Break Stats -- 2014 U.S. Open 9-Ball, Oct. 2014

AtLarge said:

I'll post more complete information after the event. But in case anyone is wondering about the effects of this year's break rules:

After the first two days of the event (12 matches):

• Breaker made at least one ball on the break and did not foul -- 48%

• Breaker won the game -- 50%

• Break-and-run games -- 16%

The comparable figures last year for the 34 streamed matches I watched were 63%, 56%, and 21%.

Click to expand...

How interesting reading these statistics.

I think I read that the spot was moved up a few inches on the table, too.

So far, those percentages don't seem to be a big change one way or the other -- yet.

At Large, you da man. I am most surprised by "breaker won the game 50%". I was expecting about 55%. We'll see if it stays that way.

Still plenty of break and run racks, though. Many of these guys are doing just fine with the break.

AtLarge said:

I'll post more complete information after the event. But in case anyone is wondering about the effects of this year's break rules:

After the first two days of the event (12 matches):

• Breaker made at least one ball on the break and did not foul -- 48%

• Breaker won the game -- 50%

• Break-and-run games -- 16%

The comparable figures last year for the 34 streamed matches I watched were 63%, 56%, and 21%.

Click to expand...

Great stuff as always AtLarge.
So I am looking at diff between 1st and 3rd stat 48% -16% =32% while last year was 63%-21%=42%
I am guessing the drop from 42% to 32% is cos with new break rules they do not get very open table compared to last year. Quite often I see little clusters here and there :grin-square:

Great Post!

I hope this ends the debate about racking and how 9 Ball cant be won unless you are a rack mechanic, or the game aint worth playing because EVERYBODY makes the wing ball and runs big packages.

The breaker wins 50% of the time, so I think that means the other guy wins 50% of the time even after the wing ball goes in.

50% using this particular format

in general, the break advantage is really only there for serious breakers, most pros even the top ones do not have world class breaks

eliminate breakbox and go back to normal racking/spotting and breaker win% goes way up especially for the big breakers

non tourney where a super big breaker is sued to the table, i.e. home room it will go up even further, I know a local C player on his home table with a monster break that avereges 2-3 balls on the break 90% and a very high run out percentage after that

JAM said:

How interesting reading these statistics.

I think I read that the spot was moved up a few inches on the table, too.

So far, those percentages don't seem to be a big change one way or the other -- yet.

Click to expand...

It's a bit early for the full stats to even out, but that % change is pretty big at the level those guys play. Even one game out of the set where they may have made a ball last year and did not this year is huge. I think normaly the pro level would allow you only a few errors per set before you end up losing, not making a ball on the break when you could have is a 1 game swing and maybe more. These guys win and lose by single % points in their errors and stats, the guy that plays at 90% vs a guy that plays at 88% could be the winner of the whole thing, the 88% guy could be out in the first match.

Ask Keith how many goofs he thinks he could make in a set against an Earl or a Buddy and still have a good chance at a win, I'm willing to bet not more than 2-3 at most in a race to 11.

Good job, looking forward to the complete stats in order to draw conclusions.

Thank you sir. Breaker won the game % creeping upward, sitting at 55% for Wednesday's play. Makes sense since the field has gotten smaller but stronger.

B&R % of 17 as opposed to 21 a year ago says this:

If a match typically consists of an average of 17 racks, the average number of B&Rs, a year ago we would have expected 3.57 B&R racks per match. This year, we should expect 2.89 B&R racks per match. Really not that much of a difference.

To be fair, the best breakers are still thriving in this format, with Shane Van Boening, Mike Dechaine, Francisco Bustamante, Corey Deuel and Jason Klatt all among the last 16 on the winners side, and to me, this is no surprise at all.

Those who suggested that the best breakers would lose their advantage appear mistaken to this point, but the tournament's not over yet, is it?

AtLarge said:

Here's a day-by-day listing of some key break results after 3 days (18 streamed matches) of the U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship. I'll post more complete aggregate information after the event.

Breaker made at least one ball on the break and did not foul:

Day 1 -- 52 of 115 (45%)
Day 2 -- 51 of 101 (50%)
Day 3 -- 58 of 106 (55%)
3-Day Total -- 161 of 322 (50%)​

Breaker won the game:

Day 1 -- 54 of 115 (47%)
Day 2 -- 54 of 101 (53%)
Day 3 -- 54 of 106 (55%)
3-Day Total -- 162 of 322 (50%)​

Break-and-run games:

Day 1 -- 17 of 115 (15%)
Day 2 -- 17 of 101 (17%)
Day 3 -- 20 of 106 (19%)
3-Day Total -- 54 of 322 (17%)​

The comparable figures last year for the 34 streamed matches I watched over the full 7 days were 63% (stay at table), 56% (breaker won game), and 21% (B&R games).

[Note: 2014 data exclude results from 2 games I missed on Day 1.]

Click to expand...

So far I would say Jay's new break rules are working well. It's been apparent to me that spotting the 9 on the spot and putting the 2 ball in the back of the rack has reduced the break and run percentages. The wing ball is no longer wired. The 1 ball cannot be made in the side consistently. We are seeing more safety battles off the break. The break is less of an advantage.

For the viewer, there has been some amazing safety play - beautiful stuff!

sjm said:

Thank you sir. Breaker won the game % creeping upward, sitting at 55% for Wednesday's play. Makes sense since the field has gotten smaller but stronger.

B&R % of 17 as opposed to 21 a year ago says this:

If a match typically consists of an average of 17 racks, the average number of B&Rs, a year ago we would have expected 3.57 B&R racks per match. This year, we should expect 2.89 B&R racks per match. Really not that much of a difference.

To be fair, the best breakers are still thriving in this format, with Shane Van Boening, Mike Dechaine, Francisco Bustamante, Corey Deuel and Jason Klatt all among the last 16 on the winners side, and to me, this is no surprise at all.

Those who suggested that the best breakers would lose their advantage appear mistaken to this point, but the tournament's not over yet, is it?

Click to expand...

You can look at it in a different way though:
Best breakers did lose some of the their advantage, and 21% B&R was not such a big percent in order to have rules changed. Also I'm not sure if the stats are absolutely comparable due to the "easy" dry break rule, 3 balls need to pass just the side pockets. One last thing, let's not forget that there was an idea of applying the "small" box rule, and it's good that it wasn't applied finally...

Petros Andrikop said:

You can look at it in a different way though:
Best breakers did lose some of the their advantage, and 21% B&R was not such a big percent in order to have rules changed. Also I'm not sure if the stats are absolutely comparable due to the "easy" dry break rule, 3 balls need to pass just the side pockets. One last thing, let's not forget that there was an idea of applying the "small" box rule, and it's good that it wasn't applied finally...

Click to expand...

Yes, you make a good point here. Also, I agree that the bigger break box has done some good. FYI, same "three balls past the side pocket" rule as last year.

sjm said:

Yes, you make a good point here. Also, I agree that the bigger break box has done some good. FYI, same "three balls past the side pocket" rule as last year.

Click to expand...

Thanks, forgot to add that 3 balls past the side pocket is easier this year due to the balls being racked higher, that's why I suggested 3 balls past 1 diamond below side pockets (closer to breaker) when there was an open discussion about the rules by the directors.

Petros Andrikop said:

Thanks, forgot to add that 3 balls past the side pocket is easier this year due to the balls being racked higher, that's why I suggested 3 balls past 1 diamond below side pockets (closer to breaker) when there was an open discussion about the rules by the directors.

Click to expand...

Great observation. Must admit I never thought of this but, on reflection, I prefer it your way.

AtLarge said:

Post #1 has been updated through Day 4 (Thursday).

Click to expand...

Thanks. America's two best breakers are also America's two best players. They are a combined 8-0 and will both finish 9th or better. Asia's best breaker that is in this field is Bustamante, and he's 4-0.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The best breakers are the best breakers and will succeed now matter where you rack the one.

sjm said:

Thanks. America's two best breakers are also America's two best players. They are a combined 8-0 and will both finish 9th or better. Asia's best breaker that is in this field is Bustamante, and he's 4-0.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The best breakers are the best breakers and will succeed now matter where you rack the one.

Click to expand...

They don't prevail only due to the break, break is one part of the game. They also don't prevail due to run outs since those are less. So their success does not justify the type of logic "let's do whatever we can do with (against) the break, it doesn't matter", sucess is one thing, in what kind of a game another. The delicate balance between making 9ball more difficult and keeping it 9ball at the same time should be kept always. Let's not forget that under the current rules we have seen 3 hour matches, it may work in a 126 player field but if we want to see more participations in the future (again) in big events we should think about it.

Petros Andrikop said:

They don't prevail only due to the break, break is one part of the game. They also don't prevail due to run outs since those are less. So their success does not justify the type of logic "let's do whatever we can do with (against) the break, it doesn't matter", sucess is one thing, in what kind of a game another. The delicate balance between making 9ball more difficult and keeping it 9ball at the same time should be kept always. Let's not forget that under the current rules we have seen 3 hour matches, it may work in a 126 player field but if we want to see more participations in the future (again) in big events we should think about it.

Click to expand...

That's another excellent post, Petros.

You are so right when you note that superb breakers like SVB, Mike D and Francisco, all of whom are also counted among the best ball pocketers in our game today, are winning with a lot more than the break. This change to nine-on-the-spot has given the rack mechanics a week off, just as tournament director Jay Helfert intended.

Johnny Archer commented on ABR radio that the playing field would be leveled by the break rule in use and the game made more fair by disallowing the racking gurus (and, obviously, Shane, Mike and Francisco are three of them) to wire the corner ball through rack manipulation. These guys have all-around skills good enough to be among the last eight on the winners side in what both Mark Wilson and Jimmy Wych have called the toughest field ever assembled in America in rotation pool.

That said, your point is critical, because how we package the game for players and fans alike is a very important matter. I must admit that I don't believe matches have been slower this year than last, but that's not really the issue here.

As I have often posted, my preference is neutral racker with one on the spot as the way to keep the break fair and the game closer to its traditional form, and I'm growing very tired of those who suggest that the cost would be prohibitive . I think it could be done cost free. Referees are not needed, just volunteers. Nonetheless, if we needed to pay the racker $10 per match, it would have cost just over $1,000 this year and the number of referees willing to do the job would have been countless. If necessary, I myself will fund this in the next US Open.