First of all, the problem in the APA has to do with the horrible innings system and their ineffective anti-sandbagging method "applied scoring" via win percentage ...which really just goes back to innings. The APA should be focused on fixing that, rather than creating these new scoring innovations. People tell me the APA is worse than ever right now. And people are dropping that league like crazy. This is due to the fact that most people have enough sense to realize that innings are what matters. Despite the applied scoring system that attempts, but fails, to correct for sandbagging, it still boils down to innings even in the applied system. It also doesn't help that the APA's handicapping system has been exposed on the Internet now for about a decade. It was obscure at first on the Usenet, but now on the WWW it's all over the place and a simple Google search produces results quickly..........
As for this new scoring system, which is a scoring system - not a handicap system....I think many people in this thread missed the point. What this system does is effectively handicap TEAMS more, not INDIVIDUALS.
Figure this. A team can win 5-0, or lose 0-5. The closest it can be is 3-2 or 2-3. Simple. It is an individual vs. an individual and the contest is over 1 point. Either you get it, or you don't. This new scoring means that the losing player can still earn points for the team. For example: 2-1. That's like in the current system one player earning the 1 point for the win, and the loser getting 0.5 based on whether they got a single rack.
You can't change the fact that it will always be a sum of individual performance. Whether it's 2 players or 100. It's individuals matching up. A team is a collection of that. Unlike sports where multiple players play the same game at the same time. The closest thing in pool is scotch-doubles. That's about it.
What this might do is eliminate the big blow outs. Such as the big 5-0 blow outs that good teams put on bad teams. Instead, it might go 10-3. That would be 2 points for each win, 1 point for each loss that was hill-hill. In this example, 3 out of the 5 losers got to the hill. But none of the winners had a shut out win.
5-0 vs. 10-3 for example. Obviously 10-3 is a lot better for the losing team. 10-3 works out to 5 to 1.5 if my math is right. This gives the losers 1.5 "wins" because 3 of them made it to the hill. As opposed to a big fat zero.
Someone in this thread said this would encourage blow outs. I think they are totally wrong. While teams may try for total blow outs to maximize points - you'll find that "rackless" wins are the exception, not the rule. While not rare, they don't come up often. Most APA 8-ball matches have one of the two players getting on the scoreboard. This means the 3 points will be denied most of the time. Now I can't say the same about the losers. There are more hill hill matches than there are blowouts. Therefore, the earning of 1 point by the losers will be more common than the loser earning 0.
That said, more losers will get their 1 point as opposed to zero than winners will get their extra point for the shut-out. Again, this favors the weaker or the loser.
But not on an individual level. The APA handicapping system is one of the worst ever devised. It still remains broken and ineffective. This is TEAM handicapping. Actually, it's not even handicapping. Because it isn't based on skill. This is a system that simply feeds more points to the loser based on nothing that can be quantified relative to how the individual plays. For example, two players might match up multiple times. One time might be a shut out, another a hill-hill match, and another a win, but not a shut out nor a hill-hill. This may have nothing to do with how either player played. They may have played all 3 match ups at the same level. It may be more dependent on luck. Sometimes you just get a really crappy rack where all your balls are tied up and your opponent's are wide open. Add in the handicapping rule of play what you make on the break, you can see where this is headed. Then there's the luck factor. APA has 8-ball on the break wins. Aside from lucking a rack win, that player has automatically lucked denying you a shut out win either. Goodbye 3 points. I guess you better not lose the lag! The point being here that based on the rolls, the spread of the balls and all the variables - how a match turns out is effected by this. And that's between two of the same players playing the same of their own individual skill level. Thus, it's not based on what they do or how well they play.
The winner will always get more points. But the gap has been closed. Match score is NOT indicative of player performance!!!! Say an APA 5 beats two SL4's in two weeks. One score was 4-0, the other 4-2, it's quite possible that the SL4 who lost 4-0 might be far better than the SL4 who lost 4-2. Thus, score is not indicative of performance or skill. It's the same reason why ball-count is equally as bad for handicapping purposes. Leaving a player with more balls on the table doesn't mean you played better than another player whose opponent made more balls.
Why is this important for the APA? I'll explain how. Because the individual handicapping system broken, it then translates to the team level in terms of points. In a true handicapped system, the top teams shouldn't be too far over .500, whereas the bottom teams not too far under .500. In the APA, there is at least a 60/40 split. And during the time I spent in the APA, it was more along the line of 65 - 35. Top teams making about 65% win percentage. That is total wins divided by total plays (subtracting all quality/extra points from this calculation).
The sandbaggers tend to play with one another. They congregate and form teams with each other because their goal is to sandbag their way to Vegas. All Vegas bound teams are purpose-built. Fun based teams, such as drinkers, friends/social players, teams made up of workers from the same company, retirees et al stand no chance. They get hammered by the sandbagger teams. That is why there is such a large disparity between the top teams in a division and the bottom teams.
Giving away points for getting on the hill will close that gap. It is essentially a patch or a band-aid for the broken "Equalizer" system. Sure, the sandbaggers will still exist and prevail, but as they pound their opponents they will not be able to capitalize on the same disparity of points due to the new distribution.
None of this needed. What is needed is a good handicapping system that actually works. If individuals are properly handicapped, then they cannot expect to win or lose much more or less than 50%. There won't be any seasons where an individual goes 13-1, or someone else goes 2-10. Most individual win/loss records will hover around 50%. And thus, teams will also all be very close and tight in the standings.
I believe I have shown precisely what this is. It's the APA testing a way to correct the big problems it has with its broken handicapping system by applying a patch or fix for the individual handicap problems at the team standings level rather than the individual level. The APA has been bleeding players and the reasons are simple. It's widely regarded as a league rampant with sandbagging, and it doesn't take long for a new player to take notice of the wide spreads in points between the teams. Eventually, teams that keep finishing in the bottom half no where near occasionally challenging for a top spot will quit the league. They won't sit around and wait for the luck of the draw wild-card spot season after season while the sandbagger teams keep winning.
