Tennis Abstract's top 128 Players

[Wander]

Thanks. Do you know how his Elo differs from UTS? I know his numbers are lower, but was wondering how they differed in terms of calculations. They do yield some interesting differences, for instance:

Sackmann has Agassi #1 in 1999 and Safin #1 in 2000, but UTS has Sampras #1 both years. Both have Agassi #1 in 1995.

Both have Roger #1 2003-07, and 2009-10, but Sackmann has Novak #1 in 2017 (???) and UTS has Roger #1 in 2017 (makes more sense).

In some cases I find myself agreeing more with Sackmann, others UTS.

I don't know about all the different details of the Elo formulas, but the differences between TA and UTS number values are likely caused by the so-called "k-factor" which is a value that basically determines how much a player's Elo rating can change from a single match. The two sites have probably calibrated their Elo formulas a little bit differently there.

But UTS doesn't decide who was the best player of the year based on Elo but based on how many of their "GOAT points" the player achieved that year, so basically it values big tournament wins above all, then reaching finals, semi-finals etc. and also gives some credit for weeks spent at #1 and so on.

Jeff's system is entirely based on the Elo formula which doesn't know or care about the existence of titles, doesn't give you any bonus for beating Djokovic in a Major final vs. beating him in the first round of a 250. For Elo, a match is a match and it just does a mathematical calculation of a player's season based on the string of results they recorded that year.

What makes Elo of course better and more sophisticated than just a simple match win% calculation is that it acknowledges each opponent's own Elo rating at the time the match took place. So you get a much bigger boost to your rating for beating Djokovic than you would for beating Emil Ruusuvuori. But it will sometimes work against people's intuitions of who had the best season because people like to give big titles a lot of extra credit that Elo does not care about - or let's say that Elo only cares about them if the quality of opponents was also very high.

 

[El Dude]

I’m not defensive about Rafa, I’m pointing out that it’s not necessary to call “a healthy Rafa” a myth when actually, your position on a healthy Rafa is also a myth. Rafa wins 1 in every 3 slams he’s played. He’s skipped 12 since he turned pro, and he’s been obviously injured in many others, most obviously Paris in 2016 and Australia in 2014. It’s not impossible to imagine that his record would be improved if he was healthy for all those slams.

Much more importantly though, sometimes I need to keep my Rafa-blade sharpened for future battles…

I have found, time and time again, that any mention of Rafa that isn't glowing (and even sometimes just neutral) gets a defensive response from one or another Rafa fan, time and time again - and then the corollary, which is said Rafa fan reminding us all why he or she thinks Rafa is the Best Evar. It is a phenomena that isn't the same for Novak or Roger. They are defended, but not as much or to the same degree.

I don't know what it is - whether it is that there are more Rafa diehards here, or if there's something in the collective subconscious of Rafa fans, or if it is just the specific Rafa fans here, but it is...weird. And a bit frustrating, because I find myself checking myself whenever I mention him in a way that isn't gushing, because I know I'll get some sort of reaction from someone.

Meaning, why does it have to be a battle? Why can't we just talk tennis, without inevitably falling into the GOAT/Fedalkovic Wars?

 

[Kieran]

I have found, time and time again, that any mention of Rafa that isn't glowing (and even sometimes just neutral) gets a defensive response from one or another Rafa fan, time and time again - and then the corollary, which is said Rafa fan reminding us all why he or she thinks Rafa is the Best Evar. It is a phenomena that isn't the same for Novak or Roger. They are defended, but not as much or to the same degree.

I don't know what it is - whether it is that there are more Rafa diehards here, or if there's something in the collective subconscious of Rafa fans, or if it is just the specific Rafa fans here, but it is...weird. And a bit frustrating, because I find myself checking myself whenever I mention him in a way that isn't gushing, because I know I'll get some sort of reaction from someone.

Meaning, why does it have to be a battle? Why can't we just talk tennis, without inevitably falling into the GOAT/Fedalkovic Wars?

Come on…

 

[Moxie]

I have found, time and time again, that any mention of Rafa that isn't glowing (and even sometimes just neutral) gets a defensive response from one or another Rafa fan, time and time again - and then the corollary, which is said Rafa fan reminding us all why he or she thinks Rafa is the Best Evar. It is a phenomena that isn't the same for Novak or Roger. They are defended, but not as much or to the same degree.

I don't know what it is - whether it is that there are more Rafa diehards here, or if there's something in the collective subconscious of Rafa fans, or if it is just the specific Rafa fans here, but it is...weird. And a bit frustrating, because I find myself checking myself whenever I mention him in a way that isn't gushing, because I know I'll get some sort of reaction from someone.

Meaning, why does it have to be a battle? Why can't we just talk tennis, without inevitably falling into the GOAT/Fedalkovic Wars?

I'm with @Kieran here...come on! You know you don't mean to conflate all Rafa fans with the trolls. And let's not pretend that the Djokovic fans and trolls don't come out when things are less-than-glowing. When they're around. (Except for @don_fabio, and the evergreen @Fiero425.) As to Fedfans, you're basically the only one left who still posts on the tennis threads. I think they'd be around to complain, if they hadn't been so sure of their position, right until the last. They bailed, rather than face the music, or finally to have to come from a defensive position, I guess. I actually think that everyone is waiting for the full retirements, and then the great GOAT debate will start all over again. Maybe I'm just optimistic that the forums will survive that long. I do hope so, and I appreciate your efforts at making it interesting.

However, it's not like you're impervious to your prejudices. Recently ago, when positing what-if scenarios for who ends up with the most majors, you completely neglected even to posit one for Rafa, and he actively does own the most majors. Oops. That's your slip showing. So, yes, everyone likes to keep everyone else honest about how we see the stats told out, or have the narrative told.

 

[El Dude]

Of course you're with Kieran on this one, because, well, need I say it? And don't start with the "both sides-ism," ignoring the fact that people aren't all biased to the same degree. I see several gradations, and I certainly don't put you in the same category as a couple of folks that come to mind. On the other hand, you most definitely are ever-ready to turn the conversation towards partisan battling.

I don't claim to be without bias, but I try very hard to check it, and I only rarely indulge it, because I dislike partisanship, whether in sports or politics. I mean, come on folks, let's at least try. But more so, I'm simply more interested in tennis as a whole, in analysis and all the charts and stuff, in talking about trends and history, then I am in fandom around Roger or any other specific player.

I don't know what thread you're talking about, but I take issue with your assumption that I was negging Rafa. Actually, you kind of made my point for me, illustrating it: always on the defensive and assuming a slight. Unless, of course, I'm anointing Rafa with oils,.

And as I said, it could be that there are just more Rafa fans around...but it ends up with the same result. I write a 1,000-word post, and some Rafa fan jumps in and finds the one sentence with Rafa and spins it to the negative. And the inevitable and tedious veering of any conversation back to the Fedalkovic Wars...

 

[El Dude]

Oh, I vaguely remember that thread. What was that from, a few years ago? If I remember correctly, when I wrote it, I honestly didn't see a path in which Rafa would end up with the most. I think it was after 2018...with Roger at 20, Rafa at 17, Novak at 13...and the Next Genners starting to get their act together. I had no clue that Rafa would win 5 more, and Novak 8 more.

Moxie, I was predicting that Rafa would pass Roger in the Slam count back in 2013 or '14. I always knew it was likely, if not inevitable. By 2016, it seemed Roger and Rafa were done, and Novak would end up with bragging rights (and that's all it is, really...which I think is part of the problem: Slam absolutism, which is just sloppy and over-simplistic).

But so what? Rafa has more Slams. Does that mean he's a greater player? No, it doesn't. And even if he is, again, so what? Must my guy be the best guy? Why are people so insistent on that? I've been an Angels fan since like 1980, for Chrissakes - they've only won the World Series once! I know they're a crappy franchise compared to the Dodgers or Astros, but I still follow them, still suffer with them.

Tennis fans are weird like that, or at least fans of the Big Three. It is strange to me, migrating from baseball. It is almost like every tennis fan--or at least fans of the Big Three--act like Yankees fans: they almost feel entitled to win, to be the Best (or rather, for their favorite to be the best).

It also seems more...political, like the endless partisan squabbling between members of Team Blue and Team Red. Some of us aren't on either team, and don't play that partisan game ("My Team is always right, and is good - and the other team is wrong and deceitful and evil..."). One similarity is that by not being on either team, acolytes of both teams often think I'm on the other team...it reminds me of when the Fed troll accused me of being a secret Rafa or Novak fan! (I can't remember).

I'm complaining, because I like to talk about tennis, but without the partisan stuff. I'm just not interested, or at least only rarely and minutely (I will occasionally make a joke, but mostly to get folks riled). When I talk about GOATdom, I approach it from the perspective of a mental exercise: the "gun to the head" idea. I don't do it because I must, at all cost, find a way to spin Roger as GOAT. I'm more curious about what different approaches will yield in terms of results, not gaming the system (or formula) so that my guy comes out ahead. You should know this, Moxie, because I've already said my gun-to-head choice is Novak, and that doesn't pain me at all, that Roger might not be the greatest ever - because I don't think he's the greatest. Being one of the greatest is plenty enough for me, and I honestly hope some young pup rises up and destroys all their records. Don't you?

 

[Kieran]

Of course you're with Kieran on this one, because, well, need I say it? And don't start with the "both sides-ism," ignoring the fact that people aren't all biased to the same degree. I see several gradations, and I certainly don't put you in the same category as a couple of folks that come to mind. On the other hand, you most definitely are ever-ready to turn the conversation towards partisan battling.

I don't claim to be without bias, but I try very hard to check it, and I only rarely indulge it, because I dislike partisanship, whether in sports or politics. I mean, come on folks, let's at least try. But more so, I'm simply more interested in tennis as a whole, in analysis and all the charts and stuff, in talking about trends and history, then I am in fandom around Roger or any other specific player.

I don't know what thread you're talking about, but I take issue with your assumption that I was negging Rafa. Actually, you kind of made my point for me, illustrating it: always on the defensive and assuming a slight. Unless, of course, I'm anointing Rafa with oils,.

And as I said, it could be that there are just more Rafa fans around...but it ends up with the same result. I write a 1,000-word post, and some Rafa fan jumps in and finds the one sentence with Rafa and spins it to the negative. And the inevitable and tedious veering of any conversation back to the Fedalkovic Wars...

You’re over-analysing. My response to your suggestion that there was a Rafa-healthy myth was because you’d said this a few times and it never made sense to me, other than that you wanted to believe it yourself. As for Roger, nobody can criticise Roger for 2019 - at that stage he was past the gravy and well into his second dessert. It wasn’t a negative that he lost that final - it was a credit to him that he came so close, at the age of 38…

 

[El Dude]

Novak and Roger are up, which means the list is complete:

1. Laver
2. Djokovic
3. Federer
4. Tilden
5. Nadal
6. Borg
7. McEnroe
8. Rosewall
9. Gonzales
10. Lendl
11. Sampras
12. Budge
13. Connors
14. Kramer
15. Murray
16. Becker
17. Vines
18. Perry
19. Agassi
20. Edberg
21. Vilas
22. Drobny
23. Ashe
24. Wilander
25. Newcombe
26. Emerson
27. Segura
28. Sedgman
29. Nastase
30. Riggs
31. Lacoste
32. Seixas
33. Santana
34. Bromwich
35. Trabert
36. Smith
37. Hoad
38. Cochet
39. Ferrer
40. Roddick
41. Patty
42. Crawford
43. Hewitt
44. Del Potro
45. Chang
46. Von Cramm
47. Gerulaitis
48. Parker
49. Okker
50. Roche
51. Richards
52. Courier
53. Kovacs
54. Ivanisevic
55. Kozeluh
56. Schroeder
57. Johnston
58. Quist
59. Nishikori
60. Cooper
61. Stich
62. Borotra
63. Wawrinka

All things tolled, a very interesting list. It has led me into a deeper dive of Elo, which I came out of finding to be very useful as a way to express "peak talent" in any given match, at any given time. It has got me onto a new research project or two...

Anyhow, I was a bit surprised that Laver is first, but mostly because I don't have the data on Laver pre-Open Era, when he was in his prime (he was already 30-31 in 1969 when he won the Calendar Slam). Laver's peak UTS Elo is 2509, 8th highest all time but still a ways behind Novak's peak of 2629...but presumably Sackmann estimates that Laver was even higher in the 60s, which I can believe.

I do think Elo should be part of all-time rankings, but not the singular measure like Sackmann. It does a good job measuring how good a player was at their very best, but tells us nothing about the actual accomplishments (titles) of a player. So in that regard, I could see a system that combines the two: Actual results (titles, Slam results) and Elo.