Year-End #1 vs. ATP ranked #1 at year's end

[Moxie]

We've been discussing the potential of who might end up Year-End #1 in the IPTL thread, and I thought I might give it its own discussion. Most points in the annual tennis calendar makes you the YE#1. ATP ranking is a rolling 52-weeks, which is a different accounting. Value of YE#1? How much value does it have, given the brevity of the tennis "off-season?"

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Perhaps a misleading title. "YE #1" versus the mythical "Player of the year" issue was
being discussed there.

YE #1 is an objectively determined based on who has the most race points at the end of year
(will be same as ranking points as it is at the end of year and so the issue here
is not the differentation between race and ranking points). There is an actual trophy
awarded for the player who achieves this.

On the other hand, the mythical "player of the year" is a subjective opinion of
which player had the best year. There is no consensus on this and there is no trophy
for this.

 

[Federberg]

If the purpose of the thread is to discuss if there is any greater value to being YE no 1 or being ranked no 1 at some point in the year, then in my opinion the answer is no there isn't much difference. If you're number 1 it's because you're the best player in the world over rolling 52 week period. I don't really place too much value on over which 52 week period it is..

 

[Moxie]

^ I get your distinction, and that's why I created the thread. I think we all agree with the ratings system for tournaments, and that points are points. However, the subjective does come into it, if there is controversy. Because, amongst fans, all points aren't created equal, now, are they? However, if Djokovic isn't TOO distracted, I think the point will be moot.

 

[Moxie]

If the purpose of the thread is to discuss if there is any greater value to being YE no 1 or being ranked no 1 at some point in the year, then in my opinion the answer is no there isn't much difference. If you're number 1 it's because you're the best player in the world over rolling 52 week period. I don't really place too much value on over which 52 week period it is..

Basically, I'm with you, federberg. I'm trying to embrace the concept of YE#1, but it doesn't compel me. If the tennis calendar were shorter, and the YEC were a kind of World Series, like baseball, then I would feel like we could declare a #1 each year. The idea that tennis has a rolling 52-week ranking, AND wants to have a YE #1 to me is a little bizarre. It's trying to have it both ways. Either you close every season and start again, or you don't. Tennis favors its top players, and even lesser lights, by the rolling ranking, which I agree with. If you started fresh every year, in terms of rankings, the results could be really volatile. So, if we buy into the rolling ranking, where does the YE#1 fit into the idea?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If the purpose of the thread is to discuss if there is any greater value to being YE no 1 or being ranked no 1 at some point in the year, then in my opinion the answer is no there isn't much difference. If you're number 1 it's because you're the best player in the world over rolling 52 week period. I don't really place too much value on over which 52 week period it is..

I don't know what is the purpose of the thread, but I will answer your question.
In theory, you are right, YE no. 1 has the same value as being number 1 at some other
point in the year. However, in practice, YE #1 has lot more value. This is not because
one 52 week period is holier than another; but due to the following.

Even those who don't care about YE #1 usually values weeks at no. 1. So,
players like to accumulate lot of weeks at no. 1. If you end up being YE #1, you
get lot of free weeks as no. 1. This is because during the off season, the ranking
does not change at all and changes at the top will be very less during the weeks
when there are only itsy bitsy tourneys going on. So, if you end up as YE #1,
that alone virtually guarantees you about 10 weeks of #1 ranking. On the other
hand, if you become #1 at the end of Madrid, there is a good chance that you
might be displaced from that coveted spot right next week when the Rome results
come in.

 

[Moxie]

If the purpose of the thread is to discuss if there is any greater value to being YE no 1 or being ranked no 1 at some point in the year, then in my opinion the answer is no there isn't much difference. If you're number 1 it's because you're the best player in the world over rolling 52 week period. I don't really place too much value on over which 52 week period it is..

I don't know what is the purpose of the thread, but I will answer your question.
In theory, you are right, YE no. 1 has the same value as being number 1 at some other
point in the year. However, in practice, YE #1 has lot more value. This is not because
one 52 week period is holier than another; but due to the following.

Even those who don't care about YE #1 usually values weeks at no. 1. So,
players like to accumulate lot of weeks at no. 1. If you end up being YE #1, you
get lot of free weeks as no. 1. This is because during the off season, the ranking
does not change at all and changes at the top will be very less during the weeks
when there are only itsy bitsy tourneys going on. So, if you end up as YE #1,
that alone virtually guarantees you about 10 weeks of #1 ranking. On the other
hand, if you become #1 at the end of Madrid, there is a good chance that you
might be displaced from that coveted spot right next week when the Rome results
come in.

I'm not clear that that makes sense. How does ending the year at #1 guarantee you any weeks at #1 on the rolling ATP? The "free weeks" at #1 are about the rolling weeks, not the YE #1.

 

[tennisville]

If the purpose of the thread is to discuss if there is any greater value to being YE no 1 or being ranked no 1 at some point in the year, then in my opinion the answer is no there isn't much difference. If you're number 1 it's because you're the best player in the world over rolling 52 week period. I don't really place too much value on over which 52 week period it is..

Basically, I'm with you, federberg. I'm trying to embrace the concept of YE#1, but it doesn't compel me. If the tennis calendar were shorter, and the YEC were a kind of World Series, like baseball, then I would feel like we could declare a #1 each year. The idea that tennis has a rolling 52-week ranking, AND wants to have a YE #1 to me is a little bizarre. It's trying to have it both ways. Either you close every season and start again, or you don't. Tennis favors its top players, and even lesser lights, by the rolling ranking, which I agree with. If you started fresh every year, in terms of rankings, the results could be really volatile. So, if we buy into the rolling ranking, where does the YE#1 fit into the idea?

I think the YE#1 is very important because I like to group tennis by calender years and I can look at the calender year and see who has the most points at the end of the year . It tells me who the best player of the year was. Looking at it after Madrid will not tell me that

The rolling 52 weeks ensure that every week is important and the best players of the last 52 weeks gets the advantage in the seeding before making of a draw, If we zero out before the start of every season , then the events at the start of the year become way more important than the events that took place at the end of the previous year in making of a draw. In that scenario we will favour a person winning a lowly ATP event in Chennai over a person who won the US Open last year and did not play in the first week.

Also as GSM said you get a lot of free weeks if you are no 1 at the end of the year. If you are YE#1 then you get a minimum of 5 weeks added to your weeks at no 1

 

[Moxie]

If the purpose of the thread is to discuss if there is any greater value to being YE no 1 or being ranked no 1 at some point in the year, then in my opinion the answer is no there isn't much difference. If you're number 1 it's because you're the best player in the world over rolling 52 week period. I don't really place too much value on over which 52 week period it is..

Basically, I'm with you, federberg. I'm trying to embrace the concept of YE#1, but it doesn't compel me. If the tennis calendar were shorter, and the YEC were a kind of World Series, like baseball, then I would feel like we could declare a #1 each year. The idea that tennis has a rolling 52-week ranking, AND wants to have a YE #1 to me is a little bizarre. It's trying to have it both ways. Either you close every season and start again, or you don't. Tennis favors its top players, and even lesser lights, by the rolling ranking, which I agree with. If you started fresh every year, in terms of rankings, the results could be really volatile. So, if we buy into the rolling ranking, where does the YE#1 fit into the idea?

I think the YE#1 is very important because I like to group tennis by calender years and I can look at the calender year and see who has the most points at the end of the year . It tells me who the best player of the year was. Looking at it after Madrid will not tell me that

The rolling 52 weeks ensure that every week is important and the best players of the last 52 weeks gets the advantage in the seeding before making of a draw, If we zero out before the start of every season , then the events at the start of the year become way more important than the events that took place at the end of the previous year in making of a draw. In that scenario we will favour a person winning a lowly ATP event in Chennai over a person who won the US Open last year and did not play in the first week.

Also as GSM said you get a lot of free weeks if you are no 1 at the end of the year. If you are YE#1 then you get a minimum of 5 weeks added to your weeks at no 1

Yes, the person who had the most points for the calendar year wins the year, but you DO get why that could be controversial as to who was the best player of the year, right? That's where this discussion comes from.

As I bolded in your above, you make notion of a "lowly ATP event in Chennai" having more weight than a USO win, and why that might be a travesty. This is where it gets complicated, and where a rolling 52-week system doesn't offer controversy, though a calendar-year one does.

In the 52-week assessment, you don't win the #1 ranking via small tournament wins, or an accumulation of SFs and Fs. You don't just win...you defend. In the race to the YE#1, however, all points are equal. So, if you're second best at garnering points in most events, more often than those who won the big titles, does that make you the best? In this, I'm with DarthFed...winning big events means more.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Moxie you are seriously getting muddled.

In both 52 week rolling ranking and YE ranking all points are equal value independent of
where you get it.

"player of the year" comes from the notion that points won at big tournaments are
better than points won at small tournaments. That is an erroneous notion. Only in order to
give importance to big tournaments , the big tournaments pay large amount of points
when you win the likes of which you simply cannot get it in small tournaments. So, you
should actually treat 100 points won at GS with the same value as 100 points won at
ATP 250.

Now, some will argue that winning 8 ATP 250s is not the same as winning one
GS. While that statement in isolation is very true, it does not really affect the
rankings that much as any commitment player typically gets to count only
2 ATP 250 events at the most in their rankings independent of however many
they may play (as rankings come from 19 tourneys, 4 GS + 8 ATP 1000 +
4 ATP 500 + 2 ATP 250 + WTF if applicable).

 

[Moxie]

Moxie you are seriously getting muddled.

In both 52 week rolling ranking and YE ranking all points are equal value independent of
where you get it.

"player of the year" comes from the notion that points won at big tournaments are
better than points won at small tournaments. That is an erroneous notion. Only in order to
give importance to big tournaments , the big tournaments pay large amount of points
when you win the likes of which you simply cannot get it in small tournaments. So, you
should actually treat 100 points won at GS with the same value as 100 points won at
ATP 250.

Now, some will argue that winning 8 ATP 250s is not the same as winning one
GS. While that statement in isolation is very true, it does not really affect the
rankings that much as any commitment player typically gets to count only
2 ATP 250 events at the most in their rankings independent of however many
they may play (as rankings come from 19 tourneys, 4 GS + 8 ATP 1000 +
4 ATP 500 + 2 ATP 250 + WTF if applicable).

I never posited this (your bolded.) I agree that all points are equal. This is separate from my question of why there should be a YE#1, different from the one who is #1 in the ATP rankings at the end of the year. I think you, perhaps, don't understand my distinction.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Moxie you are seriously getting muddled.

In both 52 week rolling ranking and YE ranking all points are equal value independent of
where you get it.

"player of the year" comes from the notion that points won at big tournaments are
better than points won at small tournaments. That is an erroneous notion. Only in order to
give importance to big tournaments , the big tournaments pay large amount of points
when you win the likes of which you simply cannot get it in small tournaments. So, you
should actually treat 100 points won at GS with the same value as 100 points won at
ATP 250.

Now, some will argue that winning 8 ATP 250s is not the same as winning one
GS. While that statement in isolation is very true, it does not really affect the
rankings that much as any commitment player typically gets to count only
2 ATP 250 events at the most in their rankings independent of however many
they may play (as rankings come from 19 tourneys, 4 GS + 8 ATP 1000 +
4 ATP 500 + 2 ATP 250 + WTF if applicable).

I never posited this (your bolded.) I agree that all points are equal. This is separate from my question of why there should be a YE#1, different from the one who is #1 in the ATP rankings at the end of the year. I think you, perhaps, don't understand my distinction.

There is no such thing.

Whoever is #1 in the ATP rankings at the end of the year is indeed YE #1.

Your understanding here is completely erroneous.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The title of your thread itself shows you are confused. There is no separate YE #1. nono:nono
Whoever is number 1 at the end of year in regular ATP rankings is by definition, the
YE #1.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie you are seriously getting muddled.

In both 52 week rolling ranking and YE ranking all points are equal value independent of
where you get it.

"player of the year" comes from the notion that points won at big tournaments are
better than points won at small tournaments. That is an erroneous notion. Only in order to
give importance to big tournaments , the big tournaments pay large amount of points
when you win the likes of which you simply cannot get it in small tournaments. So, you
should actually treat 100 points won at GS with the same value as 100 points won at
ATP 250.

Now, some will argue that winning 8 ATP 250s is not the same as winning one
GS. While that statement in isolation is very true, it does not really affect the
rankings that much as any commitment player typically gets to count only
2 ATP 250 events at the most in their rankings independent of however many
they may play (as rankings come from 19 tourneys, 4 GS + 8 ATP 1000 +
4 ATP 500 + 2 ATP 250 + WTF if applicable).

I never posited this (your bolded.) I agree that all points are equal. This is separate from my question of why there should be a YE#1, different from the one who is #1 in the ATP rankings at the end of the year. I think you, perhaps, don't understand my distinction.

There is no such thing.

Whoever is #1 in the ATP rankings at the end of the year is indeed YE #1.

Your understanding here is completely erroneous.

Then why are we asking who wins the points at the end of the year, separate from the #1 ranking? If it's points, it's Djokovic and all done.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Moxie you are seriously getting muddled.

In both 52 week rolling ranking and YE ranking all points are equal value independent of
where you get it.

"player of the year" comes from the notion that points won at big tournaments are
better than points won at small tournaments. That is an erroneous notion. Only in order to
give importance to big tournaments , the big tournaments pay large amount of points
when you win the likes of which you simply cannot get it in small tournaments. So, you
should actually treat 100 points won at GS with the same value as 100 points won at
ATP 250.

Now, some will argue that winning 8 ATP 250s is not the same as winning one
GS. While that statement in isolation is very true, it does not really affect the
rankings that much as any commitment player typically gets to count only
2 ATP 250 events at the most in their rankings independent of however many
they may play (as rankings come from 19 tourneys, 4 GS + 8 ATP 1000 +
4 ATP 500 + 2 ATP 250 + WTF if applicable).

I never posited this (your bolded.) I agree that all points are equal. This is separate from my question of why there should be a YE#1, different from the one who is #1 in the ATP rankings at the end of the year. I think you, perhaps, don't understand my distinction.

There is no such thing.

Whoever is #1 in the ATP rankings at the end of the year is indeed YE #1.

Your understanding here is completely erroneous.

Then why are we asking who wins the points at the end of the year, separate from the #1 ranking? If it's points, it's Djokovic and all done.

Nobody is asking your question. only you are confused.

There are only 2 issues around this that people debate on. These two are
independent debates.

1. This is the issue of YE #1 vs. "player of the year". This issue arises typically
when the YE #1 has not won a slam that year and things like that (for example
if Fed happens to finish #1 at the end of this year).

2. Should obtaining YE #1 be considered an achievement considering this is merely
being #1 at a particular point of time? Here some people hold the view that
being #1 on, say 15th Sep, is equally as significant as being #1 at the end
of year.

The question that you are trying to bring is not even a valid question.
You created a whole thread out of a meaningless question. There is no
year end #1 distinct from played ranked #1 at the end of year. :snigger

 

[Moxie]

Perhaps I am confused, and forgive me, but this is partly why I put up the thread. What constitutes the YE#1, then? If it's not the player with the most points in the calendar year, then why is Darth, for one, campaigning so much for it? (And I didn't confuse the issue with "Player of the Year," you did.)

For the race to O2:

Djokovic: 8150
Federer: 7020
Nadal: 6645

(Obviously, these numbers are close, and in contention.)

However, ATP:

Djokovic: 12,150
Nadal: 8,665
Federer: 8,170

(Only the race for #2 is close.)

So, then, what constitutes the YE#1? If it's not the same as the ATP rankings, then why are our Federer fans so anxious for it? Based on those numbers, and short of not showing up to anything, there is basically no way that Nole doesn't finish the year at #1, in the ATP rankings.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

1. At the end of the year, the race and the regular rankings converge. They will be identical.

2. Djokovic has 4000 points to defend from now until the end of year. So, his apparent
huge lead in the rankings can vanish easily by year end if he goofs off.

I don't mean to rub it on your face, but you seem really confused. Have a good night
sleep and think about it tomorrow.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Moxie, may be you are confusing WTF champion with YE #1. Those two are two different
things. WTF is just a tournament (although special as only top 8 players can participate in it)
and the winner of it is not necessarily the YE #1.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There is an actual trophy awarded to YE #1. Usually, they don't wait for the year to end
to give that trophy. They give it as soon as they know that some one has sealed the deal
(and most often during the WTF). But, there is no prize money associated with it.

The "player of the year" is a mythical concept and fan construct. ATP or ITF does not
declare anybody as the "player of the year" and also there is no trophy or cash prize
for the subjective "player of the year".

 

[Moxie]

I have no interest in the "player of the year," and I have never mentioned it. As to the Year-End #1, my question was always if that was a difference from the ATP #1 at year's end. You can sneer at that question, if you like, but I thought folks were making a distinction. If they are one and the same, then I think neither Roger nor Rafa has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the year-end #1, and why, then, was so much breath wasted on it?