RallyIQ

WTA · Right-handed · 8 charted matches · 2024–2026

Hailey Baptiste

Archetype: Runs around the backhand · Forehand-dominant

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 60.3% ±3.4 raw 60.8% · tour 56.3% · 556 points
Return points won 39.6% ±3.5 raw 33.7% · tour 43.7% · 558 points

Serve and return points won, refitted against every opponent at once so a record built on weak or strong opposition is put on the same scale. Career, all surfaces, with a 90% margin. Raw is the plain share of points won.

Value per 100 shots

Direction choice −0.30 ±0.26 better than 7% of WTA · raw −0.30
Shot selection +0.12 ±0.26 better than 57% of WTA · raw +0.11
Execution −1.91 ±0.52 better than 5% of WTA · raw −1.98

Points gained per 100 shots compared with an average tour player in the same position, adjusted for the strength of the opponents faced, with a 90% margin (shots clustered by match). Raw is before the opponent adjustment. Built on 2,565 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Hailey Baptiste goes on to win after each option in the positions they face most often, shrunk toward tour average when the sample is small. Showing the 8 most-used options; teal marks the best one with at least 30 shots.

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your backhand side

position worth 45% to the average player · 115 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH through the middle 25% 42.2%±11.6 43.3%
BH crosscourt 24% 46.9%±11.8 47.6%
BH slice crosscourt 23% 39.3%±11.8 40.4%
BH slice through the middle 16% 33.9%±12.6 34.4%
BH down the line 12% 48.1%±14.1 46.8%

Rally, shots 5–8: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 109 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 28% 34.3%±11.0 45.8%
FH crosscourt 22% 53.5%±12.4 52.7%
FH down the line 21% 38.2%±12.2 52.2%
BH through the middle 13% 38.9%±13.8 46.2%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 84 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 24% 48.7%±13.0 52.3%
FH through the middle 21% 35.0%±12.7 46.5%
BH through the middle 17% 47.8%±14.1 46.2%
FH down the line 17% 48.8%±14.1 53.0%

Serve +1: mid-depth return to your middle

position worth 51% to the average player · 69 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH through the middle 32% 43.1%±12.6 45.5%
FH crosscourt 20% 55.3%±14.0 54.0%
BH through the middle 17% 54.0%±14.5 46.3%
FH down the line 16% 57.0%±14.6 53.3%
BH crosscourt 14% 51.6%±15.0 52.5%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +10 How much less varied Hailey Baptiste's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 47 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 53% 45% 74% / 66%
Body 17% 0% ▼ 56% / 57%
T 30% 55% ▲ 68% / 68%

281 normal · 11 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 40% 53% ▲ 72% / 66%
Body 21% 25% 61% / 56%
T 39% 22% ▼ 72% / 64%

228 normal · 36 break-point 1st serves

Is the serve mix in equilibrium?

Game theory says a well-mixed server wins equally often with every direction they use. If one direction wins more, it's underused and points are being left behind. This is the minimax test Walker and Wooders ran on Wimbledon finals, applied to every charted first serve. Win rates include faults. "Optimal" allows for returners reading a habit. A direction loses 0.19 points per 100 serves for every 10 points of habitual usage, measured from WTA servers whose mix drifted between matches. Shifts stay within the range servers' habits actually vary, the only range that response was measured over.

Deuce court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide53% 63.7%±5.8 n=154 68% ▲
Body16% 52.8%±9.4 n=47 1% ▼
T31% 58.7%±7.4 n=91 31%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.11).
Optimal mix: +0.9 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide42% 65.5%±6.6 n=110 57% ▲
Body22% 57.3%±8.7 n=58 7% ▼
T36% 60.7%±7.2 n=96 36%

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.29).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.89 points per 100 first serves What the optimal mix would win over the current one, both courts. More exploitable than 100% of WTA servers. Tested on matches they weren't fitted on, WTA mixes picked this way win 0.42 per 100 first serves on average.

Repeating the previous direction to the same court: −1.8±6.4 points per 100 against switching. Negative means returners read repeats. Tour-wide, repeating costs women about 0.4 points per 100 and costs men nothing, so men's returners don't measurably anticipate direction. (164 repeats, 376 switches.)

Return by serve direction

Return points won against each serve direction, compared with the tour average.

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 35 43% −0.6±10.1
1stAd courtT 58 23% −12.1±7.4
1stAd courtWide 73 23% −11.8±6.8
1stDeuce courtBody 43 42% −0.4±9.5
1stDeuce courtT 72 27% −5.0±7.2
1stDeuce courtWide 78 34% +0.4±7.5
2ndAd courtBody 39 57% +2.2±9.8
2ndAd courtT 9 53% −2.4±13.2
2ndAd courtWide 51 42% −11.5±9.0
2ndDeuce courtBody 35 47% −7.8±10.2
2ndDeuce courtT 35 55% −0.9±10.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 28 40% −13.9±10.6

Strengths and vulnerabilities

Value per 100 shots compared with the average player hitting (strengths) or facing (vulnerabilities) the same shot. Only shot types seen at least 120 times.

Hurts opponents most with

FH to the middle · return+0.3122
BH to the middle · return−0.7135
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.5154

Most exposed to

T 1st serve · deuce court−0.1127

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Serena Williams, Madison Keys, Ashlyn Krueger, Karolina Pliskova, Victoria Mboko

Tactical fingerprint

Each bar shows how far a style trait is from the WTA average, in standard deviations.

Run-around forehands24%
Wide serves · deuce53%
Through the middle36%
Point-ending shots30.5%
Drop shots / shot2.8%
Unforced errors / shot13.3%
Backhand slice32%
Points at net11%
Serve & volley3%
Forehand share55%
Wide serves · ad42%
Chipped returns9%
T serves · ad36%
Deep returns31%
BH down the line19%
FH down the line27%
T serves · deuce31%
Avg rally length3.4
1st serve in54%

Plays most like

  1. Kristina Mladenovic 2015–2023 plan v
  2. Bianca Andreescu 2017–2026 plan v
  3. Sabine Lisicki 2009–2022 plan v
  4. Xin Yu Wang 2019–2026 plan v
  5. Jule Niemeier 2021–2025 plan v
  6. Ana Ivanovic 2007–2016 plan v
  7. Anna Bondar 2017–2026 plan v
  8. Karolina Muchova 2019–2026 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. Elena Dementieva 1999–2010
  2. Daniela Hantuchova 2002–2015
  3. Jelena Dokic 2000–2009

Charted matches