Another Look at Most Dominant Player

[El Dude]

@Moxie, the author of the article was talking about a streak in which a player never missed more than one final in a row. For Novak that was 25 Slams, from USO 2010 to USO 2016. It isn't my criteria but the author's, but I do think a rather useful one because it displays extended dominance.

It is interesting to note that Novak's average result in terms of ATP points is much lower than some of the other streaks. I think this points to his incredible consistency, but that during that time he wasn't hugely dominant - just kind of dominant.

 

[Moxie]

Agreed, when Ralph was young, Roger dominated. When Ralph was old, Novak (who is almost the same age as Ralph) dominated. Net result is that Rafa never dominated. We are on the same page. No disagreements.

It gets rather old that there is a lot of mention made that Rafa and Nole are only a year difference in age, but at the same time, no one wants to talk about Novak's results prior to 2011. In tennis years, by that calculation, they are not nearly the same age. Pick one, or the other, but you can't have both.

 

[El Dude]

Novak's streak: 25 Slams, average 1397 points. 11 W, 8 F, 4 SF, 1 QF, 1 3R.
Roger's streak: 19 Slams, average 1680 points, 12 W, 7 F, 1 SF.
Rafa's streak: 15 Slams, average 1414 points, 8 W, 4 F, 1 QF, 1 2R, 1 1R.

Roger's streak, while shorter, was far more dominant. Also, it bears mentioning that Rafa's streak of 15 is actually somewhat misleading in that he also skipped two Slams within it.

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie, the author of the article was talking about a streak in which a player never missed more than one final in a row. For Novak that was 25 Slams, from USO 2010 to USO 2016. It isn't my criteria but the author's, but I do think a rather useful one because it displays extended dominance.

It is interesting to note that Novak's average result in terms of ATP points is much lower than some of the other streaks. I think this points to his incredible consistency, but that during that time he wasn't hugely dominant - just kind of dominant.

Missing a Slam final ends a "streak", by any one else's definition of a streak. Selecting the criteria and assigning number values to these exercises will always make them somewhat subjective, but inventing a criterion is kind of egregious.

 

[El Dude]

Missing a Slam final ends a "streak", by any one else's definition of a streak. Selecting the criteria and assigning number values to these exercises will always make them somewhat subjective, but inventing a criterion is kind of egregious.

There are no number values assigned - nothing subjective. He isn’t “inventing” anything, just looking at a certain span of performance.

It is rather odd that you take such issue with this. You came in with guns a blazing defending Rafa, as if the article had been written to belittle him. These aren’t meant to be definitive measures but they do highlight certain trends.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Novak's streak: 25 Slams, average 1397 points. 11 W, 8 F, 4 SF, 1 QF, 1 3R.
Roger's streak: 19 Slams, average 1680 points, 12 W, 7 F, 1 SF.
Rafa's streak: 15 Slams, average 1414 points, 8 W, 4 F, 1 QF, 1 2R, 1 1R.

Roger's streak, while shorter, was far more dominant. Also, it bears mentioning that Rafa's streak of 15 is actually somewhat misleading in that he also skipped two Slams within it.

Yes, as per OP's definition of streak, Roger's streak is "only 19 long". But, his average points during the streak is larger than Novak's as well as Rafa's. In other words, during the period Roger was dominant, Roger dominated the field more thoroughly than either Novak or Rafa.

But, here is another interesting think. In 2005, Roger lost in SF of two consecutive slams viz., AO and RG. If you condone it and include them also, Roger's streak starts from 2003 Wimbledon. In that case, his streak length is actually 27. Moreover, his average points earned during the streak (including all 27 slam points) is 1532.96 and it is still larger than Novak's and Rafa's points.

Now, Moxie or someone else might say that I am making a relaxation just for Roger, because he is my favorite and I am biased.

But, here is a better definition of streak. Don't worry as to how many times you had hick-up. Start from any where and end where. But, it must be consecutive and must include all hick-ups one had in between also. Simply compute the average points for any duration of your choice.
Then present a single streak that you think is advantageous to your player, mention its length and average points earned.

As you can see above, Roger earned an average of 1532.96 points per slam for 27 slams in a row (compared to Novak's 25 with an average of 1397). So, the streak that I presented for Roger is both longer and stronger than Novak's streak. Novak or a fan of Novak can be in charge of presenting a single streak that presents Novak in the best light. Similarly, Ralph or a Nadalite can present a single streak that show cases Ralph. Now, compare the three streaks chosen by the three groups and see which one is better. I bet no one can top Roger's streak of 27 slams with an average of 1532.96 points per slam, neither in length nor in strength.

Note that there are two competing factors. If you want to increase the streak length, you can increase it arbitrarily as in my definition I am not imposing any conditions. However, the longer you make your player's streak length, the worse will be their average points earned per slam. So, nobody can really fool with the relaxed definition.

 

[Moxie]

There are no number values assigned - nothing subjective. He isn’t “inventing” anything, just looking at a certain span of performance.

It is rather odd that you take such issue with this. You came in with guns a blazing defending Rafa, as if the article had been written to belittle him. These aren’t meant to be definitive measures but they do highlight certain trends.

OK, I read that thing again. I don't think the author has a metric for streaks at Major finals, allowing for one miss. I think you or someone added that with the update. His graph has consecutive finals. Am I missing something?

My point of number values being assigned is about various other exercises we've seen, and you yourself have done it. As to subjective, it's always subjective when one decides what to include and what to leave out. If you'll allow me an analogy from my own field, a documentary filmmaker can try to be as unobtrusive and objective as possible, but the filmmaker still decides where to put the camera, and what to leave out of the frame. I'm not saying there's no value in this particular exercise, but I do draw a line at calling a something a "streak" when there was a loss in the middle somewhere. As to @GameSetAndMath trying to add SFs in there, yes I do object. Eventually it becomes a different exercise, right?

As to my coming out with "guns blazing" to defend Rafa, why shouldn't I? IMO, a lot of these exercises are designed to push Rafa further down in the picture, and farther away from Roger. And to push Roger's achievements that much farther up, not that he really needs that. This whole GOAT thing began around Sampras, for tennis, and the measure was Major wins. I think now some people are trying to move the goal posts.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As to @GameSetAndMath trying to add SFs in there, yes I do object. Eventually it becomes a different exercise, right?

I am asking the fan of any player to come up with a best streak for that player and show it to me. Forget about SF, I am even allowing you to include a sequence of multiple first round exits.

After all the point of streak is to show how dominant a player was. So, basically we are looking for a streak during which the average points earned per player was fairly high and the length is fairly long.

I think if we look at streaks of length 10 or more, Roger will be able to do equal or better than any other player's streak of given length.

 

[Moxie]

I am asking the fan of any player to come up with a best streak for that player and show it to me. Forget about SF, I am even allowing you to include a sequence of multiple first round exits.

After all the point of streak is to show how dominant a player was. So, basically we are looking for a streak during which the average points earned per player was fairly high and the length is fairly long.

I think if we look at streaks of length 10 or more, Roger will be able to do equal or better than any other player's streak of given length.

This becomes a different exercise, as I said. Ok, Rafa's 82-match win streak on clay. No one else is even close. If you want someone to add up the points, I invite you.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This becomes a different exercise, as I said. Ok, Rafa's 82-match win streak on clay. No one else is even close. If you want someone to add up the points, I invite you.

That is clay streak and not general streak.

 

[Moxie]

That is clay streak and not general streak.

I don't believe you qualified it that way. You said this: "I am asking the fan of any player to come up with a best streak for that player and show it to me. Forget about SF, I am even allowing you to include a sequence of multiple first round exits."

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't believe you qualified it that way. You said this: "I am asking the fan of any player to come up with a best streak for that player and show it to me. Forget about SF, I am even allowing you to include a sequence of multiple first round exits."

Don't quote things out of context. For anyone with an iota of reading comprehension, it will be clear that we are talking about a continuous string of results in Grandslam events. The SF and the first round refer to results in Grandslam events.

 

[El Dude]

OK, I read that thing again. I don't think the author has a metric for streaks at Major finals, allowing for one miss. I think you or someone added that with the update. His graph has consecutive finals. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something. He wasn't talking about streaks of consecutive major finals, but streaks of Slams in which a player never went more than one Slam without reaching a final. It could even be every other Slam missed a final, but not two consecutive...then the streak is over. I merely pointed out that since the author wrote the article, Novak's streak extended to 25, which is 6 more than Roger's. Whether or not you like his definition of "streak," that is a pretty amazing accomplishment: 25 Slams in a row in which Novak didn't miss more than one final in a row.

My point of number values being assigned is about various other exercises we've seen, and you yourself have done it.

But what does that have to do with this thread? No one--including myself--is assigning number values to anything. To be honest, I question your motive for throwing this in considering you likely know that I just got attacked for a number value system in another thread. I did no such thing in this thread, so not sure why you'd bring it up.

As to subjective, it's always subjective when one decides what to include and what to leave out. If you'll allow me an analogy from my own field, a documentary filmmaker can try to be as unobtrusive and objective as possible, but the filmmaker still decides where to put the camera, and what to leave out of the frame. I'm not saying there's no value in this particular exercise, but I do draw a line at calling a something a "streak" when there was a loss in the middle somewhere.

Absolutely. But there's no way around that! Subjectivity will always play a part - that's just the nature of the beast, we being human subjects.

I take the approach of looking at things from different perspectives - angles, if you will. No single perspective, be it straight up Slam count or complex formulas is ever going to be definitive, ever going to tell us everything. They all offer something different. In the end there's a subjective call that needs to be made.

I continually get misunderstood because of this approach, because people tend to believe that when I'm using a certain tool or perspective I'm saying that it is definitive or that it means more than just another way of looking at things. Even if I say so with a disclaimer, they still misunderstand. This is because people tend to think in a linear, either/or fashion: either something is true and definitive, or it is bullshit. I try to take a more dynamic, holistic, and both/and approach in which just about any perspective has utility, a piece of the puzzle, if you will.

Again, every perspective is just that: an angle on an issue, but not meant to be definitive.

And so it is with the author's "streak" that you take issue with, or Game's "27 consecutive Slams." It is just an angle. Take another one and discuss it.

As to @GameSetAndMath trying to add SFs in there, yes I do object. Eventually it becomes a different exercise, right?

Sure, and so what? Again, perspectives and angles.

As to my coming out with "guns blazing" to defend Rafa, why shouldn't I? IMO, a lot of these exercises are designed to push Rafa further down in the picture, and farther away from Roger. And to push Roger's achievements that much farther up, not that he really needs that. This whole GOAT thing began around Sampras, for tennis, and the measure was Major wins. I think now some people are trying to move the goal posts.

Well, my issue with the approach of endlessly defending our favorite is that it so often veers into "I'd rather be right than true." Meaning, I prefer my favorite looking the best than what the truth may or may not be. If faced with the choice of being right (or my favorite getting the edge) and a deeper or more inclusive truth, I'll take the latter - even if it is sometimes hard to swallow. At least if I can see it in the moment! Sometimes it is hard to see, and there's a subconscious tendency to favor perspectives that prop up our favorite.

Anyhow, there are no official or definitive goal posts: just changing (even evolving) perspectives. Some people still consider major wins as the singular measurement of GOATness...while I certainly agree it is the single most important factor, it is--at most--about half the picture. The rest is, well, everything else.

This is why I think Novak has a better chance of surpassing Roger than Rafa does, in terms of overall career resume. Novak's "everything else" is alreadly slightly better than Rafa's. Assuming they stay on a similar trajectory, Rafa probably needs to finish with 3 or more Slams than Novak to have the better overall resume. Right now at 17 to 15, they're neck-and-neck. IMO, of course.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, you are missing something. He wasn't talking about streaks of consecutive major finals, but streaks of Slams in which a player never went more than one Slam without reaching a final. It could even be every other Slam missed a final, but not two consecutive...then the streak is over. I merely pointed out that since the author wrote the article, Novak's streak extended to 25, which is 6 more than Roger's. Whether or not you like his definition of "streak," that is a pretty amazing accomplishment: 25 Slams in a row in which Novak didn't miss more than one final in a row.



But what does that have to do with this thread? No one--including myself--is assigning number values to anything. To be honest, I question your motive for throwing this in considering you likely know that I just got attacked for a number value system in another thread. I did no such thing in this thread, so not sure why you'd bring it up.



Absolutely. But there's no way around that! Subjectivity will always play a part - that's just the nature of the beast, we being human subjects.

I take the approach of looking at things from different perspectives - angles, if you will. No single perspective, be it straight up Slam count or complex formulas is ever going to be definitive, ever going to tell us everything. They all offer something different. In the end there's a subjective call that needs to be made.

I continually get misunderstood because of this approach, because people tend to believe that when I'm using a certain tool or perspective I'm saying that it is definitive or that it means more than just another way of looking at things. Even if I say so with a disclaimer, they still misunderstand. This is because people tend to think in a linear, either/or fashion: either something is true and definitive, or it is bullshit. I try to take a more dynamic, holistic, and both/and approach in which just about any perspective has utility, a piece of the puzzle, if you will.

Again, every perspective is just that: an angle on an issue, but not meant to be definitive.

And so it is with the author's "streak" that you take issue with, or Game's "27 consecutive Slams." It is just an angle. Take another one and discuss it.



Sure, and so what? Again, perspectives and angles.



Well, my issue with the approach of endlessly defending our favorite is that it so often veers into "I'd rather be right than true." Meaning, I prefer my favorite looking the best than what the truth may or may not be. If faced with the choice of being right (or my favorite getting the edge) and a deeper or more inclusive truth, I'll take the latter - even if it is sometimes hard to swallow. At least if I can see it in the moment! Sometimes it is hard to see, and there's a subconscious tendency to favor perspectives that prop up our favorite.

Anyhow, there are no official or definitive goal posts: just changing (even evolving) perspectives. Some people still consider major wins as the singular measurement of GOATness...while I certainly agree it is the single most important factor, it is--at most--about half the picture. The rest is, well, everything else.

This is why I think Novak has a better chance of surpassing Roger than Rafa does, in terms of overall career resume. Novak's "everything else" is alreadly slightly better than Rafa's. Assuming they stay on a similar trajectory, Rafa probably needs to finish with 3 or more Slams than Novak to have the better overall resume. Right now at 17 to 15, they're neck-and-neck. IMO, of course.

I do know that you enjoy a stats exercise, and I, for one, do take to heart that you're just examining things, but I know you catch a lot of shit, too. Maybe the guy's graph had years and I missed that he was skipping, but I do still think it's kind of a bogus "stat," but as I did say, it points up interesting things. However, I point out things about Rafa having the best winning percentage at Majors of the big 3. He's had to miss due to injury, which has seriously impacted his haul. I have said that he was shoe-horned in between Fed having an easy time of it and Novak having some freebie years, with no freebies for Nadal, but no one is that interested in that. I like to argue with you guys, because it amuses me. And, let's face it, if you didn't have me, you might all be just congratulating yourselves for how much Roger is the GOAT. Let's not pretend that Djokovic is a threat.

 

[mrzz]

I just dropped by to congratulate GSM and El Dude for their good taste in choosing the GOAT as the player they root for.



(and yes this every other final stat is just so )

 

[El Dude]

I do know that you enjoy a stats exercise, and I, for one, do take to heart that you're just examining things, but I know you catch a lot of shit, too. Maybe the guy's graph had years and I missed that he was skipping, but I do still think it's kind of a bogus "stat," but as I did say, it points up interesting things. However, I point out things about Rafa having the best winning percentage at Majors of the big 3. He's had to miss due to injury, which has seriously impacted his haul. I have said that he was shoe-horned in between Fed having an easy time of it and Novak having some freebie years, with no freebies for Nadal, but no one is that interested in that. I like to argue with you guys, because it amuses me. And, let's face it, if you didn't have me, you might all be just congratulating yourselves for how much Roger is the GOAT. Let's not pretend that Djokovic is a threat.

I wouldn't say it is bogus, just rather specific.

Anyhow, Rafa has lots of tones to his resume that make him special. In fact, at one point I was dabbling with an article idea in which I argue pro and con arguments for the GOATness of each of the Big Three. What makes them so interesting as a trio is that each of them has subtle tones that the others don't.

And yeah...Novak is a threat to surpass Fedal .

 

[El Dude]

I just dropped by to congratulate GSM and El Dude for their good taste in choosing the GOAT as the player they root for.



(and yes this every other final stat is just so )

Oh shut your whore mouth.

 

[Moxie]

I wouldn't say it is bogus, just rather specific.

Anyhow, Rafa has lots of tones to his resume that make him special. In fact, at one point I was dabbling with an article idea in which I argue pro and con arguments for the GOATness of each of the Big Three. What makes them so interesting as a trio is that each of them has subtle tones that the others don't.

And yeah...Novak is a threat to surpass Fedal .

Why not bring it out? The reason that we argue endlessly over Fedal + Djokovic is that they have all dominated so much, and yes, in different ways. I did the math today. Since the Open Era began in 1968, that is 51 years. It began in April of 1968, so there have been 200 Majors contested in the Open Era. Of those, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have won 52. That's more than 1/4. I don't really even know what to say about that.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Come on mrzz! I saw the fine print.

My def of streak is not as crazy as you think.

I say pick any number n greater than or equal to 10. Pick any player that you want to choose (other than Fed) and pick that player's best sequence of performance in n consecutive slams. I claim there is a sequence of n consecutive slams in which Fed's average points per slam is higher than the other players best figure.

I have not fact checked my claim. But, am fairly confident of it. Anyone who wants to disprove me, please do so.

 

[Moxie]

Come on mrzz! I saw the fine print.

My def of streak is not as crazy as you think.

I say pick any number n greater than or equal to 10. Pick any player that you want to choose (other than Fed) and pick that player's best sequence of performance in n consecutive slams. I claim there is a sequence of n consecutive slams in which Fed's average points per slam is higher than the other players best figure.

I have not fact checked my claim. But, am fairly confident of it. Anyone who wants to disprove me, please do so.

I should let you fight this out with @mrzz, and I will. But aren't you just now trying to give Roger points for his also-rans? I know folks have salivated over his SF streak and then his QF streak, which are all admirable, but we're talking about wins, right? Of course Roger has nearly always been right there in the game, for many years. But a failure to win is still "close-but-no-cigar." Ask @DarthFed.