Ben, is there any change in doubles handicapping from the idea that the system assumes the lesser player in a pair always plays up? In friendly matches where everyone wants to hit balls, that is not necessarily what people want to do.
I have given some thought to the notion that there could be a "sides-only" doubles calculator (i.e. if you step across the center line you lose the point), but I don't have any data to calibrate it correctly. A variation of "social" vs "competitive" assuming social matches haven't put the weaker player up doesn't work as not every pair actually does that.
Interesting final sentence of your reply “not every pair actually does that.” Seems to place more emphasis on computing than on people. The current system is somehow better despite the fact that in friendly matches “most pairs actually don’t do that.” Continuing with a well known and obvious departure from reality sharply diminishes the value of doubles handicaps.
There might be something in the idea of having two handicaps for each of singles and doubles for each player - one competitive and one social.
This would allow distinction between those doubles matches where the four players are out to have fun from those where the aim is to win at all costs.
I'd also then advocate for the majority of handicap singles to go down as results affecting social handicap only unless both players agree - because I've previously thought that having a handicap for level tennis that's separate to one for handicap tennis would be better for players whose only handicap matches involve giving points away...
The data from the social matches would be useful to refine the handicap system, but wouldn't affect the handicaps used to rank or seed players for tournaments.
Still, it's really nice to see the system being refined based on data. It's a wonderful thing that works very well for its primary purpose of ensuring that no matter which court we turn up to, we can play someone socially where each player has a reasonably equal chance of winning in the majority of cases.
Thanks Ben and your colleagues on the handicap committee for this fantastic data analysis work and then working thru the appropriate update policy.
As someone who's played a lot the last decade, interesting to see that the data bears out - at least partially - what players anecdotally often say over a post-match drink ;)
It occurs to me the large handicap diff matches add a big element of psychological pressure on the lower h'cap player to avoid almost all unforced errors … somewhat akin to when taking penalty kicks in soccer ;)
This analysis over a large set of results is a way to quantify & readjust handicaps to take into account the real but otherwise hard-to-quantify aspects like this.
Ben, is there any change in doubles handicapping from the idea that the system assumes the lesser player in a pair always plays up? In friendly matches where everyone wants to hit balls, that is not necessarily what people want to do.
I have given some thought to the notion that there could be a "sides-only" doubles calculator (i.e. if you step across the center line you lose the point), but I don't have any data to calibrate it correctly. A variation of "social" vs "competitive" assuming social matches haven't put the weaker player up doesn't work as not every pair actually does that.
Interesting final sentence of your reply “not every pair actually does that.” Seems to place more emphasis on computing than on people. The current system is somehow better despite the fact that in friendly matches “most pairs actually don’t do that.” Continuing with a well known and obvious departure from reality sharply diminishes the value of doubles handicaps.
There might be something in the idea of having two handicaps for each of singles and doubles for each player - one competitive and one social.
This would allow distinction between those doubles matches where the four players are out to have fun from those where the aim is to win at all costs.
I'd also then advocate for the majority of handicap singles to go down as results affecting social handicap only unless both players agree - because I've previously thought that having a handicap for level tennis that's separate to one for handicap tennis would be better for players whose only handicap matches involve giving points away...
The data from the social matches would be useful to refine the handicap system, but wouldn't affect the handicaps used to rank or seed players for tournaments.
Still, it's really nice to see the system being refined based on data. It's a wonderful thing that works very well for its primary purpose of ensuring that no matter which court we turn up to, we can play someone socially where each player has a reasonably equal chance of winning in the majority of cases.
Thanks Ben and your colleagues on the handicap committee for this fantastic data analysis work and then working thru the appropriate update policy.
As someone who's played a lot the last decade, interesting to see that the data bears out - at least partially - what players anecdotally often say over a post-match drink ;)
It occurs to me the large handicap diff matches add a big element of psychological pressure on the lower h'cap player to avoid almost all unforced errors … somewhat akin to when taking penalty kicks in soccer ;)
This analysis over a large set of results is a way to quantify & readjust handicaps to take into account the real but otherwise hard-to-quantify aspects like this.