Cincinnati Masters 2025, Ohio, US - ATP Masters 1000

[Moxie]

The ATP year-end number measures the most ATP pionts for the year, and thus is more quantitative than qualitative. I'm guessing that the two match up 90% of the time, so it isn't bad. And even when they don't match up (that is, the best player in terms of quality isn't year-end #1), it usually isn't egregious.

Very interesting to read this post, and @Jelenafan's reply. I'll try to integrate some of his points into my response to you.

I'd say the YE#1 in the points matches up more than 90% of the time, since rather a long time. There are years, and you mention 2, when fans would quibble (Rafa v. Roger, 2017, and you say you're ok with it,) or argue, (Andy v. Novak, 2016, which Fiero has never gotten over, but you make the case, or it can easily be made.)

I have a problem with your saying it's "more" quantitative than qualitative. Well, a bit, you could argue, but the ATP takes care of that with mandatory participation. So, the "quality" is built into the level of the event, to some extent. (Some top players will be forced to bow out, or prefer to, for various reasons.) Also, they limit the number of lower level events that can count towards the final tally, so you can't just "bulk up" on small events.

In baseball terms, ATP rankings are more like hits or total bases rather than batting average or slugging percentage.

I have a bit of a problem with this analogy. It makes point totals sound pedestrian. The other problem is that it can't be made a percentage of events played. Even if they're top events. Even if you only use it to determine the YE#1. Because, remember, that by 2017, Roger was only obligated to a much smaller number of events. So was Rafa, based on "years served." But it would make older top players able to skip events, and still make a run at YE #1. This is not in the interest of the ATP, or of the events. I think this is @Jelanafan's larger point. You have to play tournaments to get the points. It supports the tour. Slugging percentage is not interesting to the ATP, if you don't play enough.

That said, I could see having bonuses or higher point totals for Slam titles than the current system. While I think the point system is pretty good at depicting relative difficulty of winning different tournaments, it does seem odd that a Grand Slam is "only" worth two Masters. I kind of think 2500 points would be better, so 2.5 Masters worth. Or maybe bonus points for things like multiple SlamsBut that's entirely subjective.

I'll entertain your notion that a Major could be worth 2500 points for this reason: The MS 1000 used to be Bo5 in finals, and aren't anymore. The only event, for men, that is Bo5 is the Majors. That said, the field is more open in a Major. And, to Jelenafan's point, they are not ATP events, so the ATP has no interest in awarding them more points. The 1000s, especially the ones that adhere to the one-week format, have a tougher line-up with nowhere to hide and no days off. So, in the end, no extra credit to the Majors, I say.

I think you have to stick with this point system. I do understand that you're saying you don't much have a problem with it.