Let's get your thought son Jeremy Rosen's first article, "Net Approaches in Pro Tennis: A New Analysis"
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Net Approaches in Pro Tennis: A New Analysis
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by doctorhl View PostThe article demonstrates how hard it is to define success in sport performance because of confounding variables. Confounding variables complicate “ cookie cutter” templates, whether used for physical or mental performance
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Perhaps Rosen would consider Craig's misleading analysis similar to Simpson's Paradox. Where showing a high result by one measure can distort another. For example: Federer loses a lot of 5-set matches, a higher percentage than one would expect for his overall success. But, that can be explained because he rarely loses big matches before a deciding set. So, it's actually a sign of strength.
Wiki "Simpson's paradox, which goes by several names, is a phenomenon in probability and statistics, in which a trend appears in several different groups of data but disappears or reverses when these groups are combined. This result is often encountered in social-science and medical-science statistics[1][2][3] and is particularly problematic when frequency data is unduly given causal interpretations" Batting averages[edit]
A common example of Simpson's paradox involves the batting averages of players in professional baseball. It is possible for one player to have a higher batting average than another player each year for a number of years, but to have a lower batting average across all of those years. This phenomenon can occur when there are large differences in the number of at bats between the years. Mathematician Ken Ross[18] demonstrated this using the batting average of two baseball players, Derek Jeter and David Justice, during the years 1995 and 1996:[19]In both 1995 and 1996, Justice had a higher batting average (in bold type) than Jeter did. However, when the two baseball seasons are combined, Jeter shows a higher batting average than Justice. According to Ross, this phenomenon would be observed about once per year among the possible pairs of players.Derek Jeter 12/48 .250 183/582 .314 195/630 .310 David Justice 104/411 .253 45/140 .321 149/551 .270
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by jimlosaltos View PostPerhaps Rosen would consider Craig's misleading analysis similar to Simpson's Paradox. Where showing a high result by one measure can distort another. For example: Federer loses a lot of 5-set matches, a higher percentage than one would expect for his overall success. But, that can be explained because he rarely loses big matches before a deciding set. So, it's actually a sign of strength.
Wiki "Simpson's paradox, which goes by several names, is a phenomenon in probability and statistics, in which a trend appears in several different groups of data but disappears or reverses when these groups are combined. This result is often encountered in social-science and medical-science statistics[1][2][3] and is particularly problematic when frequency data is unduly given causal interpretations" Batting averages[edit]
A common example of Simpson's paradox involves the batting averages of players in professional baseball. It is possible for one player to have a higher batting average than another player each year for a number of years, but to have a lower batting average across all of those years. This phenomenon can occur when there are large differences in the number of at bats between the years. Mathematician Ken Ross[18] demonstrated this using the batting average of two baseball players, Derek Jeter and David Justice, during the years 1995 and 1996:[19]In both 1995 and 1996, Justice had a higher batting average (in bold type) than Jeter did. However, when the two baseball seasons are combined, Jeter shows a higher batting average than Justice. According to Ross, this phenomenon would be observed about once per year among the possible pairs of players.Derek Jeter 12/48 .250 183/582 .314 195/630 .310 David Justice 104/411 .253 45/140 .321 149/551 .270 Last edited by jeremyrosen; 08-07-2020, 05:47 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by jeremyrosen View PostYes, Craig's analysis can at times be an example of Simpson's paradox. Specifically when there's a situation in which you're less likely to win when approaching than when staying back both on confounders and not on confounders, yet you're more likely to win when approaching than staying back overall. In the specific match in my article, that wasn't the case, but odds are there are matches out there where that is the case.
Here is the original paper by RYAN RODENBERG is an assistant professor of sports law at Florida State University. and Jeff Sackman et al, of Tennis Abstract:
And the more reader-friendly Atlantic article:
Among players active since 1990, Federer holds the worst record in matches where the loser wins more points than the winner—but that might just be further evidence that he's the greatest.
Excerpt from ATM:
At the other end of the Simpson’s Paradox spectrum was, of course, Roger Federer. In completed matches, he was 4-24 in contests where the winner prevailed on less than 50 percent of the total points. Federer’s winning percentage in these matches (14.29 percent) was the worst among all 72 players in the sample who participated in at least 20 matches of this type during their careers. This result surprised us, as it differed wildly from other players who had similarly won multiple Grand Slam singles titles. Andre Agassi, Rafael Nadal, Pete Sampras, Sergi Bruguera, Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten were all .500 or better in Simpson’s Paradox matches. Jim Courier was the only player worse than 50-50 in such matches, with a non-alarming 11-15 record.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by jeremyrosen View Post
Yup! Templates have an important purpose for understanding the game, but it's essential to put them in context.
Craig wrote that the net yields a 70% advantage today and yesterday. The problem is that people hardly come in these days. I wondered if this was not due to people being passed more often.
70% of 10 times a match does not equal 70% of 60 times a match.
If players are coming in less, then they may be simply reacting to what is happening on the court.
Regressions are nice but even better would be an experiment. Ask players to practice certain styles and then calculate win percentages.
What happens if SABR was used a lot more?
What happens if someone actually serves and volleys?
These would be very interesting experiments that might or might not confirm the regressions.
Tennis is so homogeneous these days that there are no natural experiments left.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by jimlosaltos View Post
Ah, found the articles about Fed and Simpson's Paradox, but it was about losing matches where the winner won less than 50% of total points. At that time in 2014 Fed had the worst such record, winning 4 vs 24 loses when winning more points.
Here is the original paper by RYAN RODENBERG is an assistant professor of sports law at Florida State University. and Jeff Sackman et al, of Tennis Abstract:
And the more reader-friendly Atlantic article:
Among players active since 1990, Federer holds the worst record in matches where the loser wins more points than the winner—but that might just be further evidence that he's the greatest.
Excerpt from ATM:
At the other end of the Simpson’s Paradox spectrum was, of course, Roger Federer. In completed matches, he was 4-24 in contests where the winner prevailed on less than 50 percent of the total points. Federer’s winning percentage in these matches (14.29 percent) was the worst among all 72 players in the sample who participated in at least 20 matches of this type during their careers. This result surprised us, as it differed wildly from other players who had similarly won multiple Grand Slam singles titles. Andre Agassi, Rafael Nadal, Pete Sampras, Sergi Bruguera, Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, and Gustavo Kuerten were all .500 or better in Simpson’s Paradox matches. Jim Courier was the only player worse than 50-50 in such matches, with a non-alarming 11-15 record.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by arturohernandez View Post
Thank you for this article!!!!
Craig wrote that the net yields a 70% advantage today and yesterday. The problem is that people hardly come in these days. I wondered if this was not due to people being passed more often.
70% of 10 times a match does not equal 70% of 60 times a match.
If players are coming in less, then they may be simply reacting to what is happening on the court.
Regressions are nice but even better would be an experiment. Ask players to practice certain styles and then calculate win percentages.
What happens if SABR was used a lot more?
What happens if someone actually serves and volleys?
These would be very interesting experiments that might or might not confirm the regressions.
Tennis is so homogeneous these days that there are no natural experiments left.
Last edited by jeremyrosen; 08-12-2020, 08:04 PM.
Comment
-
Thanks for the article. Some interesting ways to look at the stats. For me personally I am comfortable with not worrying about Confounders or maybe it’s just simpler for me to understand. I personally feel if someone sets the point up well or selects the correct time to come in, that is a part of the Net game which is inseparable. A great net player will use the previous serve or approach to creat the floater, they will also use their ground strokes or tactics to set up a ball that is easier to approach on. No one will purposely give you a short ball or a floater. You earn it with your game and so I am happy to count all approaches. But I think the article was very interesting.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by drsous View PostThanks for the article. Some interesting ways to look at the stats. For me personally I am comfortable with not worrying about Confounders or maybe it’s just simpler for me to understand. I personally feel if someone sets the point up well or selects the correct time to come in, that is a part of the Net game which is inseparable. A great net player will use the previous serve or approach to creat the floater, they will also use their ground strokes or tactics to set up a ball that is easier to approach on. No one will purposely give you a short ball or a floater. You earn it with your game and so I am happy to count all approaches. But I think the article was very interesting.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by jeremyrosen View Post
That's a very good point that 70% of 10 times is not the same thing as 70% of 60 times. Also, it would be great to get players to participate in those sort of experiments, but the experiments would be hard to control because players will probably still be more likely to come to net if they're confident it's going to work than if they aren't confident. We'd need a player who's willing to test out strategies even if he or she ends up losing as a result.
At some point, the two hander felt unnatural to her. Coaches complained for years to me about her one hander. My son even said it was a mistake. There is a reason that very few women hit one handers these days. She has yet to play another girl who hits with a one handed backhand. ZERO. The thinking is that girls need that other hand in order to hit a good backhand.
We have no skin in the game. A college scholarship would be great but is not our goal. We have the luxury of her playing with one hand. I have watched her backhand let her down at times. Players would just key in on the shot. But she kept working at it and it has gotten better. At 15 she is able to stay in rallies and vary the spin to that troubles other players. While girls with two handers will show some improvement in their backhands, my daughter's one hander is likely to keep improving even more.
I think natural experiments are important for tennis. I am waiting for some player to decide to serve and volley just for the heck of it. I have asked my daughter to do it sometimes when she gets bored of serving and playing points. Maybe I will ask her to do it more. When was the last time we saw a woman with a one handed backhand serve and volley?
Mauresmo? Navratilova?
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by arturohernandez View Post
My daughter decided she wanted to switch from a two handed to a one handed topspin backhand at the age of 11. My son who is six years older did the same around the age of 12. I hit with a one handed backhand.
At some point, the two hander felt unnatural to her. Coaches complained for years to me about her one hander. My son even said it was a mistake. There is a reason that very few women hit one handers these days. She has yet to play another girl who hits with a one handed backhand. ZERO. The thinking is that girls need that other hand in order to hit a good backhand.
We have no skin in the game. A college scholarship would be great but is not our goal. We have the luxury of her playing with one hand. I have watched her backhand let her down at times. Players would just key in on the shot. But she kept working at it and it has gotten better. At 15 she is able to stay in rallies and vary the spin to that troubles other players. While girls with two handers will show some improvement in their backhands, my daughter's one hander is likely to keep improving even more.
I think natural experiments are important for tennis. I am waiting for some player to decide to serve and volley just for the heck of it. I have asked my daughter to do it sometimes when she gets bored of serving and playing points. Maybe I will ask her to do it more. When was the last time we saw a woman with a one handed backhand serve and volley?
Mauresmo? Navratilova?
Crack the whip. Hire a personal trainer. She can do it I tell you. Good on you arturohernandez teaching your offspring something more important than tennis. It's about life...life choices.don_budge
Performance Analysthttps://www.tennisplayer.net/bulleti...ilies/cool.png
Comment
-
Originally posted by arturohernandez View Post
My daughter decided she wanted to switch from a two handed to a one handed topspin backhand at the age of 11. My son who is six years older did the same around the age of 12. I hit with a one handed backhand.
At some point, the two hander felt unnatural to her. Coaches complained for years to me about her one hander. My son even said it was a mistake. There is a reason that very few women hit one handers these days. She has yet to play another girl who hits with a one handed backhand. ZERO. The thinking is that girls need that other hand in order to hit a good backhand.
We have no skin in the game. A college scholarship would be great but is not our goal. We have the luxury of her playing with one hand. I have watched her backhand let her down at times. Players would just key in on the shot. But she kept working at it and it has gotten better. At 15 she is able to stay in rallies and vary the spin to that troubles other players. While girls with two handers will show some improvement in their backhands, my daughter's one hander is likely to keep improving even more.
I think natural experiments are important for tennis. I am waiting for some player to decide to serve and volley just for the heck of it. I have asked my daughter to do it sometimes when she gets bored of serving and playing points. Maybe I will ask her to do it more. When was the last time we saw a woman with a one handed backhand serve and volley?
Mauresmo? Navratilova?
- Likes 1
Comment
Who's Online
Collapse
There are currently 8651 users online. 6 members and 8645 guests.
Most users ever online was 139,261 at 09:55 PM on 08-18-2024.
- johnyandell ,
- ,
- nta_academy ,
- mischa
Comment