Innings counts and rank

Nab0610 said:

Curious what you guys think about balls per inning in 9 ball and associated rank in APA on 9 foot tables (mainly referring to higher ranks 6-9)



Also why do the score sheets take into account 9 foot vs 7 foot tables but not something like diamond vs brunswick.



Also why are scratches not calculated into scoring, its much easier to run with ball in hand then if you have to shoot what your left with

Click to expand...

I know exactly what the threshold balls per inning is for a 9. Can’t remember for a 7 or 8 but I’m pretty close on those. I’d rather not say. It’s less than you think. Well less than 10.

The APA has assumed that 9’ tables are a little harder to run balls. Their handicaps are based on 7’ tables as a default. I believe the correction is to add a couple innings for larger tables. The APA isn’t really into the details of pool, and do not seem to be driven by a very pool oriented leader, so details like pockets and table type are lost on them.

Scratches are not accounted for for the same reason they don’t account for balls kicked in. They can’t track everything. And it mostly balances out both ways. Your idea is s good one though.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

KMRUNOUT said:

I know exactly what the threshold balls per inning is for a 9. Can’t remember for a 7 or 8 but I’m pretty close on those. I’d rather not say. It’s less than you think. Well less than 10.

The APA has assumed that 9’ tables are a little harder to run balls. Their handicaps are based on 7’ tables as a default. I believe the correction is to add a couple innings for larger tables. The APA isn’t really into the details of pool, and do not seem to be driven by a very pool oriented leader, so details like pockets and table type are lost on them.

Scratches are not accounted for for the same reason they don’t account for balls kicked in. They can’t track everything. And it mostly balances out both ways. Your idea is s good one though.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

Click to expand...

Did you sign a NDA with the APA like I did? If not, I think your safe. "Well below 10." So... 8? lol, its not like the possibilites are endless.

DecentShot said:

Did you sign a NDA with the APA like I did? If not, I think your safe. "Well below 10." So... 8? lol, its not like the possibilites are endless.

Click to expand...

Still not safe if a nda was not signed. My lo's have been called because of some of my posts on here . apa and tap..

Nothing negative happened ....they just let it be known they were not too pleased with what i posted lol.

Btw...apa is going paperless soon. We started doing paper and paperless tonight until the kinks get worked out.

Nab0610 said:

Curious what you guys think about balls per inning in 9 ball and associated rank in APA on 9 foot tables (mainly referring to higher ranks 6-9)

Also why do the score sheets take into account 9 foot vs 7 foot tables but not something like diamond vs brunswick.

Also why are scratches not calculated into scoring, its much easier to run with ball in hand then if you have to shoot what your left with

Click to expand...

Balls per inning can be a deceiving stat...a good safety player can beat a gofer.
...and a scratch can be to tie up balls

Irving Crane beat lots of players with a better BPI...he never gave them a shot....
..managed to win world 14.1 titles in four decades.

KMRUNOUT said:

The APA has assumed that 9’ tables are a little harder to run balls. Their handicaps are based on 7’ tables as a default. I believe the correction is to add a couple innings for larger tables. The APA isn’t really into the details of pool, and do not seem to be driven by a very pool oriented leader, so details like pockets and table type are lost on them.

Click to expand...

Not really. There are several different "table factors" in the system now that account for different table sizes, manufacturers, and pocket sizes. It's not "one size fits all". The LO has to know their market and use the right factor. We even have templates for measuring pocket shapes and sizes, to help us pick the right factor. It used to be much simpler, but there are some pool-oriented people in the APA, despite what you may think, and the leaders give them the power to work on stuff like this.

Nab0610 said:

Curious what you guys think about balls per inning in 9 ball and associated rank in APA on 9 foot tables (mainly referring to higher ranks 6-9)

Also why do the score sheets take into account 9 foot vs 7 foot tables but not something like diamond vs brunswick.

Also why are scratches not calculated into scoring, its much easier to run with ball in hand then if you have to shoot what your left with

Click to expand...

Since you can translate general pool ratings with the DCBA range to APA ratings, and we know about how many balls a player of a certain still can run, it's not hard to map that to any rating system.

6 is a low B, a low B should be able to run about 5 balls in 9 ball after getting a good starting shot. 7 B which is also about 5, maybe 6 if layout is good. 8 B+ so that is about a 6 or 7 ball runner, 9 can be a B+ or A player so that is 7,8,9 balls run in 9 ball. At the 8 and 9 range I'd guess a 2 even 1 inning game in APA 9 ball is normal. This is assuming each player at the table counts as an inning. So player A messes up, player B runs out, that would be 1 inning.

DecentShot said:

Did you sign a NDA with the APA like I did? If not, I think your safe. "Well below 10." So... 8? lol, its not like the possibilites are endless.

Click to expand...

Not endless. But I’ll give you a clue: 2 decimal places.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

Nab0610 said:

That's why I was curious like you can see the buildup somewhat, but its not apparent to your average joe I can make the kick most times and hit the ball as can most other high ranked players. I'm just curious what makes a rank in terms of balls per inning.

Click to expand...

You will need to keep stats on players for a while to figure out the real average balls per inning of a particular player over a long time. That is why a much simpler skill test is done when some one asks how good someone is. Playing the ghost is another thing, but that also does not really give you innings in a real game vs an opponent and situations where you don't have ball in hand. I've played nights where I ran 3 racks in 2 innings (2 break and runs and a run out after a miss) and same night I would have a game where it was 4-5-6 shots before either of us made the 1 ball.

I am curious to see what the overall long term innings per game is for players in real situations, but the USAPL league that I have played in almost exclusively does not track that, it only tracks how may balls you made and if you won or lost, not how long it took. How long a game takes to finish is not the best way to rank a player. I may need to play 3-4-5 safes a game or miss shots on purpose in 8 ball in order to win, that does not mean I stink because it took 5 turns to win at all. A lot of beginners measure games like 8 ball based on how many balls were left on the other side like "oh I got to only 3 left this game, it was close". Good players know that is not the fact at all, most of the time the good player would actually allow the other player to make shots in order to break up clusters or get balls out of the way before actually playing to finish the game.

Over a long time I'm sure that good players will still have a lower inning per game stat, what that may be I can't even try to guess. If I was forced, I would say a top league player that would be an A may have an under 2 inning average over a year playing several sets a week.