PDA

View Full Version : APA ratings



ajrack
05-04-2004, 01:45 AM
I am really not "knocking" the APA, but wouldn't it be more accurate and efficient to have a 5 man team total of ( 35 ) points instead of the current amount. And give the handicaps to the lessor players and NOT disqualify a team because a player happens to get slightly better and goes from a 4 to a 5!!!
Aren't you supposed to reward a player who gets better, not penalise an entire team?

Rich R.
05-04-2004, 04:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ajrack:</font><hr> I am really not "knocking" the APA, but wouldn't it be more accurate and efficient to have a 5 man team total of ( 35 ) points instead of the current amount. And give the handicaps to the lessor players and NOT disqualify a team because a player happens to get slightly better and goes from a 4 to a 5!!!
Aren't you supposed to reward a player who gets better, not penalise an entire team? <hr /></blockquote>
To get an answer to your question, all you have to do is follow the money.

The 23 point maximum, is the simple way that the APA forces teams to split and create more teams. More teams is more income.

catscradle
05-04-2004, 06:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote ajrack:</font><hr> I am really not "knocking" the APA, but wouldn't it be more accurate and efficient to have a 5 man team total of ( 35 ) points instead of the current amount. And give the handicaps to the lessor players and NOT disqualify a team because a player happens to get slightly better and goes from a 4 to a 5!!!
Aren't you supposed to reward a player who gets better, not penalise an entire team? <hr /></blockquote>
To get an answer to your question, all you have to do is follow the money.

The 23 point maximum, is the simple way that the APA forces teams to split and create more teams. More teams is more income. <hr /></blockquote>

That's a pretty simplistic explaination. I believe the APA rating system could use some work, but the 23 rule does ensure that lesser rated players have a team to be part of and will actually play.
Of course, it is about money. The people who formed the APA did so to make money for themselves, not out of love of the general pool playing public. The question to ask is whether or not it brings value to the people participating in it equivalent to what they spend. The answer is it does or it would be a financial failure, people wouldn't participate. Without the 23 rule certain teams would stack up talent and totally dominate. Of course you can say the losing teams can improve their team by getting better players; next thing you know lesser skilled players have nowhere to play again.
If you can think of a better way playing oppourtunities can be generated for players of less skill my ears are wide open. Until such time I'll stick with the 23 rule.

Wally_in_Cincy
05-04-2004, 06:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote catscradle:</font><hr>
...Without the 23 rule certain teams would stack up talent and totally dominate....<hr /></blockquote>

Exactly. And most of the weaker players would quit. Nobody wants to play a whole session knowing they have no chance of winning.

The APA is not perfect but it is a really good starting point for someone who is not a great player but still wants to compete.

Nightstalker
05-04-2004, 07:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote catscradle:</font><hr>
...Without the 23 rule certain teams would stack up talent and totally dominate....<hr /></blockquote>

Exactly. And most of the weaker players would quit. Nobody wants to play a whole session knowing they have no chance of winning.

The APA is not perfect but it is a really good starting point for someone who is not a great player but still wants to compete.

<hr /></blockquote>
Bingo, you hit it. It is not a perfect system for all types of players but the advantage is that it does not exclude lesser-skilled players such as myself. If there were no point maximum then what would be the point in my participation? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Rich R.
05-04-2004, 07:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote catscradle:</font><hr>
That's a pretty simplistic explaination. I believe the APA rating system could use some work, but the 23 rule does ensure that lesser rated players have a team to be part of and will actually play.
Of course, it is about money. The people who formed the APA did so to make money for themselves, not out of love of the general pool playing public. The question to ask is whether or not it brings value to the people participating in it equivalent to what they spend. The answer is it does or it would be a financial failure, people wouldn't participate. Without the 23 rule certain teams would stack up talent and totally dominate. Of course you can say the losing teams can improve their team by getting better players; next thing you know lesser skilled players have nowhere to play again.
If you can think of a better way playing oppourtunities can be generated for players of less skill my ears are wide open. Until such time I'll stick with the 23 rule.

<hr /></blockquote>
My answer was very simplistic, but very accurate, as far as the APA's stance on the 23 rule goes. That was the point of the question.

Please do not think I am trying to knock the APA. I am not a world beater, myself, and I truly enjoy my play in the APA. I have met a number of players, both high and low rated, who are very nice people and it has been my pleasure meeting them.

As others have said, the 23 rule gives a low rated player a place to belong. In fact, since most players improve over time, low rated players are in demand, by most teams.

I also believe this system helps get new people involved with pool and that is always a good thing.

UWPoolGod
05-04-2004, 09:33 AM
That happened to our team a few sessions ago. One of our team members was bumped from a 5 to a 6 right before playoffs. When we got to playoffs one of our 3's didn't have 4 matches in and couldn't play in the playoffs. We hadn't expected to use that particular 3 anyway but had to when the 5 was raised to a 6. Therefore we had to forfeit one of our matches and lost the overall team match 3-2. Oh well.

I will more than likely just be a sub on a team and get my minimum weeks in to go to playoffs or what not, and still be able to enter the larger APA singles tourneys, or 3 person tourneys. Joining BCA too to pick up a league.

Rich R.
05-04-2004, 09:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote UWPoolGod:</font><hr> That happened to our team a few sessions ago. One of our team members was bumped from a 5 to a 6 right before playoffs. When we got to playoffs one of our 3's didn't have 4 matches in and couldn't play in the playoffs. We hadn't expected to use that particular 3 anyway but had to when the 5 was raised to a 6. Therefore we had to forfeit one of our matches and lost the overall team match 3-2. Oh well. <hr /></blockquote>
IMHO, it is not a good practice to not play a member of the team. Everyone deserves to play and, by letting people play, you avoid problems like this.

Some teams get too caught up in winning, they do not like to play the weaker players. I'm sorry, but, if they are showing up, they deserve to play their share.

I was on a team, a couple of years ago, that ran into a similar problem and I hope it will never happen again, on my team. It caused us big problems when it came to be tournament time. We couldn't field a 5 player team and stay under the 23 rule.

My current team captain tries hard to play everyone an equal amount and it keeps everyone interested and happy. Nobody minds taking their turn to sit out a week.

stockman4180
05-04-2004, 11:29 AM
This is a very interesting thread. It really has several parts. The 23 max does present problems in itself. I believe it does encourage people to get better through play and then split up. Lower players will always be needed whether it is a 23 limit or 25 limit such as TAP. The way APA computes handicap is also an issue. They take your last 20 matches and throw out the 10 worst and then compute it. This artificially inflates your handicap. TAP averages all your matches and as a result is about 1/2 to 1 full handicap less than APA for the same person. APA requires only 3-4 matches to be eligible to play in the playoffs. TAP requires 6. This helps ensure all members get to play at least 6 matches. Playing only 3 discourages players. It is really up to the team captain to ensure everyone gets to play. It is in their best interest because they will develop quicker the more they play. APA gives two timeouts per game but TAP gives unlimited help within a 45 second shot clock to skill level 2's. Who needs it the most? As you might have guessed I really like TAP. I also shot APA. The bottom line is to have fun no matter what league you play. One of the keys is to have a captain that can make that happen. Just enjoy the rolls!!!

Wally_in_Cincy
05-04-2004, 12:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote stockman4180:</font><hr>
...The way APA computes handicap is also an issue. They take your last 20 matches and throw out the 10 worst and then compute it. This artificially inflates your handicap. ...<hr /></blockquote>

I think they do that to discourage sandbagging. I know guys that play 2 nights a week and they play really bad on Monday and jam-up on Thursday. How curious /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I have friends in PA that play TAP. They like it.

Nightstalker
05-04-2004, 12:33 PM
That is why they do that, as Wally said, to discourage sandbagging.

wolfdancer
05-04-2004, 09:10 PM
That "best 10 out of the last twenty" is called a moving average. It is really a fair method of getting a avg for handicapping....but the avgs. are then a little on the high side...for everybody. Golf uses a similiar method...as does the USPPA, (best 20 out of the last 40 sheets)
You might be playing much better now, then you were, say, one month ago...thanks to some good practice, or lessons. Would it be fair to factor in your earlier matches?
I think the 23 rule in the APA, promotes "team mediocracy"...and in the case of the thread above...is unfair...forfeiting a match, because someone improved, last week before the playoffs...insane.

catscradle
05-05-2004, 06:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> ...
I think the 23 rule in the APA, promotes "team mediocracy"...and in the case of the thread above...is unfair...forfeiting a match, because someone improved, last week before the playoffs...insane. <hr /></blockquote>

I agree it promotes "team medocracy". It's purpose is to ensure lesser skilled players have a place to play. The team mediocracy is the cost of ensuring lower skilled players have a place to play. It must be remembered that the APA really is centered around the barroom hacker. I also agree it is unfair to move players up JUST BEFORE the playoffs. Maybe there should be a moratorium period of 2 or 3 weeks before the playoffs where a person's handicap for the purposes of the team cap is frozen. The players performance may cause his playing handicap to go up, but his handicap for calculating the cap would not go up until the next season.
If there was a bigger pool of players available maybe there could be a divisional arrangement like soccer. In this arrangement stronger teams move up to a higher division and weaker teams move down. Moving up or down is based upon where you finish in the previous season. It is a self-leveling system, but you have to have enough participants to fill multiple divisions.

UWPoolGod
05-05-2004, 12:58 PM
IMHO, it is not a good practice to not play a member of the team. Everyone deserves to play and, by letting people play, you avoid problems like this. &lt;---Rich

It didn't read the way i wanted it to. The person who didn't have the number of games in just wanted to occasionally play and she had pretty much given up on the season, not because we didn't want her to play. But when my friend went up to a 6 we asked her to show up..which she did..but being our first session ever of APA we didn't know about the minimum 4 matches to play in the playoffs. Now we do know, and won't have that happen again.

Pelican
05-06-2004, 02:27 PM
Having played APA for quite some time I agree there are some problems but for the folks in my area it's the only game in town.

The 23 rule: you have to have some way to keep a team from being stacked and I guess this is it. Without something like this you would inevitably have one team dominate every other team in the league.

Skill levels: I agree that skill levels should not be changed except during the regular session. Last session my son was a SL4 all session. When we got our sheet for our first playoff game he was a SL5.

I wish there was a TAP league here but until then I'll hang with APA because I love to play. Pel

OnePocketChamp
05-06-2004, 03:46 PM
The APA is seriously considering forming a "Super 30" league in our area (Dallas, TX) to satisfy the wishes of the higher skill level players to compete in a much more competitive format.

Wally_in_Cincy
05-07-2004, 06:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote OnePocketChamp:</font><hr> The APA is seriously considering forming a "Super 30" league in our area (Dallas, TX) to satisfy the wishes of the higher skill level players to compete in a much more competitive format. <hr /></blockquote>

They have had those in the past here in the Greater Hamiltucky Metroplex.

This is funny. A couple of guys (7 skill level) that played in the "Super" league now call themselves "Super 7's". And of course the regular league players are wide-eyed and gaga and don't have a clue what that means

Wally~~decidedly non-super 5