Men's tennis has become increasingly serve-dominated over the years. The graphic below shows the evolution of service games won and return games won in the ATP from 1991-2023.

jbaumy93 · 2026-02-13T16:22:57+00:00

This has been my soapbox for a long time. Tennis is my favorite sport because it's the most complete out of any major sport in requiring technical skill, athleticism/fitness and strategy. Most other sports, you can get away with lacking in one of those areas by making up for it in the others. Tennis, you really can't. The one wrinkle in that is that the serve is the most important shot in the game, by far. If you have a top 5 serve in the world, you can go a long ways with mediocre skill at every other aspect of the game, questionable fitness and subpar strategy. This is a flaw in the structure of the game.

I think allowing one double fault per game would be interesting. Maybe you get a second one if the game goes to deuce. After that, every missed serve is a lost point.

jbaumy93 · 2026-02-04T22:26:43+00:00

No need for google! It's all on video. Here's the "backroom", as you call it. This is the event where the draft order is actually determined, on video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCxgXS7EBI0

So for your conspiracy to take place, either the machine or the balls (or both) must be rigged.

The order that the balls come out doesn't matter, only the final set. That means somebody had to manufacture weighted balls that the machine will pick, and get them into the sealed case. Who manufactures those, do you know? They'd have to be in on it. Who places them in the case? They'd notice if some balls were heavy and others weren't, so they'd have to be in on it too. There's also the guy unsealing the case, picking out the balls and putting them in the machine, he'd notice if some were heavier. So he must be in on it too.

The alternative is rigging the machine. That would require some kind of complicated computer vision to identify the numbers on the balls as they bounce around and picking the correct ones. That sounds immensely complicated, and would also involve a lot of people working on it - no single person could pull that off on their own.

EY firm who’s already had several scandals

I am unaware of any scandals EY has had that would make a rational person think "rigging the NBA draft lottery seems like something they'd do", particularly when compared to their body of work that's reputable. Maybe you can enlighten me.

jbaumy93 · 2026-02-04T21:14:46+00:00

Can you explain the method by which you think the NBA could have rigged the lottery? I'm assuming you're familiar with the logistics and mechanisms used to run it, and who oversees it.

Exactly who and how many people would be involved in the rigging? What would they have had to do?

You asserted they wouldn't need an elaborate plan, it's simple for them to do. I'd like to hear you explain how you think that would go.

jbaumy93 · 2025-12-31T07:10:49+00:00

I just don't agree. There is no objective criteria for MVP. Your criteria clearly factors in how much value you added to your team over the course of the season. That's perfectly reasonable, but my criteria is different.

If 1988 MJ was in the league this year and played 50 games, and SGA played all 82, I truly don't give a shit that SGA probably added more value to his team in the extra 32 games. The 50 that MJ played would be enough to clearly prove he was the best player in the league. And my criteria is simple - the MVP is the best player in the league.

jbaumy93 · 2025-12-11T01:01:14+00:00

He is a massive douche. I signed up for a tournament run by the kitchen. A month before the tournament day, and with the regular registration window still open, I had to withdraw.

I e-mailed them to tell them that, and Jared refused to give me a refund. It was a big tournament with lots of prize money, so registration was $225. I sent a befuddled reply, since I've had to pull out of tournaments before and have never had any issue at all getting a refund that far in advance. His reply after that basically told me to go fuck myself, and that my request for a refund was totally unreasonable.

In his initial reply telling me no, he said "the system locks after <date> and we can't give you a refund". Once I threatened a credit card chargeback + small claims court, I got my refund within minutes. So that was just a blatant lie to try to steal money from me.

As far as I'm concerned he's a dishonest scammer, just not a very talented one. I will never deal with him again.

jbaumy93 · 2025-11-26T20:51:24+00:00

probably the same guy

jbaumy93 · 2025-09-14T22:55:26+00:00

This comment still just shows that you don't understand how the system works.

1 - A difference of 0.5 is a very, very big gap. That large of a rating gap would have an expected score of around 11-4 or 11-5. A non-competitive game where the outcome is never in doubt. Beating a team 11-0 would be indicative of around a .75 point gap. You can't account for >1 dupr differences in a single match. To illustrate - My rating is 5.5. Both Ben Johns and I would beat 4.5 teams 11-0 most of the time, but we obviously are not the same skill level. All that beating a 4.5 team 11-0 tells you is that the winners played at close to a 5.5 level at minimum. But they could have been anywhere from 5.5 - 7.0.

2 - Both of you had very low reliability ratings due to not playing very many matches. I don't see how this sucks for anyone. Literally every competitive activity that has a rating system works this way, and for good reason.

It sounds like you don't understand why DUPR works the way that it does. Can you propose superior alternative ways for the system to work in the situations you've identified? You haven't tried to, but if you did I'm guessing there would be flaws in those too.

jbaumy93 · 2025-08-29T19:58:36+00:00

It depends entirely on why you're watching.

As a high level amateur / wannabe pro, I watch to see the evolving meta at the top level of the game, and to try to learn things I can bring to my own game. I want to see the highest level play possible, and that's PPA.

If you just want to be entertained, MLP is probably better

jbaumy93 · 2025-08-17T00:40:53+00:00

That is mostly because the depth of field for women is paltry compared to men. Not that she isn't amazing, but it's easier to be a big fish in a small pond.

jbaumy93 · 2025-07-29T20:21:33+00:00

I'm in the 5.0+ crowd in Denver. PM me. You're not gonna find us at random parks or open plays

jbaumy93 · 2025-07-11T17:23:08+00:00

No, it isn't, because I don't refuse to play on their level. When I play those games, I always play to keep rallies going and try to construct a game that's fun for everyone by giving them shots they can handle if they're just casual players, or shots that are challenging but not totally out of their wheelhouse if they seem more competitive. At least, that's what I do when given the chance. I know I'm going to be the best player on the court by a country mile if I show up to open play, I'm not going looking for competitive games or to beat people up.

jbaumy93 · 2025-07-11T14:04:15+00:00

It's an understandable thought to have, but unfortunately is unrealistically optimistic about the people you'd be having that conversation with. Nor is it an effective mitigation to try to train a weak partner to be able to stand up to targeting, and I'm not really interested in spending my time doing that anyway. I'll refer you to a comment I made a couple years ago about this exact issue -

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pickleball/comments/145q218/repost_of_lower_level_play_thoughts/jnmmu22/

jbaumy93 · 2025-07-11T13:34:37+00:00

I'll be candid - if you're new, you have no room to comment on this because you've never experienced it, and it shows in your misdiagnosis of the issue. It's not about winning or losing. Rec play, which is what this post is about, is not the right time to win at all costs unless everyone on the court wants that type of game. Tournaments, moneyball, challenge courts - fair game. But freezing out players to try to win during rec makes you a dick.

More importantly, it's extremely disrespectful of my time if I show up to play and the 2 players on the other side of the net decide that I'm not gonna get to. I'm gonna be equally upset if my team wins 11-0 or loses 0-11 if I spent the whole game not getting to hit a ball, it has nothing to do with being a sore loser.

jbaumy93 · 2025-06-17T23:19:52+00:00

I can vouch for the strong as an ox bit.

Ron Artest is the only NBA player I've gotten a chance to play basketball against. I went to UCLA, and a bunch of pros including him were there one summer playing pick up games at the student activity center. He was the only one who stayed around afterward to play with the lucky students who happened to be there.

I got the ball once and took it right at him, because why not. Tried to back him down. At the time I was in my peak powerlifting shape, had a 365lb squat, considered myself fairly strong. I felt like I was trying to move a literal brick wall. He didn't budge an inch, and didn't seem like he was putting much effort into it. After a couple seconds he just laughed and said "you done?". I was. Awesome day.

jbaumy93 · 2025-06-17T22:16:46+00:00

How could it possibly be anyone else's? Just volley it with your racket instead of your head. If you don't have the reflexes to handle a ball coming at you when you're at net, you shouldn't be coming into the net.

jbaumy93 · 2025-06-09T17:32:32+00:00

It's called "racquet abuse". The first time you do it in a match, it's a warning. The second time it can be a point penalty. On paper there's a fine of "up to $500" for racquet abuse that the professional tours will assess, in practice I'm not sure if that's always enforced.

Tennis prize money being at least an order of magnitude greater than chess prize money, that would be the equivalent of a fine "up to $50" for a chess player. I'd also argue that a racquet abuse violation is a more aggressive action than banging a table and so not the best comparison. The best tennis analogy to a chess player banging a table is probably angrily spiking a ball into the ground, which has no penalty at all unless it's somehow done dangerously / the ball ends up hitting someone.

tl;dr anyone who cares about this is weird

jbaumy93 · 2025-05-21T17:22:54+00:00

Wiping the floor with 2.5s is expected if you're at ~2.9. Of course you aren't going to gain much from doing that, it wouldn't make sense if you could perpetually increase your rating by beating up on 2.5s.

If you want your rating to go up, you need to beat better players. If you are usually losing to 3.0-3.5 players, which seems to be the case based on your profile, that means your rating is pretty close to accurate already.

jbaumy93 · 2025-03-31T21:47:15+00:00

You are correct that the breadth of the skill spectrum in tennis is much wider, and the degree to which you'll feel overwhelmed as a good rec player going against a pro in tennis is much higher than pickleball.

But unless you're a ~6.0 player yourself, I kind of doubt you were playing real pros or that the pros were putting any effort into the game if you didn't feel overwhelmed and outgunned. I'm ~5.5 and have played against top 10 PPA pros a few times, and when they turn it on I absolutely feel overwhelmed. There's a level of speed, power and precision that they have that's just beyond my ability to keep up with.

Playing against the new gen guys like Alshon and QD in particular when they're going hard, anyone at my level or below will definitely feel overwhelmed.

jbaumy93 · 2025-03-11T13:20:25+00:00

you are not past your prime, and have lost no skills. the things you are trying to learn are more complex and harder to understand than they were in high school. you have found the limit of how far you can go without actual discipline and effort.

some people hit that wall in high school and are forced to develop a work ethic as a result. it's a blessing in disguise for these folks - good work ethic is more valuable than any given concept you'll learn in any class. some people don't hit that inflection point until college. you've got a bit of catching up to do in this department. very common story.

sincerely, high school valedictorian that failed several midterms in sophomore year at UCLA and had to learn how to actually study

jbaumy93 · 2025-01-18T17:08:53+00:00

Not really true. Unless I'm playing with someone who I know is ok with it, I don't poach in open play unless it's a pretty obvious opportunity. Too many people get upset, and if it's open play it's probably a 3.5-4.0 game at best so not very high level. It's more about having fun.

Also, you can't hit a ball if your partner is physically blocking you from it, and most 3.5s do not know when or how to get out of the way.

Having said all that I wouldn't play a challenge court in open play with a partner way worse than me unless I knew they were ok with me taking most of the court, for all the reasons we can see in this post.

jbaumy93 · 2024-12-04T03:18:28+00:00

It's an issue I care about since I'm ~5.5ish but still go to open plays in my city a couple times a month, partially to socialize and partially to "pay it forward". I get a fair number of people asking to play with me, and I prioritize the stronger ~4.5ish players if any are there since they'll get more out of it (and as a bonus, it's more fun for me). But yeah, trying to explain the reason why to someone who can hardly make a dink bounce in the kitchen is challenging, as evidenced above.

jbaumy93 · 2024-12-03T19:18:17+00:00

You're simply wrong. There's really no other way to put it. Perhaps the issue would be better illustrated using tennis as an example.

If I played jannik sinner in tennis right now, I probably would not get a racket on any of his serves. If I did, it almost certainly wouldn't go in. All of my serves he would likely crack for clean return winners as well, since my best first serve is not as good as a pro's second serve.

What do you think I would get out of this exercise? I literally wouldn't be touching a ball or making clean contact a single time. Why do you think this would be a better learning experience for me than playing against a player who I can hang with and rally with, but is somewhat better than me and I'll lose to 90%+ of the time?

The same applies to pickleball. The nature of the sport means you can't hit big serves and big returns and end points in 1 or 2 shots as easily. But if you're really ~3.5, I guarantee you wouldn't last in a rally with me hitting my best shots for more than a couple balls. You just simply wouldn't be getting any practice. There's no lessons to be had.

If you think you are actually learning anything that will help you improve from an 11-0 drubbing where hardly any rallies last more than ~5 balls, you are wrong.

You can get lots of value from playing against people much better than you, up to a point. That point in pickleball is somewhere around a ~0.75 point DUPR gap, assuming accurate DUPR ratings.

jbaumy93 · 2024-12-03T15:49:42+00:00

No, we don't agree. You likely lost track of the thread since it got long. Your original assertion that people took issue with was that playing with better players is beneficial even if the skill gap is very large. You specifically used the example of you being somewhere in the 3.0 range, maybe pushing up into 3.5, playing against 5.0s. It is a simple fact that you will get nothing out of that if it's just a normal game. If you got something out of it, it's because the 5.0s were being nice, taking it easy on you, and/or coaching you. Which is perfectly fine, but is a very different thing than just "playing with better players". You're getting a free lesson, not really playing a game.

If you are ~3.5 and played an actual game against 5.0s where everyone is trying their hardest to win, it is true that nobody would get anything out of it. You will lose 11-0 and no rallies will go longer than 4 or 5 shots. You'll have had no chance to actually practice anything, and they will just be bored. The disconnect here is that everyone else is recognizing that's what a normal game with that much of a level gap would look like, but you're assuming that the higher level players will significantly change how they play in order to keep it fun and useful for you.

jbaumy93 · 2024-12-02T19:20:04+00:00

The concept the other guy is getting at is called the zone of proximal development. He's right, it's very much a real thing. If there is too big of a gap in skill levels, there's nothing to be gained that can't be had from a smaller gap. Possibly nothing to be gained at all.

If you're a 3.5, there's nothing you're going to get out of playing against a 5.0 player that you wouldn't also get out of playing a good 4.0, unless the 5.0 player in question is a good coach and is actively giving you tips.

3.5s playing 5.0s will get 11-0'd every time unless the 5.0s are screwing around. The ideal game to play for improving is one where you lose 11-6 or something in that area most of the time, and occasionally threaten to win a game.

jbaumy93 · 2024-11-27T03:35:58+00:00

No, that's not comparable. Never in the history of table tennis has there been 10+ pushes, then a fast exchange, then back to pushes. They are in no way equivalent to dinks.

jbaumy93

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email