Have the guy play and tell him to try his hardest to win. Just have him play the entire ,arch opposite handed. It's good prat ice for him AND he wouldn't be sandbag ginger because he IS TRYING his hardest.
Have the guy play and tell him to try his hardest to win. Just have him play the entire ,arch opposite handed. It's good prat ice for him AND he wouldn't be sandbag ginger because he IS TRYING his hardest.
My division rep does this on occasion believe it or not...
I will do my best to reply, but I'm beginning to fear this will be a waste of time, as I'm not seeing any attempt on your part to frame a structured rational argument. The statement we are discussing is this: "Is it wrong to intentionally forfeit a player?" In order to answer that question, we need some definitions. I'm not talking about dictionary definitions, and I'm a bit disappointed that you assumed I was. I'm talking about logical definitions: establishment of mutually agreed upon premises. If you don't know what that means, please say so instead of wasting a lot of time looking in the dictionary and such.
This wasn't unclear in the first place. However, we can agree that we are talking about the 1st verb definition for "manipulate". However, leaving it at that is leaving it where it was in the first place. The critical next step is to address the phrase "especially in an unfair manner". This means that manipulation *always* means "to manage or influence skillfully", but only sometimes means "in an unfair manner". Hopefully you see that any definition you choose does not specify whether you mean "in an unfair manner" in any particular use of the word. I pointed this out to you previously.
Here you are simply mistaken. I used the word in *exactly* the way described above. I meant exactly definition 1 of the verbs, however in my case I did *not* imply the "especially in an unfair manner" secondary aspect of the definition. If you consult your quote from the dictionary, you will obviously see that, and also that this use is perfectly correct. Sort of like "manipulating a fork well enough to get the food into your mouth".
You claim this, but offer no basis for the claim. I don't set the player's handicap. The Equalizer system does. I believe the Equalizer system works well when used properly. I have no reason to believe that if the computer generates a skill level for a player on my team, that this is anything other than their true ability.
It sounds here like you are trying to play both sides of the fence here. See, I can either trust the Equalizer system to work as designed, or not trust it. If I have a player with a long time established skill level, and knowing that I mark every inning, every safe shot, and all my players shoot every ball like their life depended on it, then I know that they are ranked properly. The phrase "let a skill level stay low" is nonsensical in this context. I don't let them stay anything...they are ranked what they are ranked. Many players are on the cusp between skill levels. They may be a great 3 or a not so good 4. If the last week of the season the not so good 4 happens to drop to a 3, why should I conclude anything other than that the correct skill level for that person at that time is 3? And if that is the truth, then I would prefer that person play at their *accurate* skill level 3 the following week in playoffs if at all possible. The ability to field a roster without that player is one way in which that is possible.
It is important to understand that whatever number I see on the score sheet *IS* that player's true ability. You seem to completely fail to recognize that it is equally valid (and I would contend *more* valid) to view the situation as sitting the player is for the purpose of making sure the number accurately reflects their true ability.
Again, you are playing both sides of the fence here. If I have a player go up, say from a 3 to a 4, and I don't think they are a very good 4, then I am indeed likely to put them into difficult matches.
As you know, simply losing will not likely move someones skill level down. As you know, they would have to lose over and over, and more importantly in innings worse than 4 level. The losses required to bring that persons skill level down would be more than offset by the many points we would give away over the course of a season. Who cares what skill level your players are if you are in last place?
The purpose from my perspective of putting the player in difficult matches, for example against a good 4 or a 5, is that if they *truly* are a 4, then they may step up and do well and win. ...
At no time did I ever say anything like "my player needs a bad loss". I never think like that. I think my player needs an outcome that reflects their true ability.
I wonder if you recognize how this statement undermines most of what you have argued here.
APA Operator, I appreciate your attempt here and taking the time.
I believe that I've seen enough to get an idea what your position is and what sort of "reasoning" you're bringing to the table.
I think I will bow out of this conversation at this time. Your first paragraph extinguishes the value of any further conversation.
Take care and good luck with your league.
KMRUNOUT
I agree - it's pointless trying to discuss anything with someone who wants to argue apple and oranges and call it logic (or nonsense, depending whether he's talking about the apple or the orange).
Enjoy your time in the APA and your other pool playing endeavors. That's really what's important, anyway.
One last thing:
APA Operator, I will point out that I applaud the determination to police skill levels. This is one of the APA's biggest problems. However, I would hope your efforts could be dedicated to where they matter: sandbaggers who lie by not keeping score properly, missing on purpose, losing on purpose. The APA is a league with rules. There are rules against sandbagging. There are not rules against sitting a player for any reason at all.
When all is said an done, you, like me and all APA players, must follow the rules. We can't make up the rules, or act on what we *wish* the rules were. However, we can certainly voice our opinions of changes we would like to see in the rules.
I would be most impressed if your efforts were dedicated to what the rules *are*, as far as your desire to manipulate the handicaps of the players in your area, rather than on what you wish the rules were. God knows the APA certainly pushes that idea hard in most any discrepancy I've ever talked about with anyone.
Thanks again,
KMRUNOUT
I've seen people lose ONE!!! match and GO UP one handicap level!!!!! The APA hcp system overall is a farce.
I've seen people lose ONE!!! match and GO UP one handicap level!!!!! The APA hcp system overall is a farce.
I don't believe skunking a 3 should make you a 6.
Bring the APA 5's from Chicago, Dallas and NYC to Indianapolis and have them play the Indianapolis APA 5's. If the system isn't flawed, it should be a reasonably close match. However, it wouldn't be anywhere close to competitive.
We made it to states and one of our 3's was mysteriously bumped to a 4.
That would be a flaw in your thinking. Him beating this 3 is not what caused it. It was just another stepping stone that contributed to it. This same player could have played an 8 and got beat pretty bad but still moved up as it is HIS performance while shooting that matters, not the match win and not the skill of his opponent.