Alternative strategies

[midnightpulp]

Could a player in the main rotation games conceivably be a threat if he was a B-level offensive player but was the best safety player and kicker in the world?

Think of this player playing racks something like this. Due to his subpar offensive play, he gets out of line often mid-rack, like most B players (i.e. on the 5, 6) at which point he plays a lock up safe, where he'll have the advantage then on due to his better kicking and safety play.

Could this player compete professionally? Has there ever been a player like this?

Also, I'm framing it like this is to examine if that a player who was at an offensive disadvantage, but better at safeties and kicking, wouldn't be better off trying to play more "ugly racks."

 

[PhilosopherKing]

He's a B because there is something fundamentally lacking.

He may do okay in some smaller regional events, but that's about it, in my opinion.

If this were my skill-set, I would use it in action against pros giving-up big weight, especially ball-weight.

 

[sjm]

No, this player could not be a major force at pro level.

Yes, this player will win most of the racks that come down to tactical sequences, but even the finest safety play will sometimes be neutralized by good kicking and counter-play.

It must also be noted that even when this player wins the race to the first good run out chance, they will not run out consistently.

This kind of player may be capable of a major upset of a top player, but to be successful at pro level, one must create chances and be effective in cashing in the chances when they come.

On a simple level, creating chances involves a) breaking well, b) good safety play, c) good kicking, and d) effective use of two way shots. It is possible that a "B" player may have these skills. Cashing in the chances involves a) superior pocketing, b) superior angle management and position play, and c) superior speed control. No "B" player shines in all of these areas.

This players skills are to be envied, but will not suffice when it comes to topping the very best in competition.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

No.

There are often times when there is no safety option that will do anything better than to give an easy one rail kick. And if you give a pro caliber player an easy one rail kick, they will very, very, very, very often make you pay for it.

And, to further clarify, there is no such thing as a weak offensive player who plays uber world-class safeties and kicks.

High-quality safeties and kicks require very high-quality and precise strokes, just like the difficult offensive shots do. To successfully edge a ball 8 feet away, and go another 12 feet to snuggle up behind a lone ball for a "lock up safe", as you put it, is potentially the same stroke as cuttinga ball super thin into a corner and going two rails to a small position zone.

Stroke is king. Either you have it, and you can make long, difficult shots and hit narrow position zones, or you don't, and you need to build a stroke. Safeties will not save you against a complete professional player.

And, to add to the above, if you can't run 3-4 racks, and the other guy can, then the first time you miss a narrow safety window, even if playing lots of safeties worked, now you have to play 10 successful safeties to make up for one missed one, to make up the game deficit.

Highly unlikely.

 

[VonRhett]

Thanks SBR! Saved me the trouble of answering it.

-von

No.

And, to further clarify, there is no such thing as a weak offensive player who plays uber world-class safeties and kicks.

High-quality safeties and kicks require very high-quality and precise strokes, just like the difficult offensive shots do.

 

[9BallKY]

Anyone that can play lock up safeties most of the time has good enough cue ball control to run out most of the time. For me it is easier to run out than it is to play lock up safes. Top tier pros can kick like a mule. They play safeties off of their kick shots about as good as most people can when just trying to play safe.

 

[midnightpulp]

No.

There are often times when there is no safety option that will do anything better than to give an easy one rail kick. And if you give a pro caliber player an easy one rail kick, they will very, very, very, very often make you pay for it.

And, to further clarify, there is no such thing as a weak offensive player who plays uber world-class safeties and kicks.

High-quality safeties and kicks require very high-quality and precise strokes, just like the difficult offensive shots do. To successfully edge a ball 8 feet away, and go another 12 feet to snuggle up behind a lone ball for a "lock up safe", as you put it, is potentially the same stroke as cuttinga ball super thin into a corner and going two rails to a small position zone.

Stroke is king. Either you have it, and you can make long, difficult shots and hit narrow position zones, or you don't, and you need to build a stroke. Safeties will not save you against a complete professional player.

And, to add to the above, if you can't run 3-4 racks, and the other guy can, then the first time you miss a narrow safety window, even if playing lots of safeties worked, now you have to play 10 successful safeties to make up for one missed one, to make up the game deficit.

Highly unlikely.

I'm kind of using this player to examine if a player who knew he was at an offensive disadvantage wouldn't be better off trying to turn more games into safety battles than try to trade runs. I think Irving Crane played straight pool like that.

Let's say our two world class players in question are 10 offensive/7 defensive vs. 7 offensive/10 defensive. Would player B benefit more from trying to turn more racks into defensive battles? Example would be something like him getting ball in hand, but the layout to run out is tricky. Is he better off playing a lock up safe with that BIH or going for the run out (let's say he's got a good handle on his skills, and estimates his run out chances at 40%)? The typical move for every pro is always to go for the run out and then play safe if he gets out of line. Why not use the BIH off the bat to play an even better safety?

Anyhow, just chewing on some meta game.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

I'm kind of using this player to examine if a player who knew he was at an offensive disadvantage wouldn't be better off trying to turn more games into safety battles than try to trade runs. I think Irving Crane played straight pool like that.

Let's say our two world class players in question are 10 offensive/7 defensive vs. 7 offensive/10 defensive. Would player B benefit more from trying to turn more racks into defensive battles? Example would be something like him getting ball in hand, but the layout to run out is tricky. Is he better off playing a lock up safe with that BIH or going for the run out (let's say he's got a good handle on his skills, and estimates his run out chances at 40%)? The typical move for every pro is always to go for the run out and then play safe if he gets out of line. Why not use the BIH off the bat to play an even better safety?

Anyhow, just chewing on some meta game.

1. Playing safe in straight pool is COMPLETELY different than playing safes in rotation games, because there is no ball-in-hand on a foul.

2. If a player can't run out consistently in a rotation game with a good starting shot, they can't beat anybody. And I do mean ANYBODY. For that level of player, they seriously need to work on the parts of their game that are keeping them from running out.. Or, they just need to quit playing pool.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... A person CAN scrape out a few wins against someone rated 40-50 Fargorate points above them, by playing constant safes. But they'll be lucky to even get top 16 in a regional tour event.

The point of it is.. If you are playing anyone rated over 600 Fargorate, you HAVE TO run out when you get the chance. No other strategy will work. If you are looking at layouts that are 40% for you, but 80%+ for the 600, no amount of safety play is going to allow you to win more than 1 out of 10 matches against that 600. Unless you run out when you get the chance, and this is the really important part, that player, and anyone else at his skill level or above, will have absolutely no fear of you.

And if your opponent is unafraid, they are gonna make every off the wall, wacky shot you let them see the edge of. "Speed kills speed". If you don't have "speed", you are not gonna make up a 40% shooting advantage with safes in rotation. You "might" in One Pocket, but even that is doubtful.

Unless your opponent is a moron, they're just gonna keep leaving you tough shots, and wait for you to butcher it with subpar mechanics. If you think there is a B player alive that plays safe well enough to get ball in hand from a pro 10+ times in a race to 9, you are absolutely deluding yourself. Efren never got that many ball-in-hands in his average win over superpros, and he's pretty much the dude that completely changed everyone's concept of safety play and kicking.

Your question has been asked and answered, and it doesn't matter how many times you ask it a different way, the answer will still be the same.

 

[sjm]

I'm kind of using this player to examine if a player who knew he was at an offensive disadvantage wouldn't be better off trying to turn more games into safety battles than try to trade runs. I think Irving Crane played straight pool like that.

This is inaccurate. As a runner of balls, Irving was always top five in the world and he even ran over 300 on a 5 x 10. It's true that he was the best 14.1 defensive player that ever lived, and it occasionally caused him to play a little more conservatively, but to suggest that steering the game into defensive sequences was his approach to winning is far from the mark.

 

[sixpack]

Could a player in the main rotation games conceivably be a threat if he was a B-level offensive player but was the best safety player and kicker in the world?

Think of this player playing racks something like this. Due to his subpar offensive play, he gets out of line often mid-rack, like most B players (i.e. on the 5, 6) at which point he plays a lock up safe, where he'll have the advantage then on due to his better kicking and safety play.

Could this player compete professionally? Has there ever been a player like this?

Also, I'm framing it like this is to examine if that a player who was at an offensive disadvantage, but better at safeties and kicking, wouldn't be better off trying to play more "ugly racks."

I'm a little bit in that boat. I quit playing for a while (10 years) and my safety game and strategy came back before my offensive firepower. So for a while I was very focused on playing the player.

I think it is almost impossible to win against good players that way.

The problem comes down to predictability. Players who are not good shot makers miss balls due to inconsistencies in aim and stroke. And the same thing for position play. And those errors are unpredictable. Which means they happen when you don't want them to.

So it's a good plan to run a few balls, play safe on the 5 and then get BIH and run the last few. Until you get a little out of line and have to make a tough shot on the four ball and you don't have a safety option. Or you just doink the three ball into the rail.

Anyone above about 600-625 fargo rating will absolutely kill this player.

I remember a match when I was just coming back and I was playing a 615-ish player in a tournament. I won every safety battle and never gave up ball in hand but even though I dominated him on strategy (even 3-fouled him one game) I couldn't overcome his firepower. My offense was solidly in the 'B' range at that time. (fargo 550-ish)

B players can work for and get ball in hand - and then not run out.

Offense is king. Defense is a bishop.

While good defense will win you some games the only way to be a good player is to have an exceptional offensive capacity.

 

[midnightpulp]

1. Playing safe in straight pool is COMPLETELY different than playing safes in rotation games, because there is no ball-in-hand on a foul.

2. If a player can't run out consistently in a rotation game with a good starting shot, they can't beat anybody. And I do mean ANYBODY. For that level of player, they seriously need to work on the parts of their game that are keeping them from running out.. Or, they just need to quit playing pool.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... A person CAN scrape out a few wins against someone rated 40-50 Fargorate points above them, by playing constant safes. But they'll be lucky to even get top 16 in a regional tour event.

The point of it is.. If you are playing anyone rated over 600 Fargorate, you HAVE TO run out when you get the chance. No other strategy will work. If you are looking at layouts that are 40% for you, but 80%+ for the 600, no amount of safety play is going to allow you to win more than 1 out of 10 matches against that 600. Unless you run out when you get the chance, and this is the really important part, that player, and anyone else at his skill level or above, will have absolutely no fear of you.

And if your opponent is unafraid, they are gonna make every off the wall, wacky shot you let them see the edge of. "Speed kills speed". If you don't have "speed", you are not gonna make up a 40% shooting advantage with safes in rotation. You "might" in One Pocket, but even that is doubtful.

Unless your opponent is a moron, they're just gonna keep leaving you tough shots, and wait for you to butcher it with subpar mechanics. If you think there is a B player alive that plays safe well enough to get ball in hand from a pro 10+ times in a race to 9, you are absolutely deluding yourself. Efren never got that many ball-in-hands in his average win over superpros, and he's pretty much the dude that completely changed everyone's concept of safety play and kicking.

Your question has been asked and answered, and it doesn't matter how many times you ask it a different way, the answer will still be the same.

Yeah, I figured as much. Also, I'm not really trying to be literal in the sense that you should develop yourself as a player along these lines or think there's a player like this that actually exists, it's a more of a meta-game thought experiment on how you might approach a match-up where you know you're offensively outgunned to give you the best odds of pulling the upset (assuming tourney match-up, since you can obviously always ask for weight in a challenge match). So run out or die it is.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

So run out or die it is.

Yeah, unfortunately, it is. I've struggled at times which outplaying my opponent drastically on the safety front, and then just not getting out with b-i-h, giving them three, four ball runs.

Fortunately, tho.. It makes them easy to match up with next time. Most people fail to remember the matches where their opponent "gives" them the majority of the games. The human ego invariably remembers these matches as "taking" the games from the opponent.

And as we all know.. If you feel you "ran over" your opponent, you are more likely to give a spot the next time, if it is asked for. I've caught a few people this way.. Played extremely poorly, then asked for a spot... Then at some point, ran the second set out. Lol.