn-pg@giganews.com>, > "Hops" <kev8128nossssspam@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Final is rematch of last years' SF, the only time Roddick has defeated > > Federer. re: the gap between #2 and #3 - it is amazing, wg. I have > > rankings going back ten years, this is the largest it's ever been: > > > > Roddick 5185 over Coria 3195 gap 1990 62% > > > > previous high > > > > 2/17/03 Agassi 4495 over Ferrero 3070 gap 1425 46% > > Although we should note that a little of that gap is fluke, > because of the presence of an extra Masters Series for > Roddick. Yes. Come two weeks from now, it will probably be a > little closer to the Agassi/Ferrero number. Of course, > that's still at the high end of the scale. But even *that* > is unlikely to last. extreme data points, by defintion, usually do not last. : ) > The other side of it is the strong clumping of the > players from #4 to #7, who could, I believe, have > ended in *any* order after this week. And Coria is > wearing back toward that group. It's not so much. > that #1 and #2 are vastly exceeding the average > (though their results are, I think, better than the > average), but that the mid-level guys are so close > together. It's Federer and Roddick. Since they switched systems in 2000: avg. score of #1/#2: 4163 Federer/Roddick: 5645 (after tomorrow) avg. score of #4-#7: 2640 Moya/Nalb./Henman/JCF: 2440 > Another point: The data from before Required and Optional > isn't really relevant. Prior to that, of course, players > could only count 14 events, which meant that their maximum > totals were about 800 points less than they are now. Of > course, no one ever equalled the maximum -- but the > principle does stand, and it will be precisely the top > players who will be most likely to have big points in > tournaments #15-#18. fwiw, results 1995-1999: avg. score of #1/#2: 4141 avg. score of #4-#7: 2820 (unsure if best 14 applied for all those years) |

31 Jul 2004 22:01:43 |

Robert B. Waltz |

Re: Toronto SF rankings |

"Hops" <kev8128nossssspam@yahoo.com > wrote: [ ... ] > Come two weeks from now, it will probably be a > > little closer to the Agassi/Ferrero number. Of course, > > that's still at the high end of the scale. But even *that* > > is unlikely to last. > > extreme data points, by defintion, usually do not last. : ) Of course not. But there are two ways an extreme can fail to last: It can regress toward the mean, or something even more extreme can come along. :-) > > The other side of it is the strong clumping of the > > players from #4 to #7, who could, I believe, have > > ended in *any* order after this week. And Coria is > > wearing back toward that group. It's not so much. > > that #1 and #2 are vastly exceeding the average > > (though their results are, I think, better than the > > average), but that the mid-level guys are so close > > together. > > > It's Federer and Roddick. Since they switched systems in 2000: > > avg. score of #1/#2: 4163 > Federer/Roddick: 5645 (after tomorrow) > > avg. score of #4-#7: 2640 > Moya/Nalb./Henman/JCF: 2440 But that's not quite the same thing. You're arguing that #4-#7 are about where they usually are, or a little behind. This I do not question. But it's not the point. What I'm talking about is not the mean but the standard deviation. You could have a mean of, say, 2500 by having players at 2650 2550 2450 2350 -- or by having players at 3100 2700 2300 1900. Same average, much bigger gap from #2 to #4. All I'm pointing out is that the gap can increase at both ends. Most of it is Federer and Roddick moving far ahead of everyone else. But the other part is that everyone else is falling: Coria failed to defend three optional titles, Moya failed to defend Umag, Henman inevitably failed to defend Washington, etc. > > Another point: The data from before Required and Optional > > isn't really relevant. Prior to that, of course, players > > could only count 14 events, which meant that their maximum > > totals were about 800 points less than they are now. Of > > course, no one ever equalled the maximum -- but the > > principle does stand, and it will be precisely the top > > players who will be most likely to have big points in > > tournaments #15-#18. > > > fwiw, results 1995-1999: > > avg. score of #1/#2: 4141 > > avg. score of #4-#7: 2820 > > (unsure if best 14 applied for all those years) Interesting. So I'm half right. :-) But I guess I'm not surprised that #4 through #7 were stronger under Best 14 -- because they weren't dragged down by inability to count their results at lesser events. Somewhere in here, there is a column idea. Now I just have to find it. Thanks for the thoughts. :-) -- A man can always maintain his convictions in the face of apparently hostile evidence if he is prepared to make the necessary ad hoc assumptions. But... a proposition whose validity we are resolved to maintain in the face of any experience is not a hypothesis at all, but a definition. -- A. J. Ayer |

31 Jul 2004 23:18:06 |

Michael Lockhart |

Re: Toronto SF rankings |

"Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com > wrote in message news:waltzmn-1E6C57.22014331072004@corp.supernews.com... > "Hops" <kev8128nossssspam@yahoo.com> wrote: > [ ... ] > > > Come two weeks from now, it will probably be a > > > little closer to the Agassi/Ferrero number. Of course, > > > that's still at the high end of the scale. But even *that* > > > is unlikely to last. > > > > extreme data points, by defintion, usually do not last. : ) > > Of course not. But there are two ways an extreme can fail > to last: It can regress toward the mean, or something even > more extreme can come along. :-) We know which of those is more probable, of course. :-) > > > The other side of it is the strong clumping of the > > > players from #4 to #7, who could, I believe, have > > > ended in *any* order after this week. And Coria is > > > wearing back toward that group. It's not so much. > > > that #1 and #2 are vastly exceeding the average > > > (though their results are, I think, better than the > > > average), but that the mid-level guys are so close > > > together. > > > > > > It's Federer and Roddick. Since they switched systems in 2000: > > > > avg. score of #1/#2: 4163 > > Federer/Roddick: 5645 (after tomorrow) > > > > avg. score of #4-#7: 2640 > > Moya/Nalb./Henman/JCF: 2440 > > But that's not quite the same thing. You're arguing that #4-#7 > are about where they usually are, or a little behind. This > I do not question. But it's not the point. What I'm talking > about is not the mean but the standard deviation. You could > have a mean of, say, 2500 by having players at 2650 2550 > 2450 2350 -- or by having players at 3100 2700 2300 1900. > Same average, much bigger gap from #2 to #4. All I'm pointing > out is that the gap can increase at both ends. Most of it is > Federer and Roddick moving far ahead of everyone else. But > the other part is that everyone else is falling: Coria > failed to defend three optional titles, Moya failed to defend > Umag, Henman inevitably failed to defend Washington, etc. You know, I read this post wrong and thought it was Hops who had written it. I thought, "Wow, he sounds here exactly like Robert Waltz!" Then I noticed that you were indeed the author. Funny how you can tell a person from an internet post. So, what *is* up with the standard deviation? Is it higher now, or lower, or the same? Michael |

31 Jul 2004 20:37:02 |

Hops |

Re: Toronto SF rankings |

"Michael Lockhart" <ml1000@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:RgZOc.3288 > > > > > > It's Federer and Roddick. Since they switched systems in 2000: > > > > > > avg. score of #1/#2: 4163 > > > Federer/Roddick: 5645 (after tomorrow) > > > > > > avg. score of #4-#7: 2640 > > > Moya/Nalb./Henman/JCF: 2440 > > > > But that's not quite the same thing. You're arguing that #4-#7 > > are about where they usually are, or a little behind. This > > I do not question. But it's not the point. What I'm talking > > about is not the mean but the standard deviation. You could > > have a mean of, say, 2500 by having players at 2650 2550 > > 2450 2350 -- or by having players at 3100 2700 2300 1900. > > Same average, much bigger gap from #2 to #4. All I'm pointing > > out is that the gap can increase at both ends. Most of it is > > Federer and Roddick moving far ahead of everyone else. But > > the other part is that everyone else is falling: Coria > > failed to defend three optional titles, Moya failed to defend > > Umag, Henman inevitably failed to defend Washington, etc. > > You know, I read this post wrong and thought it was Hops who had written it. > I thought, "Wow, he sounds here exactly like Robert Waltz!" Then I noticed > that you were indeed the author. Funny how you can tell a person from an > internet post. So, what *is* up with the standard deviation? Is it higher > now, or lower, or the same? I can run some numbers and throw up a few graphs, but first realize that the top x players in tennis do not constitute a normal distribution curve - they are the _far right hand portion_ of the curve. IOW, this part: x | x | x | # of players x | x | x | ------------------------------------- Ranking Points It is quite common for the #1 player to be 1000 points ahead of the #2 player. The #9 player is never 1000 points ahead of the #10 player. |

01 Aug 2004 11:03:06 |

Robert B. Waltz |

Re: Toronto SF rankings |

"Hops" <kev8128nossssspam@yahoo.com > wrote: [ ... ] > > You know, I read this post wrong and thought it was Hops who had written > it. > > I thought, "Wow, he sounds here exactly like Robert Waltz!" Then I > noticed > > that you were indeed the author. Funny how you can tell a person from an > > internet post. So, what *is* up with the standard deviation? Is it > higher > > now, or lower, or the same? > > > I can run some numbers and throw up a few graphs, but first realize that the > top x players in tennis do not constitute a normal distribution curve - they > are the _far right hand portion_ of the curve. IOW, this part: > > > > x | > x | > x | # of players > x | > x | > x | > ------------------------------------- > Ranking Points > > > > > > It is quite common for the #1 player to be 1000 points ahead of the #2 > player. The #9 player is never 1000 points ahead of the #10 player. You could perhaps handle this by plotting the log of the points. Might be interesting. But I doubt it's worth it. (Yes, even *I* doubt it. :-) I guess, ultimately, the point I'm trying to make is this: There are always a certain number of gaps in the Top Ten (or anywhere else). An individual gap will grow or shrink, but the overall picture doesn't change much. If anyone is interested, we should also observe that the tennis curve probably *won't* be truly "normal" (i.e. it won't be a proper fraction of a bell-shaped curve), even taking into account the fact that points are awarded discretely (you can't earn .00143 points). The reason is economic: The top players can make a living, #1000 can't. So you get a lot more turnover at the lower levels. -- A man can always maintain his convictions in the face of apparently hostile evidence if he is prepared to make the necessary ad hoc assumptions. But... a proposition whose validity we are resolved to maintain in the face of any experience is not a hypothesis at all, but a definition. -- A. J. Ayer |

01 Aug 2004 21:20:28 |

Sakari Lund |

Re: Toronto SF rankings |

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 18:20:25 -0700, "Hops" <kev8128nossssspam@yahoo.com > wrote: >Final is rematch of last years' SF, the only time Roddick has defeated >Federer. re: the gap between #2 and #3 - it is amazing, wg. I have >rankings going back ten years, this is the largest it's ever been: > >Roddick 5185 over Coria 3195 gap 1990 62% Would be a lot closer if Coria managed to win one of his match points at FO final. |

01 Aug 2004 17:18:46 |

Hops |

Re: Toronto SF rankings |

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@pp.inet.fi > wrote in message news:410d5f5a.3898072@news.inet.fi... > On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 18:20:25 -0700, "Hops" > <kev8128nossssspam@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Final is rematch of last years' SF, the only time Roddick has defeated > >Federer. re: the gap between #2 and #3 - it is amazing, wg. I have > >rankings going back ten years, this is the largest it's ever been: > > > >Roddick 5185 over Coria 3195 gap 1990 62% > > Would be a lot closer if Coria managed to win one of his match points > at FO final. Not much, 300 points. gap would still be record. |