I know I'm responding late to this very controversial question...but
I had to contemplate whether my response was going to have any
meaning or just get me condemned by my own thoughts on the matter.
I have read and pondered on the previous responses. Some have
valid points but others don't. If you weren't around long enough
and through enough managements, players managers and other conditions...then
you haven't seen it all. I have.
Many factors go into this. I myself never minded if my programmed
partner scratched and someone else filled his spot...but I knew
if I was playing game 3 at Tampa and my sub partner was Almorza
(RIP) he was going to come out and practice the remate off the
court if I let the serve go by...he had just finished eating but
he would do the same if I moved up to sub a late game...on the
other side if that sub was Daniel, Kosca, Laca then I knew all
I had to do was not screw up the game. We had almost sure boleto.
If it was me subbing in the 12th game, it was the same. Player
chemistry meant everything. With Laca, Daniel etc etc I knew to
respect their ability and not screw it up. I ALWAYS felt respected
in turn by playing it that way...rebotes would be let come out
to me and as long as I kept the serve away from Francisco, Azpiri,
Arra, Aramayo etc etc..then we had almost as good a chance...but
but but...then comes the post factor. If I was subbing with a
weaker late game backman such as Onaindia, Echaniz, Coya in post
7...there wasn't much chance in the late games. Both of us would
know it, but we made the most of it. What I guess I'm trying to
get across is that with some players teamed together there was
at least some sense of respect felt whereas with others it didn't
matter who moved up or who moved down...they didn't want to be
there !!! When we played the move up or down rotation according
to how many wins you had over 2 weeks, there was nothing sadder
than seeing a late game veteran trying hard and not being able
to get out of the early games...on the other hand, myself and
ALL other rostered early game frontmen did not care nor want to
move up to the late games for 2 weeks because it meant no boleto
and it was obviously only temporary...players manager had you
where you belonged.
Subbing wasn't about showing the players manager hustle, ambition
and talent. It was 1-2 games that's all. He had you rostered where
you were due to his opinions, habits and personal feelings. That's
all. When I played in Ft. Pierce in late games only...it didn't
matter how bad I was playing. The players manager believed veterans
should only be in late games. Many an up and coming player...Benny,
J.J., Corky, King, Kent, Anacabe, Ube, Ubilla, Pete, Danny...were
relinguished to only play early to middle games while in reality
many of us veterans probably needed to be pushed. If I was programmed
to sub the early games my only problem was I had to make it to
the fronton much earlier...it totally throws off your routine
especially if I just finished playing the 13th game matinee 90
minutes ago.
Now talking about the chance to make extra boleto...I had no problem
wanting to sub in a singles game...whether it was moving up or
moving down. The full 100% boleto was worthwhile.
The end response is touchy, controversial and probably a neverending
answer. I cared and I didn't care...I had no problems at times
and lots of problems some times. Too many factors...number of
games played, fatigue, matinees, cold outside or inside...if you
sat for 4-5 games after playing the 5th game and you knew you
had to sub the 12th game...what do you think? No player...not
one...stayed warmed up or exercised...we all watched TV or slept
or sat around talking. I would say most of the time the averages
of a team with a sub on it winning the game are less than when
the game has its regular programmed players.
