[ColoradoTree]

A quick comment on UTR.  It's been around for several years, and it's been used in college tennis for at least a few years (as part of seeding fields in some tournaments, and it's factored into the preseason rankings, I believe).  But it hasn't achieved the same notoriety as ITA rankings.  And to be honest, this is the first year I've paid closer attention to UTRs (Universal Tennis Ratings) as part of the match analysis process, mainly thanks to Bobby Knight of College Tennis Today using them as part of his match previews (anyone can look up a player's UTR by signing up for free on the website, but to do so in an efficient and useful way requires a subscription, and I'm not gonna pay to write this stuff).  I thought it might prove useful to look at how predictive they are, and really, at what point a differential becomes meaningful in assessing how likely a player is to win a particular match.  Obviously, it'll never be that good, because at the end of it all, they're human beings, not robots, and if you're only slightly better than a player, you shouldn't expect to beat them all of the time, and this is still just one way of looking at a match and should not be used to the exclusion of others.  UTR's early advocates said that a 1-point differential was usually the threshold for a competitive match, but if we start collecting more data over time, maybe we can start gleaning some insights into how likely or unlikely an upset is, given the disparity in UTR between two players.  So, if you'll indulge me, here's how we did against Michigan vs. expectations.

1. Gordon had a 0.18 advantage over Fahey (the preseason #6 player in the country), so you'd expect a very close match, and that's what you got in the first set, with Fahey winning 7-5.  But Fahey was leading 5-1 in the second. 

2. Lord had a 0.37 advantage over Minor, and she steamrolled her, 6-1, 6-2. Certainly not what I'd expect given that difference.

3. Lampl had a 0.19 advantage, and was leading 7-6, 2-2 when the match was abandoned. That feels about right?

4. Arbuthnott had a 0.30 advantage, but had lost the first set 6-4 and was on serve 4-4 in the second.  Seems a bit off, but if she pulls out the second and wins the third solidly, then that would be in line with expectations.

5. Shin had a big gap, 0.88, over Ruder-Hook, so a 6-4, 6-1 win seems right there.  

6. Higuchi had a similarly big gap, 1.26, over Lorenzini, and destroyed her, 6-1, 6-0.  The only match exceeding a 1-point differential, and it was the least competitive.  

So far, the working hypothesis of "the bigger the UTR margin, the less competitive the match" seems fair, but that's not a very useful hypothesis, now is it?  I'd love for the people behind UTR to start putting out numbers based on all the matches they have in their database to say, "when you have a .3 advantage, that means you're X% likely to win" or something similar.  But alas, we do not yet have such a thing.

[ColoradoTree]

A quick comment on UTR.  It's been around for several years, and it's been used in college tennis for at least a few years (as part of seeding fields in some tournaments, and it's factored into the preseason rankings, I believe).  But it hasn't achieved the same notoriety as ITA rankings.  And to be honest, this is the first year I've paid closer attention to UTRs (Universal Tennis Ratings) as part of the match analysis process, mainly thanks to Bobby Knight of College Tennis Today using them as part of his match previews (anyone can look up a player's UTR by signing up for free on the website, but to do so in an efficient and useful way requires a subscription, and I'm not gonna pay to write this stuff).  I thought it might prove useful to look at how predictive they are, and really, at what point a differential becomes meaningful in assessing how likely a player is to win a particular match.  Obviously, it'll never be that good, because at the end of it all, they're human beings, not robots, and if you're only slightly better than a player, you shouldn't expect to beat them all of the time, and this is still just one way of looking at a match and should not be used to the exclusion of others.  UTR's early advocates said that a 1-point differential was usually the threshold for a competitive match, but if we start collecting more data over time, maybe we can start gleaning some insights into how likely or unlikely an upset is, given the disparity in UTR between two players.  So, if you'll indulge me, here's how we did against Michigan vs. expectations.

1. Gordon had a 0.18 advantage over Fahey (the preseason #6 player in the country), so you'd expect a very close match, and that's what you got in the first set, with Fahey winning 7-5.  But Fahey was leading 5-1 in the second. 

2. Lord had a 0.37 advantage over Minor, and she steamrolled her, 6-1, 6-2. Certainly not what I'd expect given that difference.

3. Lampl had a 0.19 advantage, and was leading 7-6, 2-2 when the match was abandoned. That feels about right?

4. Arbuthnott had a 0.30 advantage, but had lost the first set 6-4 and was on serve 4-4 in the second.  Seems a bit off, but if she pulls out the second and wins the third solidly, then that would be in line with expectations.

5. Shin had a big gap, 0.88, over Ruder-Hook, so a 6-4, 6-1 win seems right there.  

6. Higuchi had a similarly big gap, 1.26, over Lorenzini, and destroyed her, 6-1, 6-0.  The only match exceeding a 1-point differential, and it was the least competitive.  

So far, the working hypothesis of "the bigger the UTR margin, the less competitive the match" seems fair, but that's not a very useful hypothesis, now is it?  I'd love for the people behind UTR to start putting out numbers based on all the matches they have in their database to say, "when you have a .3 advantage, that means you're X% likely to win" or something similar.  But alas, we do not yet have such a thing.