Another Look at Most Dominant Player

[GameSetAndMath]

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.

Yes, I am giving him whatever points he earned in that slam. But, I am doing so for everyone, not just for Roger.

You still don't seem to understand the rationale behind my definition of streak. If a player dominated the field, he would have had a period of time when his average points earned per slam would be high. That is what we are looking at here. Bring on any player, bring on any sequence of 10 or more slams of that player (start from any point and end in any point that works to that player's advantage) and I bet Roger has done better than that.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, I am giving him whatever points he earned in that slam. But, I am doing so for everyone, not just for Roger.

You still don't seem to understand the rationale behind my definition of streak. If a player dominated the field, he would have had a period of time when his average points earned per slam would be high. That is what we are looking at here. Bring on any player, bring on any sequence of 10 or more slams of that player (start from any point and end in any point that works to that player's advantage) and I bet Roger has done better than that.

No, I get how the points work. But it doesn't account for Slams won/not won. You're giving points for getting late into the tourney, even if you don't win it. At a certain point, you're missing the people that actually won. As I pointed out, Nadal has a higher winning percentage at Majors, but he's participated in fewer. You want to give him fewer "points," but he still won the tournaments. Oh, right, the never ending "dominance." You're trying to make an argument for dominance via the nearly "won," right? I'm not sure that matters.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Look, there is a huge difference between somebody winning 10 slams at the rate of one an year and another player winning 10 slams in a row. The former player was not a dominant force for a sustained period of time whereas the later one was.

If you take two different players one of whom had won 5 slams in a row and then reached SF and then won another 5 slams in a row and another player who had a similar record except that the middle SF was a third round exit, then obviously the former player had a better streak than the later player. That is why we are concerned about the average points per slam during the streak. I am not taking their average points for the entire career. I am just taking the average points during the streak.

Let me give you an example to make you appreciate Roger's streak. Suppose Roger had won 11 slams and reached finals in 16 other slams and all these 27 slams were in a row (in that case you would certainly agree that it is a streak), his average points earned per slam would be (11*2000+ 16 * 1200)/ 27 = 1525.92. Roger's actual points per slam during the 27 slams from 2003 Wimbledon to 2010 AO is 1532.96.
Now, perhaps you will be able to appreciate how great was that streak.

 

[El Dude]

^I think your point illustrates, Game, why someone like Lleyton Hewitt essentially stopped amassing his legacy when he started to decline around 2006 or so. He won a handful more tournaments, but nothing really that added to his legacy.

The point being, there's a kind of "water level" that counts towards legacy. I think for Slams it is QF or higher. For other tournaments it is a win and a win only, at least as far as greatness is concerned. For rankings it is probably top 10 finishes; anything below and it isn't really remembered, but top 10 has a certain ring to it. Of course these are arbitary delineations, but I do think they have some bearing on how we look at players and their career resumes.

 

[Moxie]

Look, there is a huge difference between somebody winning 10 slams at the rate of one an year and another player winning 10 slams in a row. The former player was not a dominant force for a sustained period of time whereas the later one was.

If you take two different players one of whom had won 5 slams in a row and then reached SF and then won another 5 slams in a row and another player who had a similar record except that the middle SF was a third round exit, then obviously the former player had a better streak than the later player. That is why we are concerned about the average points per slam during the streak. I am not taking their average points for the entire career. I am just taking the average points during the streak.

Let me give you an example to make you appreciate Roger's streak. Suppose Roger had won 11 slams and reached finals in 16 other slams and all these 27 slams were in a row (in that case you would certainly agree that it is a streak), his average points earned per slam would be (11*2000+ 16 * 1200)/ 27 = 1525.92. Roger's actual points per slam during the 27 slams from 2003 Wimbledon to 2010 AO is 1532.96.
Now, perhaps you will be able to appreciate how great was that streak.

You're trying to convince me that making the later rounds of a Major is better than not. I get that. But it's also not the same as winning it. If you made fewer QFs of a Major, (or SFs or Fs,) but won more Majors, which would be better? Let's go to Stan Wawrinka. A man that has almost no ATP cred, beyond 3 Majors. And yet, he's 3/0 in Major finals, and beat the world #1 to win each of them. How does he fit into the equation, given who he's beat?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You're trying to convince me that making the later rounds of a Major is better than not. I get that. But it's also not the same as winning it. If you made fewer QFs of a Major, (or SFs or Fs,) but won more Majors, which would be better? Let's go to Stan Wawrinka. A man that has almost no ATP cred, beyond 3 Majors. And yet, he's 3/0 in Major finals, and beat the world #1 to win each of them. How does he fit into the equation, given who he's beat?

We are not trying to compare second string players here. We are talking dominance here. Stan never dominated the field for any length of time.

 

[Moxie]

We are not trying to compare second string players here. We are talking dominance here. Stan never dominated the field for any length of time.

But Stan won 3 Majors, and you're not accounting for what that means. I know you're trying to establish "dominance," and I've been trying to say that only means so much. It's rather a testosterone driven notion. Plus, what you're going for is "median value." IMO, those are conflicting ideas. If you don't account for Rafa's 17, and Stan's 3, however they got them, I think that you're barking up the wrong tree. "Slow and steady" has a certain aphoristic value, but I don't think it means the same in sports.

 

[mrzz]

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

Actually yours is a very good one, I think I liked the original post. I was referring specifically to the one that you do not miss two finals in a row.

 

[El Dude]

Moxie, isn't dominance an important factor in greatness? I think part of the original author's argument is that it is a central factor; meaning, a player's greatness is significantly determined by their dominance over their peers and era. To call it a "testosterone driven notion" kind of undermines the entire competitive venture of professional sports altogether.

This discussion reminds me of some previous discussions around players like Lendl and Murray, who having losing records in Slam finals: 8-11 for Lendl, 3-8 for Murray. How do those lost finals impact a player's legacy? If we compare Murray and Wawrinka, who was 3-1, is Andy a lesser player for losing so many more finals?

I'd personally say no, but the opposite: the fact that he reached 11 finals is rather striking. I've mentioned this before, but it puts him in a different group of players than Stan:

Most Grand Slam Finals
30 - Federer
25 - Nadal
24 - Djokovic
19 - Lendl
18 - Sampras
16 - Borg
15 - Connors, Agassi
11 - McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Murray
8 - Rosewall, Vilas
7 - Newcombe, Courier
6 - Laver
5 - Kodes, Ashe, Nastase, Roddick
4 - Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Hewitt, Safin, Wawrinka

Now obviously a lot of other factors have to be included to assess a player's overall greatness (or dominance), but this list tells us a lot about Murray and Wawrinka, and how they compare to other players in terms of reaching the final of a Slam. I've said this before but Andy Murray is probably the one player whose career resume was most negatively impacted by who his peers with (with honorable mention going to the other Andy, Mr Roddick). If Murray had played in almost any other era he probably would have won twice as many Slams, plus or minus a Slam or two, which is why I consider him just behind the Becker-Edberg-Wilander trio and ahead of Vilas-Courier-Nastase-Ashe.

Similarly, but to a lesser extent, with Roddick, whose 1-4 record at Slams is entirely because of Roger Federer. Not only did he lose 4 Slam finals to Roger, but he lost 3 SF and 1 QF to Roger, going 0-8 in later round matches to Federer. If he had played in a different era or Roger had chosen a different career, chances are Roddick would be in the 3-5 Slam title range.

Of course we all have to deal with the hand we're delt, and we can only judge players by what they accomplished - not what they "woulda" or "coulda" if only things had been different. But looking beyond just Slam titles at things like Slam finals - and various streaks and other angles - gives us a deeper sense of a player. Andy Murray is more than just a 3 Slam player; Andy Roddick is more than just a 1 Slam player. Etc.

 

[El Dude]

For fits and shiggles, here is the same list for Most SFs:

Most Grand Slam Semifinals:
43 Federer
34 Djokovic
31 Connors
30 Nadal
28 Lendl
26 Agassi
23 Sampras
21 Murray
19 McEnroe, Edberg
18 Becker
17 Borg
14 Wilander

Interesting to note how Andy Murray pulls away from players like McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, and even Borg (whose resume is greatly impacted by his early retirement, obviously). When we look at QF, Andy's 30 puts him past Sampras at 29.

Andy Roddick reached 10 GS QFs, tied with Ashe and Newcombe, and 19 GS QFs, which is tied with Vilas and one behind Wilander.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

…………..bump

p.s. Dude can you recompute the stats based on OP at least for Fedalovic, thanks.

 

[Moxie]

…………..bump

p.s. Dude can you recompute the stats based on OP at least for Fedalovic, thanks.

Because just in case you have to go to Plan B?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Because just in case you have to go to Plan B?

Oh yang, that is why I started this thread in 2014 itself.

On a serious note, I have a vague feeling that Novak might surpassed Fed, in the state for MDP as defined in OP. That is why I asked Dude to computer it.

 

[Fiero425]

Moxie, isn't dominance an important factor in greatness? I think part of the original author's argument is that it is a central factor; meaning, a player's greatness is significantly determined by their dominance over their peers and era. To call it a "testosterone driven notion" kind of undermines the entire competitive venture of professional sports altogether.

This discussion reminds me of some previous discussions around players like Lendl and Murray, who having losing records in Slam finals: 8-11 for Lendl, 3-8 for Murray. How do those lost finals impact a player's legacy? If we compare Murray and Wawrinka, who was 3-1, is Andy a lesser player for losing so many more finals?

I'd personally say no, but the opposite: the fact that he reached 11 finals is rather striking. I've mentioned this before, but it puts him in a different group of players than Stan:

Most Grand Slam Finals
30 - Federer
25 - Nadal
24 - Djokovic
19 - Lendl
18 - Sampras
16 - Borg
15 - Connors, Agassi
11 - McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Murray
8 - Rosewall, Vilas
7 - Newcombe, Courier
6 - Laver
5 - Kodes, Ashe, Nastase, Roddick
4 - Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Hewitt, Safin, Wawrinka

Now obviously a lot of other factors have to be included to assess a player's overall greatness (or dominance), but this list tells us a lot about Murray and Wawrinka, and how they compare to other players in terms of reaching the final of a Slam. I've said this before but Andy Murray is probably the one player whose career resume was most negatively impacted by who his peers with (with honorable mention going to the other Andy, Mr Roddick). If Murray had played in almost any other era he probably would have won twice as many Slams, plus or minus a Slam or two, which is why I consider him just behind the Becker-Edberg-Wilander trio and ahead of Vilas-Courier-Nastase-Ashe.

Similarly, but to a lesser extent, with Roddick, whose 1-4 record at Slams is entirely because of Roger Federer. Not only did he lose 4 Slam finals to Roger, but he lost 3 SF and 1 QF to Roger, going 0-8 in later round matches to Federer. If he had played in a different era or Roger had chosen a different career, chances are Roddick would be in the 3-5 Slam title range.

Of course we all have to deal with the hand we're delt, and we can only judge players by what they accomplished - not what they "woulda" or "coulda" if only things had been different. But looking beyond just Slam titles at things like Slam finals - and various streaks and other angles - gives us a deeper sense of a player. Andy Murray is more than just a 3 Slam player; Andy Roddick is more than just a 1 Slam player. Etc.

Poor Murray; thank GAWD for Fedalovic! I wouldn't have been able to stand even 2 or 3 seasons of his boring, sleep making play at the top of the rankings! He cost himself his health and matches by the stupid defensive way he's been playing the game for the last decade! Back in my day, the top player on my $#!t-list was Connors! I didn't care for his swagger, commentary, or game! I latched onto Borg for some reason as the savior and he stopped Connors from winning many more majors even though he still leads in the overall count of tournaments won @ 109! It's just another incentive for Roger to hang on a couple more seasons hoping to eclipse Connors and semi-wipe him from the record books! Jimmy's lone significant claim to fame will end up being his record at the USO; esp. the fact that he won it on 3 different surfaces!

Even with our Golden Age of tennis back in the 90's with US players leading the way, Sampras didn't have many foils! There were a couple of players like Krajicek or Ulrich that stopped streaks, but overall there wasn't "a Nadal" dogging him like Federer's had to deal with for well over a decade! We gave Pete a pass, making him the GOAT even w/o a FO final on his resume! How times have changed where Pete's being totally thrown out of the GOAT club with Laver getting more credit for his GS's now that Fedalovic have rewritten the record books! I swear there has to be tons of desperation out there to keep harping on Stan winning his 3 above all others when it comes to Djokovic! That's idiotic since his overall record against him is 4 of 5 to 1! It's like those clowns that bring up Roddick having a winning record on him! So? He caught him early 15 years ago! Seek ! :whistle: :cuckoo:

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, isn't dominance an important factor in greatness? I think part of the original author's argument is that it is a central factor; meaning, a player's greatness is significantly determined by their dominance over their peers and era. To call it a "testosterone driven notion" kind of undermines the entire competitive venture of professional sports altogether.

This discussion reminds me of some previous discussions around players like Lendl and Murray, who having losing records in Slam finals: 8-11 for Lendl, 3-8 for Murray. How do those lost finals impact a player's legacy? If we compare Murray and Wawrinka, who was 3-1, is Andy a lesser player for losing so many more finals?

I'd personally say no, but the opposite: the fact that he reached 11 finals is rather striking. I've mentioned this before, but it puts him in a different group of players than Stan:

Most Grand Slam Finals
30 - Federer
25 - Nadal
24 - Djokovic
19 - Lendl
18 - Sampras
16 - Borg
15 - Connors, Agassi
11 - McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Murray
8 - Rosewall, Vilas
7 - Newcombe, Courier
6 - Laver
5 - Kodes, Ashe, Nastase, Roddick
4 - Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Hewitt, Safin, Wawrinka

Now obviously a lot of other factors have to be included to assess a player's overall greatness (or dominance), but this list tells us a lot about Murray and Wawrinka, and how they compare to other players in terms of reaching the final of a Slam. I've said this before but Andy Murray is probably the one player whose career resume was most negatively impacted by who his peers with (with honorable mention going to the other Andy, Mr Roddick). If Murray had played in almost any other era he probably would have won twice as many Slams, plus or minus a Slam or two, which is why I consider him just behind the Becker-Edberg-Wilander trio and ahead of Vilas-Courier-Nastase-Ashe.

Similarly, but to a lesser extent, with Roddick, whose 1-4 record at Slams is entirely because of Roger Federer. Not only did he lose 4 Slam finals to Roger, but he lost 3 SF and 1 QF to Roger, going 0-8 in later round matches to Federer. If he had played in a different era or Roger had chosen a different career, chances are Roddick would be in the 3-5 Slam title range.

Of course we all have to deal with the hand we're delt, and we can only judge players by what they accomplished - not what they "woulda" or "coulda" if only things had been different. But looking beyond just Slam titles at things like Slam finals - and various streaks and other angles - gives us a deeper sense of a player. Andy Murray is more than just a 3 Slam player; Andy Roddick is more than just a 1 Slam player. Etc.

I think "dominance" is over-fetishized by guys on forums. I don't undermine the notion of competitiveness...that's for the players. But I think there is a murkiness here between dominance and consistency. Both are admirable qualities, and should be in the mix. And, as you pointed out (long ago, I realize,) it makes a great tie-breaker between Murray and Wawrinka, specifically...which I think we all agree with. But let's face it, we're really talking about Fedalovic on this thread, and I think it's a more nuanced thing, between them.

When a player is dominating the field, because they're just head-and-shoulders better, sure, I get that. When you have 3 all-time greats playing at the same time, then the fallow periods or injury periods of the others come into play. Roger had a great run before he encountered the best rivals he would face. He's also remained remarkably consistent over the years. Nadal has been "dominant" over the FO like no one in history. Djokovic got a rather late start, aside from one AO, but has had great runs of overall dominance, himself, though some, including the Nole-Slam, was when his biggest rivals were far from their best. He dropped down, and only Roger and Rafa leapt in to fill the void. As a triumvirate, they have dominated the tour in an astonishing way. And I'm sure that these kinds of fine points from the OP will be used to argue their various merits and "GOAT-ness," when all is said and done. But I do think that "dominance" needs to be looked at with a certain nuance when it comes to assessing their various periods. Sure, I'm making a case for Rafa, as being shoe-horned in between them, but I'm not completely wrong, just because I'm biased.

 

[El Dude]

@GameSetAndMath , what am I, your Stat Bitch?

OK, I'll be your Stat Bitch...but bit by bit. I assume you want me to update the numbers from the article you linked? I'll do that, but in a somewhat lazy way.

Here's the first - the ATP Points for Slams. I'm not going to differentiate Slams or do a color-coded chart, at least at this point, but here's the total. I did the top 21 because the lower you go, the more players you have to calculate. I've put updated players in bold.

1. Federer 69595
2. Nadal 56215
3. Djokovic 55285
4. Sampras 40385
5. Connors 40380
6. Lendl 39845
7. Agassi 37675
8. Borg 30925
9. McEnroe 28760
10. Edberg 28525
11. Murray 27970
12. Becker 26525
13. Wilander 25025
14. Vilas 20360
15. Courier 17980
16. Rosewall 17930
17. Newcombe 17740
18. Wawrinka 17020
19. Hewitt 15975
20. Ashe 15845
21. Roddick 15690

This definitely illustrates just how far ahead of the pack the Big Three now are.

More later....

 

[El Dude]

The only other one to update is:

Points Per Grand Slam
1. Borg 1145
2. Laver 1057
3. Nadal 969
4. Djokovic 937
5. Federer 892

I won't include the rest of the list.

The greatest streaks metrics haven't changed.

I have another idea that revisiting this inspired - will share it a bit later.

 

[Fiero425]

@GameSetAndMath , what am I, your Stat Bitch?

OK, I'll be your Stat Bitch...but bit by bit. I assume you want me to update the numbers from the article you linked? I'll do that, but in a somewhat lazy way.

Here's the first - the ATP Points for Slams. I'm not going to differentiate Slams or do a color-coded chart, at least at this point, but here's the total. I did the top 21 because the lower you go, the more players you have to calculate. I've put updated players in bold.

1. Federer 69595
2. Nadal 56215
3. Djokovic 55285
4. Sampras 40385
5. Connors 40380
6. Lendl 39845
7. Agassi 37675
8. Borg 30925
9. McEnroe 28760
10. Edberg 28525
11. Murray 27970
12. Becker 26525
13. Wilander 25025
14. Vilas 20360
15. Courier 17980
16. Rosewall 17930
17. Newcombe 17740
18. Wawrinka 17020
19. Hewitt 15975
20. Ashe 15845
21. Roddick 15690

This definitely illustrates just how far ahead of the pack the Big Three now are.

More later....

It's not really fair to compare past generations to today's stars; esp. since the Big 3 don't miss Majors unlike past gens where few went "down under" and a few skipped Paris due to their inability to handle the Terre Battue! Borg missed a lot of AO's, but only 1 FO he decided to allow his buddy to win in '77; G. Vilas! :whistle:

 

[El Dude]

It's not really fair to compare past generations to today's stars; esp. since the Big 3 don't miss Majors unlike past gens where few went "down under" and a few skipped Paris due to their inability to handle the Terre Battue! Borg missed a lot of AO's, but only 1 FO he decided to allow his buddy to win in '77; G. Vilas! :whistle:

I agree. It is a bit of a pickle, ain't it?

There is one statistical measurement that is relatively stable across eras, and that is rankings. If you're #1 you're #1, regardless of era. While ATP rankings only started in 1973, we have good data for the entire Open Era (1968-present) as people have extrapolated rankings for the early half decade.

Of course coming up with a way of translating rankings to some kind of points is more difficult, unless you want to go back and adjust everything to today's ranking system, which would take quite a bit.

Maybe I'll dabble with something...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The only other one to update is:

Points Per Grand Slam
1. Borg 1145
2. Laver 1057
3. Nadal 969
4. Djokovic 937
5. Federer 892

I won't include the rest of the list.

The greatest streaks metrics haven't changed.

I have another idea that revisiting this inspired - will share it a bit later.

I think you are missing the point of the article. One needs to calculate the points per GS considering only the GSs in the streak. The length of the streak tells how long you were dominating and the points per GS during the streak tells as to how strongly you were dominating when you were dominating.

I think you calculated the above points per GS by taking all the GSs in which the player participated instead of confining to the streak.