This is why I love data!! Most of the time what we think about things are based on our perceptions and what we “feel”. Then when you look at the data, we find out our perception is skewed. Data just gives facts, and you all did a great job mining and presenting. Thank you.
Thanks for putting some data and analysis into the conversation. It's a much better approach than banning the spin serve based on opinions and feelings without data. That said, your conclusion point of "No stacking complication and confusion" is intentionally misleading. This has nothing to do with the debate between rally scoring and regular scoring. It (along with not having the server keep serving when a point is won on the serve) is a MLP rule not related to scoring (or this debate). And, these are biggest flaws in the MLP scoring, IMO. Switching sides and continuing to serve (when a point is won on the serve) allows for a more dynamic game where players have to play both sides, serve and return to/from both opposing players, and keeps strategy (to stack or not and how to attack stacking teams) and needs to stay in pickleball regardless of the rally vs regular scoring debate.
The complication of the rules—including stacking and switching sides—is definitely relevant to the debate. A major driving reason for Rally Scoring, as advocated by folks at DUPR and MLP is to make the scoring system easier to learn and understand for newcomers. If there are no benefits to Rally Scoring, then no one would be advocating changing from Traditional Scoring.
Stacking, of course, still is common at the pro level even with MLP Rally Scoring, but it is less common and, in our opinion and experience, it is quite confusing for new players. Everyone's welcome to hold a different opinion. Also, just because something might be confusing, doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. There are lots of valid arguments for preserving these aspects of the game, and we think that debate is a healthy one for the pickleball community to have.
Certainly valid to continue debating are the intricacies rally scoring rule details. There are definitely ways to modify the rules to address your concerns and the concerns of others.
We'd have to ask MLP, but it seems clear to me that a major influence on the specific rule details for MLP's version of rally scoring is reducing friction and complexity for first-time players and viewers. Definitely up for debate if these are the right priorities and if the rule details successfully accomplish these perceived goals.
Please don't misunderstand my comment. The aspect of switching sides of the court has merits and complications. My main point was that it is independent of and not related scoring and should be a separate discussion than lumping it into scoring. It is possible to establish rules to switch sides (or not) in both regular and rally scoring and thus IMO should not be included in this discussion or scoring.
I don't believe I said it was related to scoring, it was listed as one of the proclaimed "virtues" of Rally Scoring. Since the article is analyzing MLP-style rally scoring, I didn't see the need to specify that the list applied specifically to MLP's version. But yes, there would be other ways to implement Rally Scoring. The article, however, is looking specifically at MLP.
Fantastic statistical breakdown here Ben (I think that’s your name. Haha). I just played in my first rally scoring “mini tournament” using playTKD yesterday and it was a BLAST!
I would like to see the results if the games were played first to 21 (or 25), win by 2, and there was no freeze. I'm not sure, but I don't think the freeze is standard to rally scoring. At least it wasn't where I learned to play and I'd never heard of it until MLP started using it. I would guess that rally scoring game times would drop compared to traditional scoring if they were played this way.
There is a mathematical basis for these results. See the recent academic research paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.02942
Love this sort of thing. Looking forward to digging into it in more detail later. Thanks for sharing!
This is why I love data!! Most of the time what we think about things are based on our perceptions and what we “feel”. Then when you look at the data, we find out our perception is skewed. Data just gives facts, and you all did a great job mining and presenting. Thank you.
This was incredible to read, thank you!
Thanks for putting some data and analysis into the conversation. It's a much better approach than banning the spin serve based on opinions and feelings without data. That said, your conclusion point of "No stacking complication and confusion" is intentionally misleading. This has nothing to do with the debate between rally scoring and regular scoring. It (along with not having the server keep serving when a point is won on the serve) is a MLP rule not related to scoring (or this debate). And, these are biggest flaws in the MLP scoring, IMO. Switching sides and continuing to serve (when a point is won on the serve) allows for a more dynamic game where players have to play both sides, serve and return to/from both opposing players, and keeps strategy (to stack or not and how to attack stacking teams) and needs to stay in pickleball regardless of the rally vs regular scoring debate.
The complication of the rules—including stacking and switching sides—is definitely relevant to the debate. A major driving reason for Rally Scoring, as advocated by folks at DUPR and MLP is to make the scoring system easier to learn and understand for newcomers. If there are no benefits to Rally Scoring, then no one would be advocating changing from Traditional Scoring.
Stacking, of course, still is common at the pro level even with MLP Rally Scoring, but it is less common and, in our opinion and experience, it is quite confusing for new players. Everyone's welcome to hold a different opinion. Also, just because something might be confusing, doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. There are lots of valid arguments for preserving these aspects of the game, and we think that debate is a healthy one for the pickleball community to have.
Certainly valid to continue debating are the intricacies rally scoring rule details. There are definitely ways to modify the rules to address your concerns and the concerns of others.
We'd have to ask MLP, but it seems clear to me that a major influence on the specific rule details for MLP's version of rally scoring is reducing friction and complexity for first-time players and viewers. Definitely up for debate if these are the right priorities and if the rule details successfully accomplish these perceived goals.
Please don't misunderstand my comment. The aspect of switching sides of the court has merits and complications. My main point was that it is independent of and not related scoring and should be a separate discussion than lumping it into scoring. It is possible to establish rules to switch sides (or not) in both regular and rally scoring and thus IMO should not be included in this discussion or scoring.
I don't believe I said it was related to scoring, it was listed as one of the proclaimed "virtues" of Rally Scoring. Since the article is analyzing MLP-style rally scoring, I didn't see the need to specify that the list applied specifically to MLP's version. But yes, there would be other ways to implement Rally Scoring. The article, however, is looking specifically at MLP.
I think I know which scoring style sports bettors would prefer. The one which is less volatile.
Fantastic statistical breakdown here Ben (I think that’s your name. Haha). I just played in my first rally scoring “mini tournament” using playTKD yesterday and it was a BLAST!
I wonder what the data would show between rally scoring to 11 vs traditional scoring to 11?
I would like to see the results if the games were played first to 21 (or 25), win by 2, and there was no freeze. I'm not sure, but I don't think the freeze is standard to rally scoring. At least it wasn't where I learned to play and I'd never heard of it until MLP started using it. I would guess that rally scoring game times would drop compared to traditional scoring if they were played this way.
Seems like the data makes sense for the professional level but may take out some of fun at the recreational level. Which is the majority of players.