DoomCue said:
I think more people are fooled by a preconceived notion of what a lower rated APA player should shoot like, and then when those notions don't match reality over a short period, they want to declare the player a sandbagger. One match does not a sandbagger make.-djb
I think that's exactly right. I think 4's especially are susceptible to these accusations. In my experience, there's two kinds of legitimate 4's.
One type looks almost like a 3, was a 3 for a long time, and now make shots slightly better. They can't really draw very far or force-follow, but their strategy and safety play are strong, at least against 2's-4's and some 5's. Those 4's are rarely mistaken for sandbaggers, though with the right matchups can easily go 60%+ over a season.
The other type is a pretty good shotmaker, likely came to the league thinking they were a good player based on often holding the table for a long time at their favorite bar. This guy can draw and follow the ball table length. So to the untrained eye, they look strong. These players, however, really can't control the cue ball, use draw and follow when it makes no sense to do so, can't control it when it might make sense, use english for no reason, or worse, use english to, in their mind, accomplish things that are in fact impossible, don't like to safety, play bad patterns, kill all their ducks before dealing with their clusters,... They lose a lot because they're good enough to really hurt themselves, running 4-6 balls and then getting stuck. Notwithstanding all of that, they will get out from tough spots, spots where I'd safety, now and then, maybe 1 in 7 to 1 in 12. And every time they make such an out, someone will say they're sandbagging.
If you (1) understand 8 ball strategy and patterns, and (2) watch the player over multiple games and sets, you'll see that they're not sandbaggers, they just take bad risks (hence their losses) that sometimes pay off (hence the wins and accusations).
The latter type of 4 will often do worse in the long run than the former, all the while getting accused of cheating. Of course, this type of 4 will eventually learn basic strategy, and at that point will probably go up to a 5. For some reason, though, they tend to be very stubborn about learning 8-ball strategy, so it can take a while. (If you can get them to gamble, they'll learn more quickly.)
As an aside, the latter type of 4 gets punished by the Equalizer and is more likely to go up than the former. Their handicap is based on the best 15 of their last 30 (or 10 of the last 20), so they can have a 50% record, with some of the wins at 5 and 6 speed, and the 10 losses where they got smashed not factoring in. Meanwhile the former player can cruise along at 60% for a long time and not go up. Basically the
best X of your last 2X system really punishes high variance players, even if their mean is lower.
Cory