Understandably, as with most other sports, the tours want to incentivize players to play more tournaments. If they relied solely on an external system, such as DUPR, though the late-round competition would better ensure the best teams were facing each other at the right time, players could find ways to maintain their seeding rank outside of participating in tour events.
However given the unique "merge" situation created by the MLP/PPA partnership, doing a one-time re-ranking for migrating players using DUPR or other methods would be better than the current inaction.
Have you done any analysis of how the PPA points system compares to ATP or WTA? From our quick view of it at a high level, it looks like it is very difficult to accumulate points and catch up unless you basically win gold or silver. You don’t accumulate many points outside of those top spots, which makes it even more difficult to catch up for seeding. Would be curious if some kind of alteration in how points are awarded could be beneficial.
We have not done such an analysis, but your thinking makes sense. Getting knocked out in early rounds from facing top teams really makes it tough until you string together a few upsets, or keep grinding your way through and winning 5th in the backdraws.
Points system overhaul should be on the table, I'd imagine, in addition to a one-time seeding repair for all the new transferred players on tour this year.
The desire to protect your committed players by keeping the road for new talent fraught with difficulty is up to them. Our primary contention is that given these established players that have committed to their tour and re-invigorated it in many ways, it's worth finding a way to do a one-time seeding repair for these teams to strengthen the health of the tour, not to mention the importance to retain these new pros.
This was a great post. Have you considered doing a post on rating systems? I often hear people complaining about DUPR (some valid, some seem like misconceptions) but I have not really heard of better alternatives.
What is the effect when a seed #10-#12 withdraws late after the brackets have been posted? PPA puts a team from the qualifier into their spot - someone who presumably would be a minimum #28 seed. We've seen it happen several times.
Well, you describe the effect pretty well yourself. For the purposes of this study, however, the effect is minimal since finishing rank is based on how far teams get in the backdraw. It does give that team a slight edge, but over 1700 data points, that scenario's impact is effectively wiped out for the purposes of this analysis.
Why not just use DUPR? I know you mentioned it as a possibility in the article.
Understandably, as with most other sports, the tours want to incentivize players to play more tournaments. If they relied solely on an external system, such as DUPR, though the late-round competition would better ensure the best teams were facing each other at the right time, players could find ways to maintain their seeding rank outside of participating in tour events.
However given the unique "merge" situation created by the MLP/PPA partnership, doing a one-time re-ranking for migrating players using DUPR or other methods would be better than the current inaction.
Have you done any analysis of how the PPA points system compares to ATP or WTA? From our quick view of it at a high level, it looks like it is very difficult to accumulate points and catch up unless you basically win gold or silver. You don’t accumulate many points outside of those top spots, which makes it even more difficult to catch up for seeding. Would be curious if some kind of alteration in how points are awarded could be beneficial.
We have not done such an analysis, but your thinking makes sense. Getting knocked out in early rounds from facing top teams really makes it tough until you string together a few upsets, or keep grinding your way through and winning 5th in the backdraws.
Points system overhaul should be on the table, I'd imagine, in addition to a one-time seeding repair for all the new transferred players on tour this year.
The desire to protect your committed players by keeping the road for new talent fraught with difficulty is up to them. Our primary contention is that given these established players that have committed to their tour and re-invigorated it in many ways, it's worth finding a way to do a one-time seeding repair for these teams to strengthen the health of the tour, not to mention the importance to retain these new pros.
This was a great post. Have you considered doing a post on rating systems? I often hear people complaining about DUPR (some valid, some seem like misconceptions) but I have not really heard of better alternatives.
What is the effect when a seed #10-#12 withdraws late after the brackets have been posted? PPA puts a team from the qualifier into their spot - someone who presumably would be a minimum #28 seed. We've seen it happen several times.
Well, you describe the effect pretty well yourself. For the purposes of this study, however, the effect is minimal since finishing rank is based on how far teams get in the backdraw. It does give that team a slight edge, but over 1700 data points, that scenario's impact is effectively wiped out for the purposes of this analysis.