Thanks to the first round of commenters who alerted me to the fact that this was one of the most poorly explained charts in the history of mankind. To have misled so many tennis enthusiasts is one of my greatest transgressions to date.
The y-axis is the percent of points won ON the first serve. This is NOT “first serve percentage” nor is it “point win percentage”. It’s, out of 100 points, how many were won by the server after he hit the first serve in.
On the first serve, obviously, the ball doesn’t have to go in, and the server can still win the point.
For the x-xis: On the second serve, however, as we all know, a fault is an instant loss. So if the server were to hit a first serve again, their overall probability of winning the point is now: P(serve goes in) * P(server wins point). This is the same as the y-axis only now the stakes are higher. That’s why they can be compared in this apples-to-apples way.
I seem to recall having seen a similar chart on here a while back that suggested Zverev, Kyrgios and a few others would actually be *better* off hitting two first serves — it would be great if whoever made that chart is reading this and could get in touch with me so we can figure out who is right.
Please bear with me as this is one of my first tennis projects (I usually stick to air travel) or as the fatties on [](/r/gonewild/) say, “please be nice”.
I’m still very confused. Wouldn’t >50% on your X axis mean that the player would be better off hitting two “second” serves? That is obviously wrong.
The fact that you need so much explanatory text means that this data is not presented beautifully.
This is saying that a higher proportion of points are won on the second serve then on the first serve. That can’t be right
Doesn’t this chart mean that every player should deliberately fault their first shot? I don’t think I believe your data. Is the y-axis (number of points won when first serve went in)/(number of first serves)? Because that would be misleading. If you fault your first serve, then you get a second serve. The y-axis needs to show (number of points won when first serve went in)/(number of first serves that went in).
I loved watching Raonic in his prime. So much power in that serve. Too bad he could never stay healthy.
I think this is pretty clever
> no players
> would any players
It’s not even clear what sport this is. I can’t meaningfully interpret anything about this data further without knowing that. Serve is a term used in several different sports including baseball, tennis, volleyball, ping pong, etc.
![[OC] No players would be better off hitting two first serves, not even John Isner (second attempt)](https://www.europesays.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/lgldpi1xcxhd1-1806x1024.png)
8 comments
**Python Polars + Altair**
**Data:** [**https://github.com/JeffSackmann/tennis_slam_pointbypoint**](https://github.com/JeffSackmann/tennis_slam_pointbypoint)
Thanks to the first round of commenters who alerted me to the fact that this was one of the most poorly explained charts in the history of mankind. To have misled so many tennis enthusiasts is one of my greatest transgressions to date.
The y-axis is the percent of points won ON the first serve. This is NOT “first serve percentage” nor is it “point win percentage”. It’s, out of 100 points, how many were won by the server after he hit the first serve in.
On the first serve, obviously, the ball doesn’t have to go in, and the server can still win the point.
For the x-xis: On the second serve, however, as we all know, a fault is an instant loss. So if the server were to hit a first serve again, their overall probability of winning the point is now: P(serve goes in) * P(server wins point). This is the same as the y-axis only now the stakes are higher. That’s why they can be compared in this apples-to-apples way.
I seem to recall having seen a similar chart on here a while back that suggested Zverev, Kyrgios and a few others would actually be *better* off hitting two first serves — it would be great if whoever made that chart is reading this and could get in touch with me so we can figure out who is right.
Please bear with me as this is one of my first tennis projects (I usually stick to air travel) or as the fatties on [](/r/gonewild/) say, “please be nice”.
I’m still very confused. Wouldn’t >50% on your X axis mean that the player would be better off hitting two “second” serves? That is obviously wrong.
The fact that you need so much explanatory text means that this data is not presented beautifully.
This is saying that a higher proportion of points are won on the second serve then on the first serve. That can’t be right
Doesn’t this chart mean that every player should deliberately fault their first shot? I don’t think I believe your data. Is the y-axis (number of points won when first serve went in)/(number of first serves)? Because that would be misleading. If you fault your first serve, then you get a second serve. The y-axis needs to show (number of points won when first serve went in)/(number of first serves that went in).
I loved watching Raonic in his prime. So much power in that serve. Too bad he could never stay healthy.
I think this is pretty clever
> no players
> would any players
It’s not even clear what sport this is. I can’t meaningfully interpret anything about this data further without knowing that. Serve is a term used in several different sports including baseball, tennis, volleyball, ping pong, etc.
r/TitleGore