Who Me? Sandbag? I Just Got Here!

[OrangePower]

Right. I guess it’s a question of degree. If you’re up big of course you throw in some different shots, almost subconsciously. A drop shot or two, a slice you’re working on, C&C, whatever. I don’t tend to make an effort to work out new material at the expense of risking a few games.

Yeah, and also your need to adapt and change strategy and tactics is influenced by the strength of your opponent.
For example, I prefer to play an aggressive game style. When I'm feeling it, this is my best game. But sometimes when I'm not feeling it, I can be sloppy and make too many unforced errors.
Against a weaker player I will just continue playing my aggressive game as long as I am winning, even if I'm having an off day. I might not win as convincingly as I would playing more conservatively, but hey.
However against a stronger player I would not be able to get away with as many unforced errors, so I would have to adopt a more conservative style and grind it out, or find another way to win.

 

[Nashvegas]

Yeah, and also your need to adapt and change strategy and tactics is influenced by the strength of your opponent.
For example, I prefer to play an aggressive game style. When I'm feeling it, this is my best game. But sometimes when I'm not feeling it, I can be sloppy and make too many unforced errors.
Against a weaker player I will just continue playing my aggressive game as long as I am winning, even if I'm having an off day. I might not win as convincingly as I would playing more conservatively, but hey.
However against a stronger player I would not be able to get away with as many unforced errors, so I would have to adopt a more conservative style and grind it out, or find another way to win.

That’s interesting. I’m trying to do more of what you’re saying in the first part. If a match is close against a weaker player I tend to back off because I feel like I shouldn’t lose - and if I play more conservatively I won’t bring losing into play. I hate winning like that but I find it tough to stay aggressive in that situation.

 

[Dartagnan64]

I see what you’re saying. At some point, you have to try out a new shot you’ve been working on under match conditions.

But if you are playing a clearly weaker player, are those really “match conditions”? If you execute it poorly, the opponent cannot punish you as a peer would, and you have nothing on the line because you are handing out bagels, right?

If I have a new shot, yes, I will eventually feel ready to try it in a match. Rather than base it on the score, I look for the right conditions. Once I was wanting to try out my FH lob return over the net player. I had to wait for a point where she was too close to the net and the serve was to my FH and it was the right speed and I was set up.

And of course I missed.

Well the best place to start trying a new shot or tactic is when you are ahead. It's not fully proofed then until you use it in a tight match. But baby steps. I try all my new stuff when I'm either well ahead or well behind. Then when its good in those situations I'll try it in more tense conditions.

The process of advancing your tennis skills will necessarily have some "2 steps forward, one step back" moments. That is not sandbagging but a necessary evolution of every tennis player to improve. But in Startzel's world it produces match results that can indicate sandbagging.

When I try something new in a match, I'm still trying to win the point. I just don't know whether I can execute it well enough until I try it. I may fail. I might lose a few points failing until I give up. That might cost me a game or two. It's not that I'm trying to lose those games. I'm trying to win with something new to see if a) I can do it and b) is it a better strategy. Tennis would be full of pushers if no one moved beyond their comfort zone.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Yes, agreed.

This is where intent comes in.

A player who is cramping might decide not to exert for some period if she is winning. If she lets some balls go, is she sandbagging? That depends on intent, obviously. If she concedes some points or games to conserve energy, fine — she is doing it to win the match. If she concedes points or games to manage a rating, that is cheating.

Like many things in life, intent matters.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Well the best place to start trying a new shot or tactic is when you are ahead. It's not fully proofed then until you use it in a tight match. But baby steps. I try all my new stuff when I'm either well ahead or well behind. Then when its good in those situations I'll try it in more tense conditions.

The process of advancing your tennis skills will necessarily have some "2 steps forward, one step back" moments. That is not sandbagging but a necessary evolution of every tennis player to improve. But in Startzel's world it produces match results that can indicate sandbagging.

When I try something new in a match, I'm still trying to win the point. I just don't know whether I can execute it well enough until I try it. I may fail. I might lose a few points failing until I give up. That might cost me a game or two. It's not that I'm trying to lose those games. I'm trying to win with something new to see if a) I can do it and b) is it a better strategy. Tennis would be full of pushers if no one moved beyond their comfort zone.

One self-improvement presenter said to try something new when the probability of success was between 40 & 70%: if it's below 40%, the odds of failure are too high. But if you wait until it's well past 70%, you miss opportunities.

To me, the person who carefully works on a stroke/tactic in practice but is reluctant to bring it out in a match might be waiting for that time where the chance of success is extremely high [ie 99%]. These are the same people who won't poach in doubles unless they are almost guaranteed to reach the ball [which, by the way, is not called "poaching"; more like "jumping on a sitter"].

I see it as perfectly reasonable to try something new even if I only have a 50% chance of success; others consider this sandbagging.

 

[Startzel]

Yes, agreed.

This is where intent comes in.

A player who is cramping might decide not to exert for some period if she is winning. If she lets some balls go, is she sandbagging? That depends on intent, obviously. If she concedes some points or games to conserve energy, fine — she is doing it to win the match. If she concedes points or games to manage a rating, that is cheating.

Like many things in life, intent matters.

So you think two people or the same exact ability should have different ratings?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

So you think two people or the same exact ability should have different ratings?

Two people will never have identical abilities [except in your idealized world] and even if they did, outcomes would be determined by other things as well such as how consistent are they in maintaining their level [do they swing 0.1 NTRP over a season or 0.4?], mental toughness, footwork, conditioning, injury status, motivation, etc. So two people with "identical" abilities prima facie would not be identical and thus you'd expect different ratings.

This doesn't even account for the vagaries of their opponents: NTRP is a measure not of one's abilities compared against some chart but how one does against flesh and blood opponents.

By the same token, two people of different abilities could have the same rating for the same reasons I mentioned above.

None of these people are sandbagging either. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Life's a lot more complicated that your question's assumptions imply, IMO.

 

[Cindysphinx]

So you think two people or the same exact ability should have different ratings?

If you had two C players who are identical, and they played only singles (or played with identical partners), I would expect them to have the same rating.

If one intentionally lost games or matches to be bumped down or avoid being bumped up, that is cheating.

If they are both at the top of their level and one plays her level and the other plays up, neither is cheating.

The difference between us, Starzel, is I believe players are always allowed to play their level so long as they don’t manage their rating. In fact, my preference would be that no one play up because that creates its own issues.

 

[Startzel]

Two people will never have identical abilities [except in your idealized world] and even if they did, outcomes would be determined by other things as well such as how consistent are they in maintaining their level [do they swing 0.1 NTRP over a season or 0.4?], mental toughness, footwork, conditioning, injury status, motivation, etc. So two people with "identical" abilities prima facie would not be identical and thus you'd expect different ratings.

This doesn't even account for the vagaries of their opponents: NTRP is a measure not of one's abilities compared against some chart but how one does against flesh and blood opponents.

By the same token, two people of different abilities could have the same rating for the same reasons I mentioned above.

None of these people are sandbagging either. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Life's a lot more complicated that your question's assumptions imply, IMO.

Literally none of this has anything to do with my question. It was @cindyspinx that argued it was acceptable for two people of equal ability to have different ratings.

I'm guessing you acknowledge that shouldn't be the case, that's why you're trying to change the goal posts in your post.

 

[Startzel]

If one intentionally lost games or matches to be bumped down or avoid being bumped up, that is cheating.

This is the problem with your argument. How is a player cheating if they sandbag to stay a 3.5 when there are players better than them still at 3.5?

Cheating means you have an unfair advantage. But you're arguing being too good for your level isn't an unfair advantage.

 

[Ronaldo]

If Becky with the bad hair and every other 3.5 in your district are delusional then beat them like a rug. Until you are bumped up.

 

[OrangePower]

outcomes would be determined by other things as well such as how consistent are they in maintaining their level [do they swing 0.1 NTRP over a season or 0.4?], mental toughness, footwork, conditioning, injury status, motivation, etc.

hellz, i sometimes swing 0.4 NTRP over the course of a single match, let alone a season!!!

 

[OrangePower]

So you think two people or the same exact ability should have different ratings?

The reality is that this does and will continue to happen, even when everything is completely above board. The rating algorithm is just not precise enough to exactly account for differences in partner, opponents, playing style, matchups, match conditions / surface, etc.

I would be content with having two people of the exact same ability be within 0.2 DNTRP of each other 95% or more of the time.

 

[Startzel]

The reality is that this does and will continue to happen, even when everything is completely above board. The rating algorithm is just not precise enough to exactly account for differences in partner, opponents, playing style, matchups, match conditions / surface, etc.

I would be content with having two people of the exact same ability be within 0.2 DNTRP of each other 95% or more of the time.

Of course. That’s not what I’m really discussing though

I’m just trying to understand cindy’s logic behind arguing that one player is cheating and one player isn’t if they have the exact same rating and the exact same ability.

 

[OnTheLine]

@Startzel 2 people with identical abilities, motivation, exectution can so easily have different ratings because of the way league is played.

2 playters start season both at 3.14. Idealized world, neither improves their actual game .. if they played against each other 10 times, the score would be a strict 50/50 on every measurement.

Player 1 is on a team where they are perhaps #10 on the depth chart and plays typically on D3 (with a partner with a higher rating) against people with an average rating of 3.10.
Player 2 is on a team where they are #5 on the depth chart and plays typically D1 or D2 (with a partner with a lower rating) against people with an average rating of 3.28

Player 1 finishes the season 5-3 winning 60% of total games
Player 2 finishes the season 3-5 winning 40% of total games

Player 2 will end the season with a higher rating than Player 1 ... simply because they were against people (luck of the draw) with higher ratings, and the differential of their partners.

A captain, if they wanted to get a player bumped off the team (up or down), could do it simply by who thry played them with and on what line against which team. It would take a concerted effort over the course of an entire year of seasons, but wouldn't be that difficult, assuming that player didn't improve their game over the course of the same time period.

 

[schmke]

hellz, i sometimes swing 0.4 NTRP over the course of a single match, let alone a season!!!

Hard for my data to look at swings in a match

But nearly every player has match results that show a swing of at least 0.3, usually more, during a season or even a few month period. That is entirely normal just due to the variables in play from just having good/bad days to match-ups with opponents or chemistry with partners.

For example, a player that is asked to play with a non-preferred partner due to availability or creating the best overall pairings for the team is clearly not sandbagging, even if as a result their match rating is not as high as it would have been if they played with their preferred partner. Nor is it sandbagging if a player had a bad day or is stressed from work/family and that affects their play somewhat. This is recreational tennis and it simply isn't reasonable for a player to opt out of playing in a match if all the conditions aren't ideal for them. If someone plays enough, the highs and lows even out and the rating a player gets should represent their overall level of play. Some days they play above that level, some days they don't.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Some days they play above that level, some days they don't.

Yes and the problem is, the days they play at a higher level, everyone accuses them of sandbagging. Sometimes you just get hot. I've had those all too rare moments where I feel I can't miss and the ball is a big giant beachball ready for me to crush. I've had those all too frequent moments where the sweetspot is a mystery and the frame is a magnet. If you looked at those match results I'd be considered a "Ratings Manager". It's just the vagaries of tennis. You see it in the pros and you see it in rec leagues.

 

[Startzel]

@Startzel 2 people with identical abilities, motivation, exectution can so easily have different ratings because of the way league is played.

2 playters start season both at 3.14. Idealized world, neither improves their actual game .. if they played against each other 10 times, the score would be a strict 50/50 on every measurement.

Player 1 is on a team where they are perhaps #10 on the depth chart and plays typically on D3 (with a partner with a higher rating) against people with an average rating of 3.10.
Player 2 is on a team where they are #5 on the depth chart and plays typically D1 or D2 (with a partner with a lower rating) against people with an average rating of 3.28

Player 1 finishes the season 5-3 winning 60% of total games
Player 2 finishes the season 3-5 winning 40% of total games

Player 2 will end the season with a higher rating than Player 1 ... simply because they were against people (luck of the draw) with higher ratings, and the differential of their partners.

A captain, if they wanted to get a player bumped off the team (up or down), could do it simply by who thry played them with and on what line against which team. It would take a concerted effort over the course of an entire year of seasons, but wouldn't be that difficult, assuming that player didn't improve their game over the course of the same time period.

Yes I get this. But that isn't the scenario that @Cindysphinx brought up.

We are discussing two players at the end of the year that have the exact same ability and exact same rating.

 

[Cindysphinx]

This is the problem with your argument. How is a player cheating if they sandbag to stay a 3.5 when there are players better than them still at 3.5?

Cheating means you have an unfair advantage. But you're arguing being too good for your level isn't an unfair advantage.

Your question is this: how can a player who is managing their rating be called a cheat when there are others at their level who are better than them?

The question boggles the mind.

The hypothetical 3.5C player we are discussing would be bumped up to 4.0 but is throwing games to remain at 3.5. If the player is successful at cheating, he will not be bumped to 4.0 but will remain at 3.5. There will be hundreds or thousands of people at 3.5, some higher, some lower, some better, some weaker. That some of those 3.5s are higher is beside the point. I will explain in a minute.

Dude, I have never seen someone make so many bizarre statements. In my case alone, you seem to be saying: I cheated as a 4.0 to become a 3.5; as a 3.5 I have an obligation to play 4.0; if I take lessons or practice to play better, this is evidence of cheating; I have had two close matches at 3.5, so I must be cheating; my two matches included tiebreaks so I must have cheated.

Or maybe, just maybe, I’m a 3.5C.

But I digress. Let me answer your jacked up question.

The rating system assumes players go out and try to play their best. Most everyone does that (or we wouldn’t have so many people complaining about bad partners and hooking). If someone cheats by throwing games and avoids the bump to 4.0 they would get if they competed, they get easier matches, more playing opportunities, better partners. That is not fair to folks who get a bump and just suck it up at their new level. **It is also not fair to the legitimate 3.5s because our cheating 3.5 (who threw games to avoid a bump) can and will call on his 4.0 skills whenever he needs them.** That is the “unfair advantage” you asked about in your question.

Understand?

For the love of all that is good and holy, at least pretend to understand.

Cindy — who would have made a terrible school teacher because suggesting one’s students are dummies is frowned upon

 

[Startzel]

Your question is this: how can a player who is managing their rating be called a cheat when there are others at their level who are better than them?

The question boggles the mind.

The hypothetical 3.5C player we are discussing would be bumped up to 4.0 but is throwing games to remain at 3.5. If the player is successful at cheating, he will not be bumped to 4.0 but will remain at 3.5. There will be hundreds or thousands of people at 3.5, some higher, some lower, some better, some weaker. That some of those 3.5s are higher is beside the point. I will explain in a minute.

Dude, I have never seen someone make so many bizarre statements. In my case alone, you seem to be saying: I cheated as a 4.0 to become a 3.5; as a 3.5 I have an obligation to play 4.0; if I take lessons or practice to play better, this is evidence of cheating; I have had two close matches at 3.5, so I must be cheating; my two matches included tiebreaks so I must have cheated.

Or maybe, just maybe, I’m a 3.5C.

But I digress. Let me answer your jacked up question.

The rating system assumes players go out and try to play their best. Most everyone does that (or we wouldn’t have so many people complaining about bad partners and hooking). If someone cheats by throwing games and avoids the bump to 4.0 they would get if they competed, they get easier matches, more playing opportunities, better partners. That is not fair to folks who get a bump and just suck it up at their new level. **It is also not fair to the legitimate 3.5s because our cheating 3.5 (who threw games to avoid a bump) can and will call on his 4.0 skills whenever he needs them.** That is the “unfair advantage” you asked about in your question.

Understand?

For the love of all that is good and holy, at least pretend to understand.

Cindy — who would have made a terrible school teacher because suggesting one’s students are dummies is frowned upon

:facepalm: There is a reason you're not actually answering the question and changing the goalposts.

"they get easier matches, more playing opportunities, better partners." That also applies to your hypothetical person who just happens to play sick, or change up their style in an easy match and those dropped games result in staying a 3.5 instead of being rightfully bumped.

What you need to explain is why one is cheating and one isn't when they both result in the same outcome?

 

[OnTheLine]

What you need to explain is why one is cheating and one isn't when they both result in the same outcome?

Intent. Pure and simple.
Playing sick and dropping games is not cheating, even if it means lowering your chance of getting bumped.

 

[5sets]

*grabs popcorn*

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk

 

[Startzel]

Intent. Pure and simple.
Playing sick and dropping games is not cheating, even if it means lowering your chance of getting bumped.

It’s a shame you don’t understand why that’s a silly distinction.

“Sorry judge I didn’t intend to kill anyone so you can’t punish me for it.”

What you should be arguing is that the person who does it intentionally is more of a cheat. However, they’re both cheating the system.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Intent. Pure and simple.
Playing sick and dropping games is not cheating, even if it means lowering your chance of getting bumped.

Exactly.

And why does the intent matter?

I already told you, Starzel: because the cheating 3.5 can call on his 4.0 skills — the ones he deliberately hid when he threw games — whenever he needs them to beat the honest 3.5 who lacks those skills.

If you cannot understand that, we will have to coin a new term for your confusion. I suggest “Intellectual Sandbagger,” noun: a person who plays dumb to continue a ridiculous argument on the internet.

 

[navigator]

These sandbagging threads always give rise the same question: Who is more pitiful, the folks doing the sandbagging or the folks complaining about the sandbaggers? It's a real conundrum. I could go either way.

 

[Startzel]

These sandbagging threads always give rise the same question: Who is more pitiful, the folks doing the sandbagging or the folks complaining about the sandbaggers? It's a real conundrum. I could go either way.

It’s definitely the people who sandbag.

It’s like who’s worse. The racists or the people who complain about racism?

You should feel bad for even posting that.

 

[Startzel]

Exactly.

And why does the intent matter?

I already told you, Starzel: because the cheating 3.5 can call on his 4.0 skills — the ones he deliberately hid when he threw games — whenever he needs them to beat the honest 3.5 who lacks those skills.

If you cannot understand that, we will have to coin a new term for your confusion. I suggest “Intellectual Sandbagger,” noun: a person who plays dumb to continue a ridiculous argument on the internet.

lol literally keep changing your goalposts in every post. There is a reason for that that’s obvious to anyone with a semblence or intelligence.

We aren’t talking about a 3.5 who lacks skill. We are talking about a 4.0 player that fooled around and stayed a 3.5. So he can call on his 4.0 skills whenever he needs them.

Why can’t you just save us from this circular logic nightmare and make a post on topic?

 

[esgee48]

Post 176? WTF. Asian Americans in SF have historically complained about preferential treatment African Americans have received in schools. Officials just say that they have to make up for all the stuff that happened to them by letting Asians pay for it. Based on your definition, I must be a racist for complaining. Your comment is irrational.

 

[navigator]

It’s definitely the people who sandbag.

It’s like who’s worse. The racists or the people who complain about racism?

You should feel bad for even posting that.

Are you seriously comparing sandbagging in rec tennis to being racist? I think your sense of proportion might be just *slightly* off.

Rec tennis is completely meaningless in the whole scheme of things, which is why people who complain about sandbagging are so pitiable. It's like complaining about losing a pie tasting contest because one contestant used more than the allowable amount of butter. What normal person gives half a sh1t about this? I don't think we can say the same thing about racists and racism.

You should feel bad for even posting that.

 

[Startzel]

Are you seriously comparing sandbagging in rec tennis to being racist? I think your sense of proportion might be just *slightly* off.

Rec tennis is completely meaningless in the whole scheme of things, which is why people who complain about sandbagging are so pitiable. It's like complaining about losing a pie tasting contest because one contestant used more than the allowable amount of butter. What normal person gives half a sh1t about this? I don't think we can say the same thing about racists and racism.

You should feel bad for even posting that.

I’m intentionally making a mockery of your logic. Don’t get mad at me because you realize how dumb your logic is when you apply it to something serious.

Just because you don’t feel something is important doesn’t make it insignificant. You have a thread on this very board with people like @MathGeek arguing against transgendered rights. Just because he finds that insignificant doesn’t mean @J_R_B is whining.

But that’s what you’re trying to argue...

 

[OnTheLine]

Whoa there nelly .... @MathGeek as much as I am certain I disagree with him on everything related to politics and such, did NOT argue against transgender rights in that thread ... in fact he was exceptionally moderate about it, surprisingly so. Be careful calling people out and claiming they said somehting they did not.

 

[Startzel]

Whoa there nelly .... @MathGeek as much as I am certain I disagree with him on everything related to politics and such, did NOT argue against transgender rights in that thread ... in fact he was exceptionally moderate about it, surprisingly so. Be careful calling people out and claiming they said somehting they did not.

Anyone with critical reading skills could easily see through his faux moderate approach.

 

[navigator]

Don’t get mad at me

I'm not mad at you. I pity you. And clearly I'm not the only one.

 

[jm1980]

you need to explain is why one is cheating and one isn't when they both result in the same outcome?

Intent matters even if the outcome seems to be the same. That's self-evident, and one must be really dense to argue intent doesn't matter

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Literally none of this has anything to do with my question. It was @cindyspinx that argued it was acceptable for two people of equal ability to have different ratings.

I'm guessing you acknowledge that shouldn't be the case, that's why you're trying to change the goal posts in your post.

Actually, it's the opposite: @Cindysphinx's subsequent post touched on some of the same factors I did. These factors account for real life that your sterilized example does not. Factors which she and I and others recognize and that you do not.

I'm not trying to change the goal posts; I don't believe your goal posts are realistic so I add detail which I think is relevant.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The reality is that this does and will continue to happen, even when everything is completely above board. The rating algorithm is just not precise enough to exactly account for differences in partner, opponents, playing style, matchups, match conditions / surface, etc.

I would be content with having two people of the exact same ability be within 0.2 DNTRP of each other 95% or more of the time.

I think most people would agree with you; I certainly do. But I think @Startzel believes they should have exactly the same DNTRP to the 1/10,000th of a point 100% of the time. No allowances for any kind of variation is allowed; if it occurs, it's due to sandbagging.

Correct me if I've mis-stated your position, Startzel.

 

[Startzel]

I think most people would agree with you; I certainly do. But I think @Startzel believes they should have exactly the same DNTRP to the 1/10,000th of a point 100% of the time. No allowances for any kind of variation is allowed; if it occurs, it's due to sandbagging.

Correct me if I've mis-stated your position, Startzel.

Of course you’re mistating my position.

You’re creating quite the straw man argument.

 

[Startzel]

Actually, it's the opposite: @Cindysphinx's subsequent post touched on some of the same factors I did. These factors account for real life that your sterilized example does not. Factors which she and I and others recognize and that you do not.

I'm not trying to change the goal posts; I don't believe your goal posts are realistic so I add detail which I think is relevant.

This is a complete straw man argument.

You don’t get to “sterilize the example” so you don’t have to admit what you argued. Cindy made the argument that two players of equal ability and equal ranking could have different NTRP and one would be cheating and the other wouldn’t.

 

[Startzel]

Intent matters even if the outcome seems to be the same. That's self-evident, and one must be really dense to argue intent doesn't matter

It isn’t self evident because it’s illogical the way you guys are trying to argue it.

“Officer you can’t give me a ticket for speeding because I didn’t know I was speeding.” That isn’t how it works.

 

[OrangePower]

It isn’t self evident because it’s illogical the way you guys are trying to argue it.

“Officer you can’t give me a ticket for speeding because I didn’t know I was speeding.” That isn’t how it works.

Interesting analogy.

In many jurisdictions you can defend a speeding violation by proving that you had a malfunctioning speedometer and thus did not know that you were speeding.

(You might still be liable for a defective equipment violation but the fine is much lower and no points on your license.)

 

[edathompson2]

Starzel, you're the crazy person screaming the world is going to end on a street corner. No one agrees with your extreme stance. You're the guy that constantly brings up the illuminati at EVERY event. You're the guy that during a double date brings up how the world is still flat.

You've wasted thousands on e-mail posts raving about the same thing over and over and over. Nothing has changed. repeating the same action and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. You have a compulsion issue. You need a therapist, dude.

 

[Startzel]

Interesting analogy.

In many jurisdictions you can defend a speeding violation by proving that you had a malfunctioning speedometer and thus did not know that you were speeding.

(You might still be liable for a defective equipment violation but the fine is much lower and no points on your license.)

Don’t give Tennis players ideas or they’ll start believing it actually was the racquets fault.

But your caveat speaks to my argument. Intent relates to the severity of the crime. Not whether or not one was committed.

 

[Startzel]

Starzel, you're the crazy person screaming the world is going to end on a street corner. No one agrees with your extreme stance. You're the guy that constantly brings up the illuminati at EVERY event. You're the guy that during a double date brings up how the world is still flat.

You've wasted thousands on e-mail posts raving about the same thing over and over and over. Nothing has changed. repeating the same action and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. You have a compulsion issue. You need a therapist, dude.

This is a terrible analogy. I didn’t start this thread or any of the others.

 

[5sets]

It’s definitely the people who sandbag.

It’s like who’s worse. The racists or the people who complain about racism?

You should feel bad for even posting that.

Ha, in that case I could argue for the people who complain about racism. Crazy people yelling Black Lives Matter and setting fires in their own neigborhoods and vandalizing Trump's hotel.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk

 

[OrangePower]

Don’t give Tennis players ideas or they’ll start believing it actually was the racquets fault.

But your caveat speaks to my argument. Intent relates to the severity of the crime. Not whether or not one was committed.

Depends on the jurisdiction actually.

But here's the main problem I have with your perspective, although I appreciate your point that the end result is what it is regardless of intent:

If playing injured is to be considered sandbagging, and is thus to be avoided, then we must have an objective definition of "injured". For example, which of the below would you consider sandbagging?

1. Player has a broken dominant arm and is playing wrong-handed
2. Sore shoulder and can only serve underhand most of the match (but rest of game not affected)
3. Hurt wrist so that shots can only be hit at max 90% power
4. Strained calf that marginally limits movement
5. Various minor aches and pains limiting effectiveness
6. General lethargy due to having a cold
7. General lethargy due to having a hangover

If all of the above are considered "injured", then I for example would almost never be able to play a match without sandbagging!
As an ageing singles player, I'm pretty much always dealing with some minor thing or another. I'm at a full 100% maybe once a season

Otherwise, if there is a line between "too injured to be playing without it being sandbagging" and "not at 100% but not injured", then there needs to be a generally accepted understanding of what that is. Which I don't think is possible, and is why I think we have to go with intent.

 

[schmke]

Depends on the jurisdiction actually.

But here's the main problem I have with your perspective, although I appreciate your point that the end result is what it is regardless of intent:

If playing injured is to be considered sandbagging, and is thus to be avoided, then we must have an objective definition of "injured". For example, which of the below would you consider sandbagging?

1. Player has a broken dominant arm and is playing wrong-handed
2. Sore shoulder and can only serve underhand most of the match (but rest of game not affected)
3. Hurt wrist so that shots can only be hit at max 90% power
4. Strained calf that marginally limits movement
5. Various minor aches and pains limiting effectiveness
6. General lethargy due to having a cold
7. General lethargy due to having a hangover

If all of the above are considered "injured", then I for example would almost never be able to play a match without sandbagging!
As an ageing singles player, I'm pretty much always dealing with some minor thing or another. I'm at a full 100% maybe once a season

Otherwise, if there is a line between "too injured to be playing without it being sandbagging" and "not at 100% but not injured", then there needs to be a generally accepted understanding of what that is. Which I don't think is possible, and is why I think we have to go with intent.

Well said.

I also don't think it is possible to have a clear definition/line because everyone is different. Some people are healthy 90% of the time and any of the above is an exception, and in that case perhaps any of the items is an indication of "sandbagging". But for many others like @OrangePower, the norm is having one or more of the above items and like he says, would never to able to play a non-"sandbagging" match. For these, the line/delineation is certainly different.

 

[jm1980]

It isn’t self evident because it’s illogical the way you guys are trying to argue it.

“Officer you can’t give me a ticket for speeding because I didn’t know I was speeding.” That isn’t how it works.

Uh, it kind of is. Accidentally discharging a firearm and shooting someone is not the same thing as intentionally shooting them and does not carry the incur the same punishment. Making an honest mistake in your taxes is not the same thing as intentionally committing tax fraud, and also does not incur the same punishment.

Also, how the hell do you expect recreational players to maintain their best level throughout the season, or even a match? Even professional players can lose a few games in a match where they were cruising because they lost focus, the opponent adjusted their tactics, or whatever. But you expect rec players to be able to avoid this? LOL

 

[Startzel]

Depends on the jurisdiction actually.

But here's the main problem I have with your perspective, although I appreciate your point that the end result is what it is regardless of intent:

If playing injured is to be considered sandbagging, and is thus to be avoided, then we must have an objective definition of "injured". For example, which of the below would you consider sandbagging?

1. Player has a broken dominant arm and is playing wrong-handed
2. Sore shoulder and can only serve underhand most of the match (but rest of game not affected)
3. Hurt wrist so that shots can only be hit at max 90% power
4. Strained calf that marginally limits movement
5. Various minor aches and pains limiting effectiveness
6. General lethargy due to having a cold
7. General lethargy due to having a hangover

If all of the above are considered "injured", then I for example would almost never be able to play a match without sandbagging!
As an ageing singles player, I'm pretty much always dealing with some minor thing or another. I'm at a full 100% maybe once a season

Otherwise, if there is a line between "too injured to be playing without it being sandbagging" and "not at 100% but not injured", then there needs to be a generally accepted understanding of what that is. Which I don't think is possible, and is why I think we have to go with intent.

I don’t think it’s complicated at all. Most of the examples you listed aren’t really going to make much of an impact in a person’s rating. The highs and lows will be averaged out over the course of a season. I do believe #1 is unacceptable at all times and #2 would be unacceptable at higher levels.

In your case you’re an aging player so like you said, so you’re probably always going to struggle with something. That means your rating is a true reflection of your ability.

Honestly, I think this notion that there are people out here not getting bumped because they had a cold during a match seems like a red herring. Similar to the argument all these creepers are going to suddenly pretend to be girls to creep on people in a bathroom.

 

[Dartagnan64]

I don’t think it’s complicated at all. Most of the examples you listed aren’t really going to make much of an impact in a person’s rating. The highs and lows will be averaged out over the course of a season. I do believe #1 is unacceptable at all times and #2 would be unacceptable at higher levels.

In your case you’re an aging player so like you said, so you’re probably always going to struggle with something. That means your rating is a true reflection of your ability.

Honestly, I think this notion that there are people out here not getting bumped because they had a cold during a match seems like a red herring. Similar to the argument all these creepers are going to suddenly pretend to be girls to creep on people in a bathroom.

Yes but the various things will vary wildly from match to match. If one day you have a cold but play pretty well, then the next time you have a strained calf and can't run, your match results will vary wildly and give the impression of "sand-bagging". As an older guy myself, I know there are days I can hang with the 4.0's and days where I'd struggle against a 3.0. Those variations will lead to a rating of 3.5. But if i get healthy at the end of season and get into "hang with 4.0's" levels, I'll be viewed a sandbagger. Should someone say"hey, guys I can't play with you right now since I'm too good for your level. I'll come back when i've hurt something again."

 

[schmke]

I don’t think it’s complicated at all. Most of the examples you listed aren’t really going to make much of an impact in a person’s rating. The highs and lows will be averaged out over the course of a season. I do believe #1 is unacceptable at all times and #2 would be unacceptable at higher levels.

If any of the items is a one time thing, or a small number of the total matches played, it may be averaged out. But if the minor injury is prolonged or somewhat regular, you bet it can affect a rating. Winning 6-4,6-4 instead of 6-2,6-2, or winning in a match tie-break instead of straight sets, or winning 6-2,7-6 instead of 6-2,6-2 because you run out of steam because of a cold absolutely affects a rating and some of the items above could certainly contribute to that sort of difference.

In your case you’re an aging player so like you said, so you’re probably always going to struggle with something. That means your rating is a true reflection of your ability.

Exactly, but on a given day when the wrist isn't hurting, had a good nights sleep, and generally just feeling good a player may play 0.1-0.2 above their average and if they have two matches in a row like that, opponents (and perhaps you) would start to claim they are a sandbagger and should be playing up because they really know that is their true level.

Honestly, I think this notion that there are people out here not getting bumped because they had a cold during a match seems like a red herring.

Except the players everyone is most concerned about are those near the top of the level where the difference between a bump or not can be as little as 0.01. And yes, one match that is worse than expected which is perhaps attributed to one of the minor issues in our list, could result in a 0.01 difference and someone not being bumped up. And if it the malady affects two or three matches, the rating difference can easily be several hundredths if not approaching 0.1 and that will definitely cause a rating difference for a larger number of players.