Rating Systems - What do you like?

[pete lafond]

I am not a big fan of the systems that require you to keep "inning" stats or even match scores......Those types of numbers only mean anything if your not playing in a "open" event. If the events are "limited" then your not getting a true score anyway....and filling out "balls made" per inning is not my idea of a fun evening of pool.....granted I may be lazy, but I am sure I am not the only one...All you have to do is look at your nearest bowling alley to see that all of them have automatic scoring now....I am sure that many Bowlers have also played pool from time to time.

I definatley agree that there should only be a PRO,A,B,C rating at most.

No, I do not think it's because you are lazy. I think you are right because it is too much of a distraction to keep so much detail. The simpler, the better. I just like the fact that the APA's system is nation wide. A simple system would be racks run from the break only and win loss ratios. The overall rating would be something calculated after-the-fact. E.g. games won and lost against strength of opponent.

 

[pete lafond]

Why is there even a thread about this its not like you can get the APA or any other league to change thier rating system so why waste time and even discuss it?

The main thrust I gather here is more of an overal handicap system. Not to get any existing leagues to change rather to come up with a generalized structure. You are right about different locations with different strengths of players. But generally an A is going to be a A and a B and C likewise. I think this is broad enough that within each group there will be a spead in talent and yes some A's will be much stronger than other A's. But this is good though.

 

[Loun]

The reason we are talking about it is two-fold i think...

1. im trying to make sense of what is going on

2. some of the more experienced people are trying to come up with a better system fo rthe future or other leagues.


As far as some houses having better players.. Im fortunate in that i can play for free at our house table and know that for thee most part the best players in the city play out of our house at some point during the week. I think thats why ive been able to pick up some things as fast as i have, if you cant keep up then you sit alot

 

[Dimonis]

Has anyone taken into consideration how the VNEA does their handicaps? 8 ball a game is worth 10 points. Add your overall total score and divide by number of games played to come up with your handicap. It adjusts as the year goes on.

If 5 people on my team are 9 averages and the opposing team is all 6s, then 45- 30 would mean that we give them 15 points a round.

I dont see any sandbagging with this system and dont see what it could benefit you by doing it.

There isnt an APA league locally for me to play in but sounds like half the game is working your average. Me, I just want to play my best and see where I stack up at the end of the year.

 

[FLICKit]

There isnt an APA league locally for me to play in but sounds like half the game is working your average. Me, I just want to play my best and see where I stack up at the end of the year.

If you did play, you'd see that overall people there are playing just like you. Focusing more on playing there own game and having fun. That's what it's about.

There has been much good input in this thread about various other systems out there and available. Interesting to gather the pertinent information and develop understandings of how they work in general.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Maybe national events should not be handicapped, but what about regional ones. Without a handicap a lower rated player wouldn't have a chance and may not even show up. What about the system I mentioned earlier - Pro, A, B and C ratings. Keep it broad. Do you think that something like this is a posssibility? Maybe just 3 rating groups. I'm just looking for ways that everyone stands a chance. If I were to play against the pros, I wouldn't stand a chance, however in an A category it improves dramatically. I therefore would not enter the pro event, I may watch though. Now imagine a C player against an A. They wouldn't stand a chance, but I would like to see them enjoy being in a tournament. Their growth would be moving from a C to a B rating.

I do agree with you that most tournaments should disregard handicaps, just not all.

Pete, the question you have to ask yourself is, do you want to start a league or a business? Of course, leagues have to make money yet at the same time, have the greater good of the sport in mind. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing that lower ranked players lose to higher ones. At this point in time, handicapping is rampant. A low-ranked player on the rise can make more money than 99% of all players in the AZB Player List. In fact, it happens every year. However, scratch events are few and far between. Living in New York City, I can assure you that I have to travel quite a bit in order to play in such events on a regular basis.

As a player, I have to say that I'm against handicapping. Essentially, they're social-programs and the same criticisms can be made in pool as they've been made in economics. To a certain extent, it is healthy for them to exist and to allow them to exist in certain circumstances but it's also important to allow true competition to exist as well.

That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the genius that goes into some of the leagues currently in place nor does it mean that I think handicapped leagues should cease to exist. On the contrary, as stated, I feel they have their place but an effort should be made to keep them limited. If I were to join a softball, tennis or hockey league, I would be subjected to the full strength of the league with no assistance from the league director. No runs would be added per inning. No goals would be given prior to the period. Either we score more or we lose.

I know that pool-league participation might very well excede that of every other amateur-sport league in the country. However, we are also one of only a few that consistently and aggressively uses handicaps. I simply ask that we consider places without them. That we make it more the norm instead of the exception to the rule. Perhaps, if I were trying to start a business, I would be more inclined to develop the better handicap system. But the question wasn't posed as such. As a player, from my own personal perspective, I think they're over-used, growth-inhibiting and the source of the majority of issues that have absolutely NOTHING to do with pool. Get rid of them and let's just play.

 

[JDB]

This does not make any sense.....There may be 3 innings of safety "chess match" play before a player even attempts a run out...

Safeties are supposed to be tracked, as well. Then the total innings, less safeties are entered into the scoring system. I can't remember whether a safety was 1/2 inning or a full inning reduction though.

 

[FLICKit]

...

Lot of good points in your post. There is plenty of room for scratch players. Nobody is trying to stop that. But before you are truly able to play at that level, you had better develop your game somehow. Scratch competitions are not for everyone, only a very small subset of pool world could even remotely compete at scratch level with everyone.

Various forms of ratings systems are prime reasons why games/sports succeed and flourish like pool, golf and bowling... even chess and lists of others... Without such systems, then those activities would be passing fancies for the multitudes, and not regular occurrences. Top players or top player wannabees can knock league players and ratings all they want, and act elitist (or falsely elitist about it). But then they'd be ignoring the big picture, which is the growth of the industry as a whole.

Suppose everyone must compete in softball against the best that are available with no restrictions. No form of balancing or leveling of the playing field, just scratch competition. Heck let's even take it to the full extreme and remove all age restrictions.

Looks like the young would have a tough time competing, because good scratch teams wouldn't want them. Women might have a tough time competing. Forget co-ed leagues. Forget women's leagues. Older people and senior citizens are out. Basically nobody with any disabilities would have a chance. In order to play, everyone would have to be pro level or college level aspiring pros to even think about playing. This game is reserved for the super athlete. Develop into a super athlete or get off the field.

Also note that if the young or newly interested are unable to play, then the next generation of softball players will have a severely weakened field. There won't be enough of a talent pool to draw the top players from.

As a result, a majority of the people would have to be observers and onlookers in the crowd. But wait, many of the fans are thus so, because of the interest they've developed from their participation. If they aren't able to participate and compete, then they won't develop an interest in watching the elites.

Example: Golf. Very boring sport to watch. But play it a bit, and develop an understanding of it, and now watching becomes awe inspiring. Watching a ball fly 300+ yards is an event. Understanding the intricacies of hitting a delicate chip. Watching a 20 foot putt head towards the hole after breaking twice on an undulating green... priceless.

Eliminate all rating systems tomorrow, and watch the immediate decline in the industry. Currently, the A+ and higher level players make up a very small percentage of the pool community. Take away the ratings, and there will be so few B+ and lower players, that those elite players will become virtually the sole source of the industry. Actually, if you eliminate all ratings, then even most of the A+ will succumb and bow out, because they can't compete with the pros.

People participate because there's something in it for them. At the purest level, the only thing that matters is encountering a field of your peers, and perservering to victory. That's what it's about, that's what makes it fun.

As you've said, you prefer scratch play... That's fine there is plenty of room for scratch players. As you've also said, there is a place for non-scratch players. I agree... let them play and participate however they see fit.
We aren't trying to deny either group their freedom of choice, are we?

 

[Jimmy M.]

I agree that there should be "some" handicap

Say it isn't so! Handicaps are what completely ruined pool, as far as I'm concerned, in Arizona. I don't see why there "should" be some form of handicap. Sure, to have "some" handicapped tournaments is fine -- perhaps even a good thing for those who want to play in handicapped tournaments, but making "all", or even "most", amateur tournaments handicapped can only lead to the situation that we have here in Arizona. There are virtually no tournaments worth playing in (unless you happen to be a fairly weak player -- and I don't mean that as an insult to anyone, but it is the truth), and there is virtually no action whatsoever. Sure, there are a few guys here and there, but I'm talking about the state as a whole. It's pathetic, and the idea that we need a statewide handicap system to be implemented in "all" amateur tournaments is the fundamental cause of it being that way. We continue to be told that we need handicaps to generate interest in tournament play, yet, the tournaments that continue to draw the most players in this state are those rare tournaments that are open to all players with no handicapping. I'd say it's ironic, but it isn't ironic at all. It's only ironic if you believe the lie that we need a handicap system to have successful amateur tournaments.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Lot of good points in your post. There is plenty of room for scratch players. Nobody is trying to stop that. But before you are truly able to play at that level, you had better develop your game somehow. Scratch competitions are not for everyone, only a very small subset of pool world could even remotely compete at scratch level with everyone.?

I think you've misinterpreted me. I said "scratch" meaning everyone plays even but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be an open league. One can still have scratch competition while limiting a field.

Various forms of ratings systems are prime reasons why games/sports succeed and flourish like pool, golf and bowling... even chess and lists of others... Without such systems, then those activities would be passing fancies for the multitudes, and not regular occurrences. Top players or top player wannabees can knock league players and ratings all they want, and act elitist (or falsely elitist about it). But then they'd be ignoring the big picture, which is the growth of the industry as a whole.?

We spend an incredible amount of time focusing on the industry to a point where I feel the game has been overwhelmingly compromised. We play 9-ball because it's television friendly. We use Sardo because he provides money. We use handicaps because we intend to draw people in. At what point do we start to have more local forums where skill at the table takes precedence?

Suppose everyone must compete in softball against the best that are available with no restrictions. No form of balancing or leveling of the playing field, just scratch competition. Heck let's even take it to the full extreme and remove all age restrictions.

Obviously, in physical games certain restrictions are necessary. That's consistent with the classifications I speak of. However, handicapping is much different. You don't hinder a team's ability to win simply because they're better than everyone else? You might say they're too old but you shouldn't say they're too good. Since pool doesn't possess the same physical necessities that other sports may have, classification doesn't need to be based soley on something like age. You can still classify people like they do in Martial Arts yet still have competition within that classification exclusively scratch. You're being argumentative here and missing the point.

Looks like the young would have a tough time competing, because good scratch teams wouldn't want them. Women might have a tough time competing. Forget co-ed leagues. Forget women's leagues. Older people and senior citizens are out. Basically nobody with any disabilities would have a chance. In order to play, everyone would have to be pro level or college level aspiring pros to even think about playing. This game is reserved for the super athlete. Develop into a super athlete or get off the field.

Once again, you're veering away from my argument and taking it to an absolute. Classification and Handicapping are seperate approaches. The WPBA and the UPA are a perfect illustration of such. Neither are handicapped yet both cater to a specific group. You can define groups based on any of a number of characteristics but once you've made that definition, allow those within that catagory to play evenly.

Also note that if the young or newly interested are unable to play, then the next generation of softball players will have a severely weakened field. There won't be enough of a talent pool to draw the top players from.

On the contrary. There are lifers in the low-ranks who should not necessarily be viewed as improving competitive pool. They have essentially created their own niche that they've learned to be successful within. Anyone wishing to excel beyond these low-ranks usually does it quickly and for reasons that go well beyond beating those that are unable to run a rack.

As a result, a majority of the people would have to be observers and onlookers in the crowd. But wait, many of the fans are thus so, because of the interest they've developed from their participation. If they aren't able to participate and compete, then they won't develop an interest in watching the elites.

You're creating a circle-logic that only works with the assumptions you've made. In fact, I believe that when given a greater challenge, the majority of people will likely learn MORE about the game, not less. Their interest and awareness would be heightened. However, which "fans" do you speak of? Pool's fan base is minimal. In fact, I have yet to go to a sold-out event even though seating is rarely more than a few hundred. The money made off of a fan-base is so meager, it's not even worth mentioning.

Example: Golf. Very boring sport to watch. But play it a bit, and develop an understanding of it, and now watching becomes awe inspiring. Watching a ball fly 300+ yards is an event. Understanding the intricacies of hitting a delicate chip. Watching a 20 foot putt head towards the hole after breaking twice on an undulating green... priceless.

And I think it gets even more enhanced if players are better.

Eliminate all rating systems tomorrow, and watch the immediate decline in the industry. Currently, the A+ and higher level players make up a very small percentage of the pool community. Take away the ratings, and there will be so few B+ and lower players, that those elite players will become virtually the sole source of the industry. Actually, if you eliminate all ratings, then even most of the A+ will succumb and bow out, because they can't compete with the pros.

I never said "all". My point is that league-play is all but exclusively handicapped and with the exception of the regional/professional tours, most tournaments are also handicapped. In fact, if I were to list all of the events going in in New York City this week, I would likely come up with as many as 20 seperate events (leagues/tournaments combined) with no more than 3 being scratch.

People participate because there's something in it for them. At the purest level, the only thing that matters is encountering a field of your peers, and perservering to victory. That's what it's about, that's what makes it fun.

Hopefully people participate in leagues because they want to play pool. Help me out here. Are we catering to people who are interested in pool or people who are interested because there's something in it for them? Fairness is something defined. What also makes it fun is being rewarded for hard work. It is difficult enough as is dealing with the ups and downs of pool. There is nothing more excrutiatingly painful than losing to someone who, under normal circumstances, couldn't hold a candle to you and won because of artificial interference.

As you've said, you prefer scratch play... That's fine there is plenty of room for scratch players. As you've also said, there is a place for non-scratch players. I agree... let them play and participate however they see fit.
We aren't trying to deny either group their freedom of choice, are we?

What bothers me about you FLICKit is that you failed to read what I had to say previously and compel me to reiterate my points. What's worse, you quoted another post of mine in a thread I had not participated in and you failed to tell me. In my opinion, that's rude, unethical and you have yet to apologize or even pay attention to the fact that I pointed that out previously. I've catagorically responded appropriately to this thread and your posts with thought-out answers. I expect you at least do the same, in kind.

 

[pete lafond]

Maybe you guys don't realize it, but the APA system is similar to golf. In golf, if you are an 18 handicapper, you can't take more than a triple bogie. Maybe it's a double bogie it's been so long since I have played.
WW

Really, that is interesting. I like that it compensates for a bad or good day at pool. This is very important. I just do not like to much detail in keeping score. Do you think there is a way to integrate something similar using less detail?

 

[trainer]

2 deep

Say it isn't so! Handicaps are what completely ruined pool, as far as I'm concerned, in Arizona. I don't see why there "should" be some form of handicap. Sure, to have "some" handicapped tournaments is fine -- perhaps even a good thing for those who want to play in handicapped tournaments, but making "all", or even "most", amateur tournaments handicapped can only lead to the situation that we have here in Arizona. There are virtually no tournaments worth playing in (unless you happen to be a fairly weak player -- and I don't mean that as an insult to anyone, but it is the truth), and there is virtually no action whatsoever. Sure, there are a few guys here and there, but I'm talking about the state as a whole. It's pathetic, and the idea that we need a statewide handicap system to be implemented in "all" amateur tournaments is the fundamental cause of it being that way. We continue to be told that we need handicaps to generate interest in tournament play, yet, the tournaments that continue to draw the most players in this state are those rare tournaments that are open to all players with no handicapping. I'd say it's ironic, but it isn't ironic at all. It's only ironic if you believe the lie that we need a handicap system to have successful amateur tournaments.

are you saying that we have been cast aside and left to rot by these suicidal,money-grubbing bar and poolroom owners that run the ratings committee?It's 2 deep 4 me..I'm getting another beer and pretending none of this nonsense ever happened..
Terry O.

 

[DaveK]

Suppose everyone must compete in softball against the best that are available with no restrictions. No form of balancing or leveling of the playing field, just scratch competition. Heck let's even take it to the full extreme and remove all age restrictions.

Interesting choice of an analogy. Softball is totally dominated by one player, the pitcher. The best get more no-hitters than you can shake a stick at The very best can beat full teams with only a few players. I caught one time for an extremely good fastball pictcher, Mr Ross Crocker from Newfoundland (he was just fooling around a bit). It is truely amazing what these guys can do with a ball ! It's not fair to the hitters ...

I tend to agree with Jude. The house league that I play in has 4 'tiers'. Within each tier there we play straight across, no handicaps. The league director and former Canadian Snooker Champ sets up the tiers, and does a fine job of it. I used to play VNEA, and basicly grew out of it (and yes, I've seen sandbagging in VNEA, to position the team for playoffs). I have no interest in playing recreational players all the time, especially in a 'race to 1'. I don't think they like playing good players either as the league made it harder and harder for the good players to participate. The VNEA league is pretty much extinct around here now, and it was the handicapping/team-composition-rules that killed it imo. Having said that, VNEA in Calgary seems to be doing just fine, so maybe the league director has something to do with their success.

Dave, just rambling ...

 

[pete lafond]

I think you know me well enough to know that I would post my money (up to $100.00) for any OPEN non handicap event.....probably more if I get a chance to play Earl, Efrin, Max etc......

I do agree that OPEN events should be NON-handicapp......Ameature or Pro

I think for "weekly" events though...A "limited" ABC system would serve both groups....It would get players like yourself back in the field...AND bring in "new" players to the game..........and I don't think that you giving up two games on the wire to 6 to a C rated players is too much of a threat to you....nor 1 game to a B player....I think it would force you to make sure your playing at the level your capable of...and at the same time..give a new player "C" some hope that he has a chance to catch you on a "off" day and win.


I do agree....the limited bigger events that pop up from time to time....(like the "All Around") should not be handicaped at all.....I guess I should have been more specific.....

I think you hit it. To much energy is placed on handicapping systems; designing them and then maintaining them. Keep it simple and larger tournaments should not engage handicap. Many will play even if they know they do not stand a chance, just as you stated.

My first league that I played in Rochester had a rule book that tripled the BCA rule book. They actually had a ref from one team and a backup ref from the other team for each game. The player had to call the ball and the pocket. The main ref had to repeat it. If they did not repeat it and the player shot, it was considered a foul. I lasted one year in that league. The only reason that I bring this up is that I think this is what we are doing with handicaps. Much to much work. Keep it very high level and simple. Rate the players as follows; 1. Win loss ratios, 2. number of runs per game and 3. strength of opponent. This should give enough insight to ability. Over the long hall a sandbagger will have to run out and win games for themselves and their teams. No matter how good or bad you are wheighs only in how you handle pressure and produce results. Shot making and safeties are only good if you win the game otherwise the best ones you made are pointless.

I vote for simple. As stated earlier Pro, A, B, C and let there be peer judgment calls for those in the wrong group.

Any thoughts.

 

[Cue of Fury]

I like whichever system DM likes, he is one smart mother fucker!

 

[NewGuy]

I haven't read the entire thread (too much work to do), but I haven't seen anyone mention the idea of a multi-level league with handicaps. From what I've read, the argument is between a no-handicap system and a handicap system. Why not have the best of both worlds? Set up a league system that has multiple levels such as beginner, intermediate, and advanced. The bottom two levels would have a handicap system while the top level wouldn't. However, to get into the advanced level you would have to earn your way there from the intermediate level. Just as you would have to earn your way into intermediate from beginner. The system can be set up in such a way where the top spots from one level move up, while the bottom spots from the next level move down. For example, at the end of each season the top two players from the intermediate league would move up to the advanced league while the bottom two from advanced would go back down to intermediate. Most players would start in the beginner ranks, although there are always exceptions.

I think this system would work better in a singles league than a team league, but it would still work for teams. Instead of players moving up or down, whole teams would move to different levels. At each higher level, the team would be able to put up higher handicap points per night. For example, let's say that the current APA is the beginner league . Each night you can put up 23 points. At the next level, each team would be able to put up 26, etc... There would be no restrictions in the advanced level.

Benefits of this system are that players will be playing similar players. Therefore, you don't have this huge weight difference between a 7 and a 2 or an A+ and a C. Also, players would be motivated to improve so that they can not only get to the next level, but also stay there.

Just thinking off the top of my head. What do you think?

 

[FLICKit]

Interesting choice of an analogy. Softball is totally dominated by one player, the pitcher. The best get more no-hitters than you can shake a stick at The very best can beat full teams with only a few players. I caught one time for an extremely good fastball pictcher, Mr Ross Crocker from Newfoundland (he was just fooling around a bit). It is truely amazing what these guys can do with a ball ! It's not fair to the hitters ...

I tend to agree with Jude. The house league that I play in has 4 'tiers'. Within each tier there we play straight across, no handicaps. The league director and former Canadian Snooker Champ sets up the tiers, and does a fine job of it. I used to play VNEA, and basicly grew out of it (and yes, I've seen sandbagging in VNEA, to position the team for playoffs). I have no interest in playing recreational players all the time, especially in a 'race to 1'. I don't think they like playing good players either as the league made it harder and harder for the good players to participate. The VNEA league is pretty much extinct around here now, and it was the handicapping/team-composition-rules that killed it imo. Having said that, VNEA in Calgary seems to be doing just fine, so maybe the league director has something to do with their success.

Dave, just rambling ...

The baseball analogy came from Jude, so I extended it out.

Tiering is a form of handicapping. That's the point. Without that form of handicapping the B, C, and D level players wouldn't get involved, because they couldn't compete against the A level players.

Refer back to previous post for more details...

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

The baseball analogy came from Jude, so I extended it out.

Tiering is a form of handicapping. That's the point. Without that form of handicapping the B, C, and D level players wouldn't get involved, because they couldn't compete against the A level players.

Refer back to previous post for more details...

Tiering and handicapping ARE different. They're significantly different. Tiering (or catagorization, as I would prefer) is simply grouping people by previous definition. Handicapping is an alteration of the actual competition to favor the weaker player. Most sports (especially on the professional level) have some form of catagorization and some catagorize rather extensively (see boxing).

 

[FLICKit]

Tiering and handicapping ARE different. They're significantly different. Tiering (or catagorization, as I would prefer) is simply grouping people by previous definition. Handicapping is an alteration of the actual competition to favor the weaker player. Most sports (especially on the professional level) have some form of catagorization and some catagorize rather extensively (see boxing).

I see your point. They are the same/similar in ways. Yet as you say, they are different.

 

[Pete]

I don't know if anyone said this already. I think that Pat Flemmings TPA, would be a great scoring system, and a leauge could use that to really know the level of it's players. I would say have two imparcail people do the scoring (from other teams when they aren't playing), and use the scores to set your levels, and make the handi capping from that (like say Jon is an avarage of 390 points, and he's play Jill who is avaraging at 553, she need to win 5 games to his 3 or what ever is fair), but with doing it that way, a 100 is a 100 any where in the world, not like a 5 with the APA in Boston he can break and run out on a good table, but out in the boonies a 5 can't even pocket 3 balls 2 out of 3 times with an open table and ball in hand.

I think it might work out. But maybe I'm wrong.

Pete