[ColoradoTree]

If Lord plays, she doesn't have to win: her bigger contribution may be just to bump everyone below her down a slot, giving them a better chance of winning.

This is the crucial point.  It's not stacking your lineup if you play your top player at #1!  ;)

(Note to those of you who may not know what "stacking a lineup" means.  The rules (and just as importantly, deeply-rooted norms) require that players play in order of ability.  So, the best player on a team should play at #1, the second-best player at #2, and so on.  Since each individual singles match is worth the same in determining the team result, coaches lacking a certain moral clarity might put their 6th-best player at #1, bumping each other player down a spot, giving each of them a better chance of winning.  In a match where each player at each slot was equally matched, you'd turn a completely uncertain result in which 3-3 might be expected into a situation where 5-1 is the likeliest outcome.  It's sort of like gerrymandering your lineup for the best overall result.  This doesn't mean you can't tweak your lineup as the season goes on, or if there are a couple of players at a similar level and you're trying to figure out which ordering of them gives you the best chance to win on a given day (a situation expressly blessed in the rulebook), or if intra-squad competition like a challenge match for the #1 spot forces a reordering.  For example, last year, Taylor Davidson wasn't playing terribly well at #1, missed some matches with an illness, and came back at #3.  At first, I figured she was working her way back to full fitness, but she stayed there, and her results confirmed she belonged there.  That kind of stuff is normal and perfectly fine.)

On that point, I just looked up the ITA regulations on stacking your lineup, and teams can object to the opposing team's lineup before the match starts, and if the lineup is not corrected to ensure the players "play in order of ability," there is a mechanism to protest the match result to the ITA, which can "reverse or overturn a result for ITA Rankings purposes," and also make a recommendation to the NCAA on how to treat that match for postseason seeding purposes.  That said, the player "whose results and record show that the player . . . is clearly stronger than the player . . . listed above that player . . . must be moved up a position."  (emphasis added)  That's an awfully high bar, and I'd think it would be reserved for cases of obvious stacking.  Putting the preseason #7 player, who was a singles All-American last year, at the #1 singles spot, simply wouldn't be stacking, just like Vanderbilt putting Sharma at #1 when she skipped the fall season and isn't currently ranked, wouldn't be stacking, because she finished last year ranked #2 and is generally accepted to be Vanderbilt's best player (though Contreras has a case, just like Gordon might have a case on our team).  In any event, Gordon's results and record wouldn't show that she's "clearly stronger" than Lord.  And there's a good amount of discretion built into the rules for players returning from injury or illness, anyway.  Also, it's super early in the season, where there's a decent amount of lineup tinkering to begin with.  And Lele would never stack anyway, because she's honorable.

Here's hoping Lord being held out from the SJSU match was mostly precautionary.  If she could benefit at all from the extra rest going into Vanderbilt, then by all means, she should have been held out.  The team's twitter account posted some action shots in practice the other day, and Lord wasn't wearing a cast or anything, so I'm hopeful that she'll be good to go for Vanderbilt.  (It would be good to get a match under her belt, but heck, Lord playing Gordon in practice would be better preparation for playing Sharma or Contreras anyway--Gordon is better than SJSU's Gauvain.) 

Basically, as long as Lord's injury is healed, she'd better be playing at #1, even if her timing or match fitness is a bit off after this much time.  (Or, if intra-squad competition to this point has cemented Gordon as the new #1, then Lord should be playing at #2, because keeping Arbuthnott-Lampl-Higuchi-Shin at 3-4-5-6 is the most important lineup issue here.)  It wouldn't be stacking in any event, because you wouldn't be intentionally putting a weaker player above stronger players, but instead preserving what your full-strength lineup would look like, and avoid placing your players at an unfair disadvantage. 

[ColoradoTree]

If Lord plays, she doesn't have to win: her bigger contribution may be just to bump everyone below her down a slot, giving them a better chance of winning.

This is the crucial point.  It's not stacking your lineup if you play your top player at #1!  ;)

(Note to those of you who may not know what "stacking a lineup" means.  The rules (and just as importantly, deeply-rooted norms) require that players play in order of ability.  So, the best player on a team should play at #1, the second-best player at #2, and so on.  Since each individual singles match is worth the same in determining the team result, coaches lacking a certain moral clarity might put their 6th-best player at #1, bumping each other player down a spot, giving each of them a better chance of winning.  In a match where each player at each slot was equally matched, you'd turn a completely uncertain result in which 3-3 might be expected into a situation where 5-1 is the likeliest outcome.  It's sort of like gerrymandering your lineup for the best overall result.  This doesn't mean you can't tweak your lineup as the season goes on, or if there are a couple of players at a similar level and you're trying to figure out which ordering of them gives you the best chance to win on a given day (a situation expressly blessed in the rulebook), or if intra-squad competition like a challenge match for the #1 spot forces a reordering.  For example, last year, Taylor Davidson wasn't playing terribly well at #1, missed some matches with an illness, and came back at #3.  At first, I figured she was working her way back to full fitness, but she stayed there, and her results confirmed she belonged there.  That kind of stuff is normal and perfectly fine.)

On that point, I just looked up the ITA regulations on stacking your lineup, and teams can object to the opposing team's lineup before the match starts, and if the lineup is not corrected to ensure the players "play in order of ability," there is a mechanism to protest the match result to the ITA, which can "reverse or overturn a result for ITA Rankings purposes," and also make a recommendation to the NCAA on how to treat that match for postseason seeding purposes.  That said, the player "whose results and record show that the player . . . is clearly stronger than the player . . . listed above that player . . . must be moved up a position."  (emphasis added)  That's an awfully high bar, and I'd think it would be reserved for cases of obvious stacking.  Putting the preseason #7 player, who was a singles All-American last year, at the #1 singles spot, simply wouldn't be stacking, just like Vanderbilt putting Sharma at #1 when she skipped the fall season and isn't currently ranked, wouldn't be stacking, because she finished last year ranked #2 and is generally accepted to be Vanderbilt's best player (though Contreras has a case, just like Gordon might have a case on our team).  In any event, Gordon's results and record wouldn't show that she's "clearly stronger" than Lord.  And there's a good amount of discretion built into the rules for players returning from injury or illness, anyway.  Also, it's super early in the season, where there's a decent amount of lineup tinkering to begin with.  And Lele would never stack anyway, because she's honorable.

Here's hoping Lord being held out from the SJSU match was mostly precautionary.  If she could benefit at all from the extra rest going into Vanderbilt, then by all means, she should have been held out.  The team's twitter account posted some action shots in practice the other day, and Lord wasn't wearing a cast or anything, so I'm hopeful that she'll be good to go for Vanderbilt.  (It would be good to get a match under her belt, but heck, Lord playing Gordon in practice would be better preparation for playing Sharma or Contreras anyway--Gordon is better than SJSU's Gauvain.) 

Basically, as long as Lord's injury is healed, she'd better be playing at #1, even if her timing or match fitness is a bit off after this much time.  (Or, if intra-squad competition to this point has cemented Gordon as the new #1, then Lord should be playing at #2, because keeping Arbuthnott-Lampl-Higuchi-Shin at 3-4-5-6 is the most important lineup issue here.)  It wouldn't be stacking in any event, because you wouldn't be intentionally putting a weaker player above stronger players, but instead preserving what your full-strength lineup would look like, and avoid placing your players at an unfair disadvantage.