Roger's stellar season (ESPN)

[El Dude]

Worth a read: "FedPorn."

One number that really strikes me is that 91.2 Win%. There's only been 22 player seasons with a winning percentage of 90% or higher in the Open Era. Fed's 2017 is #20 on that list. Andy Murray's 2016, at 89.66%, is #23.

Fed also owns four of those seasons. Here is how they break down.

5 - Lendl (1982, 1985-87, 1989)
4 - Borg (1977-80), Federer (2004-06, 2017)
3 - Connors (1974, 1976, 1978)
2 - Djokovic (2011, 2015)
1 - Laver (1969), Vilas (1977), McEnroe (1984 - highest ever at 96.47%), Nadal (2013)

 

[Moxie]

Worth a read: "FedPorn."

One number that really strikes me is that 91.2 Win%. There's only been 22 player seasons with a winning percentage of 90% or higher in the Open Era. Fed's 2017 is #20 on that list. Andy Murray's 2016, at 89.66%, is #23.

Fed also owns four of those seasons. Here is how they break down.

5 - Lendl (1982, 1985-87, 1989)
4 - Borg (1977-80), Federer (2004-06, 2017)
3 - Connors (1974, 1976, 1978)
2 - Djokovic (2011, 2015)
1 - Laver (1969), Vilas (1977), McEnroe (1984 - highest ever at 96.47%), Nadal (2013)

OK, but this year, Roger skipped an entire portion of the season.

Anyway, since this isn't on the Federer fan page, I'm going to say that the Fed Porn link was a variety of records, some having to do with longevity and even old-man records, which GSM claims Roger's not interested in. Keep playing, and you keep accumulating records, right? Though some are pertinent to this year. (And all are somewhat-to-very amazing.)

Rafa didn't have a bad year, either, and I'm wondering how folks are going to game the Player of the Year, now that Roger didn't win the YEC. Two Majors each. YE#1 to Nadal. Rafa played a full calendar. Intriguingly, the pundits on TC want to bring it down to the H2H between Rafa and Roger. Oh, the irony. What do you think?

 

[El Dude]

I'm mixed. I guess I'd give Player of the Year to Roger, but maybe I'm biased. All things tolled, his season is just more impressive - because of age, mainly, but also slightly better record.

As for Roger skipping a portion of the year, I don't think this detracts from his season. Remember, he actually suprassed Rafa's accomplishments - 7 titles vs. Rafa's 6, the one extra being a third Masters - but in six fewer tournaments. Again, as I said elsewhere, it is kind of like if it were baseball, Roger hitting .350 over 120 games vs. Rafa hitting .330 over 150 games (or something like that). Hard to say which is more impressive.

 

[Moxie]

I'm mixed. I guess I'd give Player of the Year to Roger, but maybe I'm biased. All things tolled, his season is just more impressive - because of age, mainly, but also slightly better record.

As for Roger skipping a portion of the year, I don't think this detracts from his season. Remember, he actually suprassed Rafa's accomplishments - 7 titles vs. Rafa's 6, the one extra being a third Masters - but in six fewer tournaments. Again, as I said elsewhere, it is kind of like if it were baseball, Roger hitting .350 over 120 games vs. Rafa hitting .330 over 150 games (or something like that). Hard to say which is more impressive.

You are biased, but you make a decent argument. Roger won more titles, but Rafa put himself out there for the full calendar. And did win the YE#1. I do think it's really close, and could go either way. The YEC would have swayed it, for sure. It doesn't really matter much, in the grand scheme of things, but I will say this: if it goes to Roger, then Rafa has lost it by a hair's breath 2 x. He was the YE#1 in 2013, and they gave Player of the Year to Novak that year.

 

[El Dude]

Here's another way of putting it. Compare:

Roger: 52-5, 7 titles
Rafa: 67-11, 6 titles

Roger played 57 matches, and Rafa 78 - that's 21 more. In those 21 matches, Rafa went 15-6 (71.4%) with no titles. That's a good record, but more like a top 10 player, not a true elite. It is padding to his point total that gave him the YE1.

So then add in two more factors: Roger was 35-36, Rafa 30-31. Both had incredible comeback performances and are past prime years, but Roger well out of his prime. That's another edge to Roger's season.

And finally the h2h matters. Roger was 4-0 against the YE1. If we're talking about Player of the Year, that's a factor.

So maybe I'm biased, but I think when you lay all the pieces on the table, Roger is the PotY...I hadn't given it much thought before this thread, but now I'm convinced he deserves it - regardless of whether he gets it.

 

[Moxie]

Here's another way of putting it. Compare:

Roger: 52-5, 7 titles
Rafa: 67-11, 6 titles

Roger played 57 matches, and Rafa 78 - that's 21 more. In those 21 matches, Rafa went 15-6 (71.4%) with no titles. That's a good record, but more like a top 10 player, not a true elite. It is padding to his point total that gave him the YE1.

So then add in two more factors: Roger was 35-36, Rafa 30-31. Both had incredible comeback performances and are past prime years, but Roger well out of his prime. That's another edge to Roger's season.

And finally the h2h matters. Roger was 4-0 against the YE1. If we're talking about Player of the Year, that's a factor.

So maybe I'm biased, but I think when you lay all the pieces on the table, Roger is the PotY...I hadn't given it much thought before this thread, but now I'm convinced he deserves it - regardless of whether he gets it.

Hey, I thought you said that Roger was still in his prime, in another thread. Just saying.

I don't think you get to put age or "comeback" in the mix, as they're not really cogent factors in a normal year. And given "comeback," Rafa was also having a fine one. Let me ask you this: if it were Roger with 2 x Major + YE#1 but Rafa with more titles, would you say Rafa was the PoTY? I don't think so. Had he skipped an entire portion of the year, you'd so have held it against him. It gets held against Nadal all the time that he does so well in the clay portion. I do get your arguments, but what ever happened to dispassionate results? 2 Majors and YE#1 should do it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I have said it before in some other thread. They give player of the award primarily based on points earned at ITF events. Hence, Rafa is almost a shoe in for player of the year award this year. It would have been the case, even if Fed had gone on to win the WTF.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

OK, but this year, Roger skipped an entire portion of the season.

Anyway, since this isn't on the Federer fan page, I'm going to say that the Fed Porn link was a variety of records, some having to do with longevity and even old-man records, which GSM claims Roger's not interested in.

But, this one (having a 90% plus year) is not a oldman record or longevity record. It is a legitimate accomplishment at any age and obviously it has nothing to do with longevity.

 

[Moxie]

But, this one (having a 90% plus year) is not a oldman record or longevity record. It is a legitimate accomplishment at any age and obviously it has nothing to do with longevity.

For sure...I didn't list them all out. I wasn't trying to say that lot of them weren't good records or watermarks.

 

[Moxie]

And finally the h2h matters. Roger was 4-0 against the YE1. If we're talking about Player of the Year, that's a factor.

Just storing this for later. When the H2H really matters.

 

[El Dude]

Hey, I thought you said that Roger was still in his prime, in another thread. Just saying.

I don't think you get to put age or "comeback" in the mix, as they're not really cogent factors in a normal year. And given "comeback," Rafa was also having a fine one. Let me ask you this: if it were Roger with 2 x Major + YE#1 but Rafa with more titles, would you say Rafa was the PoTY? I don't think so. Had he skipped an entire portion of the year, you'd so have held it against him. It gets held against Nadal all the time that he does so well in the clay portion. I do get your arguments, but what ever happened to dispassionate results? 2 Majors and YE#1 should do it.

Sorry Moxie, but it is hardly "dispassionate" to ignore my statistical argument and just chalk it up to personal bias. How about we don't make assumptions - like broken was talking about in that other thread. I think I've earned the benefit of the doubt that I'm at least trying to minimize my bias as much as possible, even if I cannot entirely erase it.

To be honest, PoTY doesn't matter at all to me, and I'm 95% Rafa will win it, and if he does it won't bother me one bit because there's a good argument that he deserves it. But I think I laid out a solid case for why Roger is more deserving, if only slightly so. If nothing else, the short version is that Roger had slightly superior results in terms of titles, but in six fewer tournaments and 21 fewer matches. There's nothing Rafa did in those 21 extra matches that makes his year impressive than Roger's. It is just padding that adds to his point total. But don't get me wrong: Rafa had a very impressive year, just not as impressive as Roger's for reasons I've already stated.

p.s. "Prime" can mean different things, and it depends upon how you define the word. In this context, I mean what is generally considered prime years - which is not 35-36 years old. Traditionally the cutoff age is around 31; there is a huge drop-off in results from 31 to 32, so anything accomplished at age 32 can be considered post-prime.

 

[El Dude]

Just storing this for later. When the H2H really matters.

Moxie, as you know I hate getting into Fedal tit-for-tats. But let's at least try to see beyond our biases. Roger accomplished everything Rafa did--in terms of titles--this year, plus an extra Masters and beat Rafa 4-0 and did it all in 21 fewer matches. If we're adding up the ledger for this year, Roger's results are more impressive. This has nothing to do with career h2h.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger clearly had the better year results wise. But Rafa finished #1 and should get player of the year not that it's a big deal anyways. Finishing #1 is important and Rafa earned it but clearly he was not the best player in 2017.

 

[Moxie]

There's nothing Rafa did in those 21 extra matches that makes his year impressive than Roger's. It is just padding that adds to his point total.

I know it's not important, but he did win his 10th Monte Carlo, 10th Barcelona and 10th Roland Garros, so it wasn't exactly just padding. And I'm sure you understand how condescending "padding" sounds.

Look, I get that Roger had a great year. I'm just not going to give it over without an argument, especially where the ironies are.

 

[Moxie]

[QUOTE="El Dude, post: 317334, member: 314"This has nothing to do with career h2h.[/QUOTE] :lulz2::whistle:

 

[Moxie]

p.s. "Prime" can mean different things, and it depends upon how you define the word. In this context, I mean what is generally considered prime years - which is not 35-36 years old. Traditionally the cutoff age is around 31; there is a huge drop-off in results from 31 to 32, so anything accomplished at age 32 can be considered post-prime.

Whatever, with your categories...but didn't you tell us recently that Roger was still in his "prime?" And didn't I tell you that you'd have to take it up with Darth? Roger has had a long good glide, whatever you want to call it.

 

[shawnbm]

In light of how much Roger and Rafa meanbto the tour and the prize money and the sponsors, I wouldn’t be surprised the powers that be make them co-No. 1s. It would be a cop out as Rafa edged Roger over the entire year by a few hundred points, but it would not surprise me.

 

[Ricardo]

I know it's not important, but he did win his 10th Monte Carlo, 10th Barcelona and 10th Roland Garros, so it wasn't exactly just padding. And I'm sure you understand how condescending "padding" sounds.

Look, I get that Roger had a great year. I'm just not going to give it over without an argument, especially where the ironies are.

ok, same slams but Roger got extra master1000 and YEC he did better than Rafa, one extra title, all done in fewer matches........that's higher level of overall performance. I get it that Rafa had more POINTS, which the ranking is solely based on......and it's the only aspect you have, but we all know many players in the past have gone the path of playing so many tournaments to boost their rankings, yet the quality of the results didn't compare to those who gone further in the big events.

it's fair to say for tennis fans, the ability of accumulating points by playing extra events doesn't impress as much as ability to actually win the titles. Federer did play a lot less events (therefore didn't gain points) but the results he got, still being slightly superior to Rafa's, is a clearly example of QUALITY over QUANTITY.

Also you know full well that H-H comes in when two are extremely close. Career wise, Rafa isn't at Roger's level. Year-wise, if you deem it close then it's used as a tie-breaker. If it's deemed not that close (extra master1000 and title), Roger wins it outright. Either way, best player of the year favours to you know whom.

 

[Ricardo]

OK, but this year, Roger skipped an entire portion of the season.

Anyway, since this isn't on the Federer fan page, I'm going to say that the Fed Porn link was a variety of records, some having to do with longevity and even old-man records, which GSM claims Roger's not interested in. Keep playing, and you keep accumulating records, right? Though some are pertinent to this year. (And all are somewhat-to-very amazing.)

Rafa didn't have a bad year, either, and I'm wondering how folks are going to game the Player of the Year, now that Roger didn't win the YEC. Two Majors each. YE#1 to Nadal. Rafa played a full calendar. Intriguingly, the pundits on TC want to bring it down to the H2H between Rafa and Roger. Oh, the irony. What do you think?

If TC brings in H-H, they are cutting Rafa some slack. The key factor to rate a player should always be how they performed in the big events (lets not kid ourselves, points are reflected in the ranking already). Ferrer always had a lot of points and was top 5 for quite a while, but come on.....who is argue that he was really the 5th best player? The only thing that gave Rafa extra points was the extra 21 matches he played, and don't forget he racked up more than twice the losses that Fed had. Put simply, Federer this year has dominated the field more than Rafa, actually he dominated Rafa as well. There is no irony, the quality of results does all the talking.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

A typical fan thinks of "player of the year" term based on which player had the best overall results in that year. But, the actual award "player of the year" (actually the official name is "world champion") is given by ITF. It is decided by a subjective vote of a committee. But, invariably the committee goes with whoever won more points in ITF events (GSs, Olympics, DC) as it is a suggestion (not a command) given to them. Rafa won more points than Roger in Slams this year and so I don't see this committee deviating from the norm. They will give it to Rafa and moreover they will arrive at the decision without much debate.

Having said that, by the common man's natural definition of "player of the year", it should go to Roger. ED has already laid out the arguments and so I am not going to repeat them.