We can toss this ATP vs Challenger level player thing about till kingdom come, but basically there is no accepted definition that I know.
To me Aljaz at his ranking level and competitive and winning a fair deal of matches at ATP level is an ATP level player as are Kyle and Dan.
Jaggy puts this higher at top 40 or 50 and apparently with an overall ATP winning record.
I think the former more logical but as far as I can tell doubt I can convince of that and nor will I be convinced otherwise.
... and why on earth would anyone think that it mattered?
I don't understand the desire to fit someone into a box with a label on it - preferably as pejorative a label as can be imagined - simply in order to provoke.
Being labelled "an ATP level player" in someone's post doesn't make them any more or less likely to win - or lose - a match than if the label "Challenger level" had been applied to that person.
There is a similar tendency to label "ball-basher" as if it made a difference to the number of points that a person gets when/ if they win.
By the same measure then, there are lots of Futures players in Challengers. Which makes it more baffling why our guys playing in Challengers can't prosper and win titles at that level. Unless they themselves are all futures players of course.
We need one of our experts to do some number crunching. I suspect that throughout the year, around 31.8% of Challenger draws are made up of Challenger players. The rest are largely a dastardly bunch of fraudsters, imposters and chancers thet need to be weeded out by the Tennis Integrity Unit. Frequently debasing the quality and reputation of Challenger level tournaments and always asking to borrow money in the locker room.
H2H is 1-0 to Aljaz and by coincidence that meeting was at this very event 1 year ago just in the first round rather than the second. Aljaz triumphed 7-6 6-2 that day but Escobedo is making good progress and will likely prove a tougher out this time around.