APA Needs to re-examine the handicap system!

[Njhustler1]

my vote is to create another skill level, 8. and raise the HC limit to 24. I'm a 7 and a B/B+ player. but when i go to vegas and play in skill level 7 minis, i'm getting absolutely crushed by guys that should be 8s or 9s. and these guys are just robbing and theiving these mini tournaments. Some go just for those. Their teams havent even qualified to make it to nationals. and they just play in minis every single day and rob the place blind!

why is there no emoticon for taking money out of someones wallet!

 

[APA Operator]

And......another reason why the SL6-9's would want to quit APA and find another league to play in. In my experience here on this forum reading through APA threads past and present, I believe many have already done so.

Maniac

Reading through APA threads here would certainly make it SEEM that way, but that's just the nature of these forums. In actuality, way more lower-skill-level players quit (but don't necessarily find another league). Maybe we should find ways to make the league more attractive to THAT group...

 

[justadub]

I have a question for anyone that can answer. Is your handicap based solely on your play or does it take into account your opponents handicap as well?? IMHO a 6 should beat a 4 in 9 ball 95% of the time but the 6 gets penalized for beating them too badly. It seems like if a 6 would 18-2 a two 4's back to back they will be raised to a 7.

I understand that APA keeps the formula for determining handicaps a secret to try to protect against sandbagging but i think its a mute point. I hear 2-3 times a week from all the teams that the way to keep your handicap down is innings and calling all your time-outs.

Merely speculation, but I believe that your opponents handicap is taken into consideration, along with innings (minus safeties), and timeouts taken. From what I remember reading somewhere online (not here on AZB) there are some other determining factors, as well, but the ones I mentioned are primary.

You won't get an actual answer in detail because it is kept secret, as you mentioned. But if you watch results week after week, wins, innings and ability of opponent seem to make the biggest difference.

 

[APA Operator]

The APA Teams here in NH have just been handed some NEW rules.
1) If you win your division and come in below 50% in the next session, you are disqualified and don't get to go to PLAY-OFFS. Example: If there are 8 teams you have to be in the top 4 to go to play-offs.
2) If you get caught SANDBAGGING you are automatical put up a skill level and frozen there. You can still go up, but never down.

Would love to know what everyone thinks about the NEW rules....

The 50% rule was introduced in the league year that started with Summer Session 2004, so it has been in effect for 7 years now.

The second one isn't a fixed rule - it is probably a local policy. In my area, if you get caught SANDBAGGING, I don't mess with your skill level. You don't get to play again, ever.

 

[Cue-Z]

Rules never enforced in NH

The 50% rule was introduced in the league year that started with Summer Session 2004, so it has been in effect for 7 years now.

The second one isn't a fixed rule - it is probably a local policy. In my area, if you get caught SANDBAGGING, I don't mess with your skill level. You don't get to play again, ever.

Just let me say that the first rule was never enforced in NH. I have been in APA since 2002. Which leaves me to the question: Does a LO have final say on which rules to go by for his area??

 

[Maniac]

Reading through APA threads here would certainly make it SEEM that way, but that's just the nature of these forums. In actuality, way more lower-skill-level players quit (but don't necessarily find another league). Maybe we should find ways to make the league more attractive to THAT group...

I already suggested a way, and you didn't like it. Make all SL7's, 8's, and 9's play in Masters divisions. Leave regular APA to the SL6's and under.

Maniac

 

[Maniac]

In my area, if you get caught SANDBAGGING, I don't mess with your skill level. You don't get to play again, ever.

I knew there was a LO out there somewhere that I could like :thumbup:!!!

Maniac

 

[Maniac]

FTR, I'm confused as hell as to why a timeout could have ANY affect on ones skill level ???

Maniac

 

[LeagueGuy]

FTR, I'm confused as hell as to why a timeout could have ANY affect on ones skill level ???

Maniac

If I believe what I have heard over the past I do not believe timeouts make a difference.

From what I have heard (what I have been told over the years by various former L.O.) your opponents skill level and how well they play have no bearing on your handcap. I have always been told that how you play is the only factor. How you shoot and the games that you win are the only factors in your 8-ball handiap (defensives are included in how you play). There is also a small component that has to do with your winning %age and whether you play on 7,8 or 9 foot tables.

In 9-ball it was explained to me this way. In 9-ball, whether you win 20-0 or 12-8 has more to do with how many balls your opponent makes as opposed to your ability. They then explained why should you get a different score because your opponent can't make any balls then you would against an opponent who makes a few.

Makes sense to me. But then again, I could be way off the mark.

Leagueguy

 

[justadub]

FTR, I'm confused as hell as to why a timeout could have ANY affect on ones skill level ???

Maniac

It threw me for a loop, as well, but a young man that I play with currently told me that he got that from our LO. The way it was explained to him was that having taken time-outs was an indication of the player "needing help".

Realize that I wasn't involved in this conversation. I have no idea if the LO was just telling my guy that to throw off "the formula." Or how much, if any, bearing those time-outs are given. Perhaps it's simply another factor to consider if a player is on the bubble, or being reviewed. Or perhaps my guy misunderstood the point, as well. Could be any combination of the above, or completely off the mark.

I hadn't given it much consideration, until I saw other folks here mentioning it, from other parts of the country. I still doubt it makes a major difference. My opinion is the theory of additional consideration for reviewed or on the bubble players. And we all know exactly how much my opinion is worth... about what you paid for it!

 

[The Schwartz]

There's not even a space to mark time-outs on the score sheet (9 ball), so I really don't think that has any weight in the equation. I usually put a little tick-mark in the inning if they take a time-out, but that's just to help my memory.

 

[justadub]

There's not even a space to mark time-outs on the score sheet (9 ball), so I really don't think that has any weight in the equation. I usually put a little tick-mark in the inning if they take a time-out, but that's just to help my memory.

The 8-ball sheet has plenty of room for them! Entitled "Defensive Shots" of course...

 

[Maniac]

So if I take ALL my entitled timeouts in a given match even though I don't really need them, does this constitute sandbagging :sorry:, LOL???

Maniac

 

[justadub]

So if I take ALL my entitled timeouts in a given match even though I don't really need them, does this constitute sandbagging :sorry:, LOL???

Maniac

I like taking mine in any event, so that they're out of the way and my teammates can't call one for me when I'm down and ready to shoot!

 

[ridinda9]

As for every team being able to field the same combinations, that's not really true. Skill level 6-9 players make up only 15% of the league. Even with full 8-player teams, the average senior skill level player would have to be on 3 1/2 9-Ball teams. So while any given team could create these combinations, the opportunity is not there for every team. There just aren't enough senior skill level players.

But there WERE enough senior skill level players . I know of many players who simply stopped playing APA after their skill levels were raised to the point where they had two choices - start their own team , or leave the league . . . .
If a team already had two senior skill level players that they were comfortable with , and their s/l5 got raised to s/l6 , he essentially became as useful as teets on a boarhog . Trying to place a senior skill level player on existing teams is very difficult , because most teams just don't have room (or the desire) for another 'big gun' if they already have two or three .
These silly manipulations to prevent them from playing are keeping them out of the league , and the fact that you only need two 'big guns' on a team is keeping the statistic you quoted artificially low . . . because the higher skilled players are seeking out the other leagues where their abilities on the table do not represent a "handicap" to their ability to play !



yes , I know that 2 players out of 8 players would represent senior players equaling 25% of the league - but I also recognize that senior players also have a higher tendency to play on more than one team , therefore lowering their overall percentage of league membership . . . .

 

[ridinda9]

The 50% rule was introduced in the league year that started with Summer Session 2004, so it has been in effect for 7 years now.

The second one isn't a fixed rule - it is probably a local policy. In my area, if you get caught SANDBAGGING, I don't mess with your skill level. You don't get to play again, ever.

Too bad the National Office doesn't endorse this policy - they only enact a 2 year suspension .

If this policy was in effect nationally , there would have been a different National Champion this year , wouldn't there ? :frown:

 

[ridinda9]

The APA Teams here in NH have just been handed some NEW rules.
1) If you win your division and come in below 50% in the next session, you are disqualified and don't get to go to PLAY-OFFS. Example: If there are 8 teams you have to be in the top 4 to go to play-offs.


Would love to know what everyone thinks about the NEW rules....

Brings in some interesting situations !

What if my 8ball team was really dragging tail , 7th out of 8 teams in our division , but pulled the Wildcard for play-offs in summer session (when the other team's really good players had typically taken the summer off anyway) , managed to win 3 games on play-off night (twice) and qualified for LTC ? (whooppeee !)
Finishing low in fall and spring sessions really shouldn't surprise anyone after that , should it ?
Disqualifying that team doesn't really seem fair , does it ?


kinda the point of the Wildcard , wasn't it ? To give the underdogs a chance ?

 

[APA Operator]

Just let me say that the first rule was never enforced in NH. I have been in APA since 2002. Which leaves me to the question: Does a LO have final say on which rules to go by for his area??

The actual wording from the team manual (it hasn't changed at all since the rule was added) says: "Teams that do not finish in the top half of their division in the session(s) following qualification are subject to heavy scrutiny of their handicaps and/or loss of eligibility."

All that means is that it MIGHT happen, not that it will. Rest assured, an operator who takes eligibility away from a team has to explain it to the national office, because for sure they will be contacted by someone on the team.

As an operator, all I want is for every player and every team to try their best every time out. If a team does that and still doesn't crack the top half of their division, they're ok with me. After all, how can you run a handicapped league and NOT allow for the possibility that any team could finish dead last in the standings?

On the other hand, if a team goes wire-to-wire first place one session then dead last the next, but not just dead last, fifteen points behind second to last, then there's something fishy going on.

 

[rlw]

I already suggested a way, and you didn't like it. Make all SL7's, 8's, and 9's play in Masters divisions. Leave regular APA to the SL6's and under.

Maniac

That wouldn't work because a lot of area's don't have master league's.

 

[APA Operator]

Too bad the National Office doesn't endorse this policy - they only enact a 2 year suspension .

If this policy was in effect nationally , there would have been a different National Champion this year , wouldn't there ? :frown:

Maybe, maybe not. As I understand it, only one or two of the players on that team had even been on the 2-year sabbatical.

There's also an important distinction to make here - the 2-year suspension comes from being disqualified from the national tournament. That's a bit different from being CAUGHT SANDBAGGING. In most cases, yeah, a DQ'd team was sandbagging, but actually catching someone and having enough empirical data to justify a DQ are two different things.