Preface |
|
xiii | |
Acknowledgements |
|
xv | |
|
|
1 | (12) |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
Correlation and causality |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
Sports data and human behavior |
|
|
6 | (2) |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
|
10 | (3) |
|
|
13 | (20) |
|
|
13 | (2) |
|
|
15 | (2) |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
|
18 | (2) |
|
|
20 | (1) |
|
Best-of-three versus best-of-five |
|
|
21 | (2) |
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
Long matches: Isner-Mahut 2010 |
|
|
24 | (3) |
|
Rule changes: the no-ad rule |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
Abolishing the second service |
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
|
30 | (3) |
|
|
33 | (16) |
|
|
34 | (2) |
|
Federer-Nadal, Wimbledon final 2008 |
|
|
36 | (2) |
|
|
38 | (2) |
|
Kim Clijsters defeats Venus Williams, US Open 2010 |
|
|
40 | (1) |
|
|
41 | (1) |
|
Djokovic-Nadal, Australian Open 2012 |
|
|
42 | (2) |
|
|
44 | (2) |
|
|
46 | (3) |
|
|
49 | (16) |
|
|
49 | (1) |
|
|
50 | (2) |
|
|
52 | (2) |
|
|
54 | (2) |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
Are all points equally important? |
|
|
57 | (1) |
|
|
58 | (1) |
|
Three importance profiles |
|
|
59 | (3) |
|
|
62 | (3) |
|
|
65 | (20) |
|
|
65 | (2) |
|
|
67 | (3) |
|
Estimators, estimates, and accuracy |
|
|
70 | (2) |
|
Development of tennis over time |
|
|
72 | (2) |
|
Winning a point on service unraveled |
|
|
74 | (2) |
|
Testing a hypothesis: men versus women |
|
|
76 | (2) |
|
|
78 | (2) |
|
|
80 | (2) |
|
Are our summary statistics too simple? |
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
|
82 | (3) |
|
|
85 | (20) |
|
Our summary statistics are too simple |
|
|
85 | (3) |
|
|
88 | (2) |
|
|
90 | (1) |
|
Re-estimating p by the method of moments |
|
|
90 | (1) |
|
Men versus women revisited |
|
|
91 | (1) |
|
Beyond the mean: variation over players |
|
|
92 | (2) |
|
Reliability of summary statistics: a rule of thumb |
|
|
94 | (3) |
|
|
97 | (2) |
|
Noise-free variation over players |
|
|
99 | (1) |
|
Correlation between opponents |
|
|
100 | (2) |
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
|
102 | (3) |
|
|
105 | (22) |
|
Observable variation over players |
|
|
105 | (2) |
|
|
107 | (5) |
|
|
112 | (2) |
|
Significance, relevance, and sensitivity |
|
|
114 | (1) |
|
|
115 | (1) |
|
Winning a point on service |
|
|
116 | (3) |
|
Other service characteristics |
|
|
119 | (2) |
|
|
121 | (2) |
|
|
123 | (4) |
|
8 First and second service |
|
|
127 | (10) |
|
Is the second service more important than the first? |
|
|
127 | (3) |
|
Differences in service probabilities explained |
|
|
130 | (2) |
|
Joint analysis: bivariate GMM |
|
|
132 | (2) |
|
|
134 | (1) |
|
|
134 | (2) |
|
|
136 | (1) |
|
|
137 | (24) |
|
|
137 | (2) |
|
|
139 | (1) |
|
Optimal strategy: one service |
|
|
140 | (1) |
|
Optimal strategy: two services |
|
|
141 | (1) |
|
|
142 | (1) |
|
Four regularity conditions for the optimal strategy |
|
|
143 | (2) |
|
Functional form of y-curve |
|
|
145 | (1) |
|
|
146 | (1) |
|
Efficiency of the average player |
|
|
147 | (1) |
|
Observations for the key probabilities: Monte Carlo |
|
|
148 | (1) |
|
|
149 | (1) |
|
Mean match efficiency gains |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
Efficiency gains across matches |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
Why are players inefficient? |
|
|
153 | (1) |
|
|
154 | (1) |
|
|
155 | (2) |
|
|
157 | (4) |
|
|
161 | (22) |
|
The idea behind the point model |
|
|
161 | (1) |
|
|
162 | (2) |
|
First results at point level |
|
|
164 | (1) |
|
|
165 | (6) |
|
|
171 | (2) |
|
Top players and mental stability |
|
|
173 | (4) |
|
Lessons from the baseline model |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
|
177 | (3) |
|
|
180 | (3) |
|
11 Special points and games |
|
|
183 | (10) |
|
|
183 | (3) |
|
Big points and the baseline model |
|
|
186 | (1) |
|
|
187 | (3) |
|
|
190 | (2) |
|
|
192 | (1) |
|
|
193 | (14) |
|
Streaks, the hot hand, and winning mood |
|
|
193 | (2) |
|
|
195 | (1) |
|
|
196 | (2) |
|
|
198 | (3) |
|
|
201 | (2) |
|
|
203 | (1) |
|
|
204 | (1) |
|
|
205 | (2) |
|
13 The hypotheses revisited |
|
|
207 | (16) |
|
1 Winning a point on service is an iid process |
|
|
207 | (1) |
|
2 It is an advantage to serve first in a set |
|
|
208 | (1) |
|
3 Every point (game, set) is equally important to both players |
|
|
209 | (1) |
|
4 The seventh game is the most important game in the set |
|
|
210 | (1) |
|
5 All points are equally important |
|
|
210 | (1) |
|
6 The probability that the service is in is the same in the men's singles as in the women's singles |
|
|
211 | (1) |
|
7 The probability of a double fault is the same in the men's singles as in the women's singles |
|
|
211 | (1) |
|
8 After a break the probability of being broken back increases |
|
|
212 | (1) |
|
9 Summary statistics give a precise impression of a player's performance |
|
|
213 | (1) |
|
|
213 | (2) |
|
11 Top players must grow into the tournament |
|
|
215 | (1) |
|
12 Men's tennis is more competitive than women's tennis |
|
|
215 | (1) |
|
13 A player is as good as his or her second service |
|
|
216 | (1) |
|
14 Players have an efficient service strategy |
|
|
217 | (1) |
|
15 Players play safer at important points |
|
|
217 | (1) |
|
16 Players take more risks when they are in a winning mood |
|
|
218 | (1) |
|
17 Top players are more stable than others |
|
|
218 | (1) |
|
18 New balls are an advantage to the server |
|
|
219 | (1) |
|
19 Real champions win the big points |
|
|
220 | (1) |
|
20 The winner of the toss should elect to serve |
|
|
220 | (1) |
|
|
220 | (1) |
|
22 After missing breakpoint(s) there is an increased probability of being broken in the next game |
|
|
221 | (2) |
|
Appendix A Tennis rules and terms |
|
|
223 | (4) |
|
|
223 | (1) |
|
|
224 | (3) |
|
Appendix B List of symbols |
|
|
227 | (4) |
|
|
227 | (1) |
|
Score probabilities and importance |
|
|
228 | (1) |
|
|
228 | (1) |
|
|
228 | (1) |
|
|
229 | (1) |
|
|
229 | (1) |
|
|
229 | (1) |
|
|
229 | (1) |
|
|
230 | (1) |
|
Appendix C Data, software, and mathematical derivations |
|
|
231 | (6) |
|
|
231 | (1) |
|
Software: program Richard |
|
|
232 | (2) |
|
|
234 | (3) |
Bibliography |
|
237 | (10) |
Index |
|
247 | |