APA League Night Strategy Issue

[BarTableMan]

Let me first say I am a huge fan of the APA and have played for over 30 years...but...this one upset me.

This probably applies to all pool leagues. During the first 4 weeks of a session you can add and delete players as you see fit.

I played a team who removed a level 2 player for one night. They got the win with a strong 3 and then put the original 2 back on to their roster. To me this is not the intent of the rule, but the APA League Operator said there is no rule against this type of swapping during the first 4 weeks.

So just beware or use this tactic yourself. I found it rude and unsportsmanlike.

 

[cubswin]

I started playing apa this year, and so far I've noticed that most teams are more interested in complaining than having fun. I'm going to play the year out and not play again.

 

[Celophanewrap]

Do you know their intent behind this move? Is it at all possible the 2 was not going to play for a session but then decided that they could? Did you speak with the captain and the captain confirmed they did this to get a win against your team?
To me, a "strategic" move like this would be almost pointless. It would be a roster move for one week early in the session and would likely make no real difference in the playoff standings.
Lower skill level players can be a bit flighty anyway. I would find it more likely that the 2 figured they might like to take the session off, then decided probably after a lityle coaxing "eh, maybe I'll go ahead and play" or they were unavailable for this night and since the rules allow it the captain was able to get the 5th match in this way.
I don't suspect it was a move against your team, probably more a move of convenience. But heck, I don't play where you are, maybe there are some really hard feelings between you and this other captain and more than anything he wanted to beat you. But if that captain would take such measures just to beat you and your team I think I might be a little more concerned about what they might be capable of away from the pool hall, know what I mean?
I'm sure you know which is a more likely a scenario.

 

[Corwyn_8]

I am confused, probably because I don't play APA. What do they gain by switching the 2 back? If the 3 was better for them playing against your team, why not just keep them?

Thank you kindly.

 

[WoodyMPW]

If you're upset by this you are taking pool far too serious for the APA. Rosters are free to change within the first 4 weeks. It is a social fun league. Play pool, ignore the drama.

 

[justadub]

If you're upset by this you are taking pool far too serious for the APA. Rosters are free to change within the first 4 weeks. It is a social fun league. Play pool, ignore the drama.

^^^^^^............this

 

[Spider1]

Who cares? Just play whoever they throw up and move on. APA (or any pool league) is not some giant chess match of strategy, and if you think it is or should be, you're doing it wrong. If you think someone is pulling some Machiavellian move in week 3 by subbing a 3 for a 2....good grief. Even if they WERE trying some rule whoring, who cares? I would laugh at the sadness of that and move on.

I started playing apa this year, and so far I've noticed that most teams are more interested in complaining than having fun.

Unfortunately, this is typical for leagues. If you can ignore the whiners, complainers, rule lawyers and drama fests, and concentrate on you having fun with your teammates, league can be a blast. There will always, always be those dipshits in a league though. It's just the nature of the beast that any sort of competition will bring out the worst in insecure people with nothing else going on in their life.

 

[justadub]

Unfortunately, this is typical for leagues. If you can ignore the whiners, complainers, rule lawyers and drama fests, and concentrate on you having fun with your teammates, league can be a blast. There will always, always be those dipshits in a league though. It's just the nature of the beast that any sort of competition will bring out the worst in insecure people with nothing else going on in their life.

Very true.

We have a couple of those sorts, but when you step back and look at it, those sorts equal less than 5% of the people we play with. So most of the time we're playing with and around people who are trying hard, and having fun. Which is the point.

 

[icucybe]

I am confused, probably because I don't play APA. What do they gain by switching the 2 back? If the 3 was better for them playing against your team, why not just keep them?

Thank you kindly.

I am a captain of an APA team and I have no idea what he is complaining about. The team could have still put the SL 3 without removing the SL 2 from the details he provide.

This makes no sense...

 

[Skippy27]

I am a captain of an APA team and I have no idea what he is complaining about. The team could have still put the SL 3 without removing the SL 2 from the details he provide.

This makes no sense...

Well if your roster if is full already you would have to mark someone off and add someone.

Another hitch though..... That person, being this is the first session of the year, would also have to have fully paid membership dues or it is a forfeit for them playing without being paid up fully.

 

[KRJ]

Years ago in an ACS league they made the handicap for new players much too low. Thus, it was advantageous to bring in a couple of ringers now and again. You know, guys that could not commit but were willing to sub now and again. Even though there were "monsters" or near monster level, they started their HC low.

Thus, you could have 10 players on roster. When we played another very good team, we called one of the subs, sometimes 2, as their HC was set at the low number for at least 3 matches played. So, we'd use our subs only 3 times max to get the good HC for the tough matches.

We never thought of it as cheating. It was legal, the league allowed it, and we were the team pushing to change the "low HC" for new players. So, there was a rule that allowed us to help our team win against the tough teams, and we took it.

Its not like other teams could not do it, maybe they had no monsters to add as subs ?? I don't know, but not our teams fault that we recruited better

And yes, it was a highly competitive league, with LOTS of very good players. It was "cash" league, nice payouts, but for most, they wanted to take 1st place in a tough league.

 

[CreeDo]

You're overreacting.

If the strong 3 fits in their 23 limit, then you could've had to face them the entire year.
So you should feel lucky you only had to deal with them one week.

If the 3 doesn't fit the 23 limit, they can't play regardless of first-4-weeks or not.

You can't control how good the other team's players are.
The handicap system is supposed to take care of that.

 

[Skippy27]

Even though there were "monsters" or near monster level, they started their HC low.

There were no stipulations stating that if you knew a player was a higher level to put them at that?

No stipulations in your rules, sportsmanship conduct or integrity in general?

I have seen this one time in the APA in the 2-3 years I have played. A team was going to add a very good player to their 8 ball team who was unrated. They knew he would be a 7 after his qualifying matches so the team bringing him in did the honorable thing and put him in as a 7 without us having to say a thing to them.

 

[KRJ]

There were no stipulations stating that if you knew a player was a higher level to put them at that?

No stipulations in your rules, sportsmanship conduct or integrity in general?

I have seen this one time in the APA in the 2-3 years I have played. A team was going to add a very good player to their 8 ball team who was unrated. They knew he would be a 7 after his qualifying matches so the team bringing him in did the honorable thing and put him in as a 7 without us having to say a thing to them.

Nope, none. we even asked about it at the mgr's meeting. what about "known ability", and they didn't want to bother with trying to figure out who qualifies and who didn't and no other teams cared, we were the only ones that tried to stop it.

So, we learned to live with it

Now, going in the opposite direction, in another league that just started, they rated a friend of mine as an "11" in a league that the highest possible average is 10, and to be a ten average, you would need to win at least 95% of your games (they round up), and technically speaking, that's almost impossible. Yet, he's rated higher based on known ability than he could possibly duplicate on the table ?? You can't average an "11" even with a Chicago politician adding up the "numbers"