PDA

View Full Version : Balls Per Inning


Steve Lipsky
04-02-2007, 07:46 PM
Bob, I didn't want to hijack your other thread, so I figured I'd start a new one.

You mentioned that there are other problems that crop up when certain innings are excluded. Since there are really no two way shots in straight pool, I'm trying to think of what you meant by this. Can you clarify?

To those of you who haven't seen the other thread, I am on a campaign to change the Balls-Per-Inning stat :). As it's presently calculated, innings consisting entirely of a safety are counted in the formula, bringing the overall number down heavily. To provide a quick example, someone who runs three 50s, but gets bogged down with a tight opponent during the safety battles, can easily have a BPI around 7. To delve further, take two players who ran the same 3 50s - one who did it in consecutive innings and another who was forced to engage in lengthy safe battles - they will have wildly different BPI calcs. I'm not sure what value, if any, this provides.

If discounting the safes made it such that official scorekeepers were necessary, I'd understand the difficulties. But you need scorekeepers to calculate a BPI as it is - and if you don't trust them enough to recognize a safe, you shouldn't be trusting them with your score.

OK, there it is. Who agrees and who doesn't?

- Steve

3andstop
04-02-2007, 07:58 PM
I agree in theory for sure that it would be a much more accurate representation of your average. Except, the thought crossed my mind that quite often in a match if you don't get on your breakshot well enough to contact the rack, it isn't unusual to pocket the ball and play safe. These intentional 1 ball innings would cloud the true bpi stat regardless. :(

Steve Lipsky
04-02-2007, 08:14 PM
Well, in those situations, your inning wouldn't have started with this one ball. Presumably, you ran some balls to get on your break shot, so this inning would count and give you, say, 10 balls (or whatever you ran).

In the rare event that you do play an intentional safe by pocketing a ball on your first shot at the table, this would not count towards the BPI. Since the ball is returned to the spot and your opponent comes to the table, this inning would count as a safety-only inning and would not go against your BPI.

- Steve

Dan White
04-02-2007, 08:54 PM
OK, there it is. Who agrees and who doesn't?

- Steve


To me, some stats are more useful than others. In football, I've always scratched my head at the "time of possession" stat. It's pretty useless as it bears no relation to who is winning the game, but I guess it provides some flavor as to how the game went. It seems to me the balls per inning is the same kind of thing, but maybe even worse.

I know nothing of why or how the BPI stat originated, or what its intent really is. I'm sure people like Bob who are really into the history of these things will know. For me, I much prefer the method Steve suggests. It's just more interesting to have a stat that basically says, "This guy averaged 32 balls per run in his last match (or tournament) when he was trying to run balls."

dwhite

Bob Jewett
04-02-2007, 09:34 PM
... You mentioned that there are other problems that crop up when certain innings are excluded. Since there are really no two way shots in straight pool, I'm trying to think of what you meant by this. Can you clarify?
...
One example: your opponent scratches leaving three balls on the table. You make two hard shots and get straight in on the third ball which is on the middle of the head rail. You call safe and pocket the ball. How is this scored? Change the number of balls to two or four. Does the scoring change?

Or: Early in the rack, with nearly a solid rack on the table, my opponent leaves the cue near the foot rail and a barely-possible shot into the side. I call the ball in the side, knowing if I make it the cue ball will be stuck on the back of the rack, but I have one more point. I make the ball and then play safe. Score?

Steve Lipsky
04-03-2007, 12:27 PM
One example: your opponent scratches leaving three balls on the table. You make two hard shots and get straight in on the third ball which is on the middle of the head rail. You call safe and pocket the ball. How is this scored? Change the number of balls to two or four. Does the scoring change?

Or: Early in the rack, with nearly a solid rack on the table, my opponent leaves the cue near the foot rail and a barely-possible shot into the side. I call the ball in the side, knowing if I make it the cue ball will be stuck on the back of the rack, but I have one more point. I make the ball and then play safe. Score?

Example 1: You are credited with two balls and an inning. I fail to see what changing the number of balls does. It either reduces your score by 1 or raises it by 1, respectively.

Example 2: Since you are not playing safe here, you get credited with an inning. Your success or failure in making the ball does not matter.

I think what you're trying to say is that there are still ways, with the new calculation, for the BPI to get artificially lower. But these two examples you gave come up very rarely. I'll give you maybe one inning per game devoted to a pure situation like this, although I would think it's less. But even at one, this wouldn't affect the BPI nearly as much as it's being affected now by all the safeties. It's the difference between maybe one or two artificially low innings, as opposed to maybe 20.

Just to be clear, there is no subjectiveness in my suggestion. Any time a player calls a shot, he's counted with an inning. Any time he calls a safe, and it's his first shot of the inning, he's not charged.

- Steve

Gerry
04-03-2007, 02:34 PM
I also think a new way of scoring BPI is in order. There are many obscure instances that can crop up, but those shouldn't have much of an effect on an overall BPI, especially over the length of a tourney/season. Those situations happen maybe once in 3 or 4 games IMO.

I guess in the grand scheme of things stats really may mean nothing except if you like to anylize things. There are stats I like to know like winning %...BPI...and the Accu-stats numbers are cool too.

I don't really have much to add to your system Steve...I like the way it's going.

Gerry

Bob Jewett
04-03-2007, 03:53 PM
... Just to be clear, there is no subjectiveness in my suggestion. Any time a player calls a shot, he's counted with an inning. Any time he calls a safe, and it's his first shot of the inning, he's not charged. ...
OK, this sounds simple enough. I assume if he fouls on the safety, the point is deducted from his score but no inning is charged.

Here is a corner case: the player calls safe while on two fouls. He fouls. He shoots an opening break shot and banks a ball out of the rack and runs 28. How is this scored?

Nostra
04-03-2007, 04:23 PM
Just a thought. Let's say your BPI in a tournament in some way counts towards your end result. In Norwegian tournaments it's sometimes used for seeding purposes.

Would players then not tend to play safe more when they have only tough shots on? In this way it could change the way the game is played.

sjm
04-03-2007, 05:48 PM
BPI is a joke.

As many on the forum know, Irving Crane and I were close. Many a shortstop who saw Irving's BPI would have wanted to gamble with him. How do I know? Not only have I discussed the subject with Irving, but I used to be one of the scorekeepers at the PPPA World Open in the mid 1970's through the early 1980's, and I kept the scoresheet in a few of Irving's matches.

It's no secret that Crane was pre-disposed to defensive wars of attrition that he usually won. His inning summary might look like this:

56 0 0 0 -1 0 32 28 0 0 0 0 28 0 -1 0 0 0 8

BPI = 150 / 19 = 7.9

In truth, however, in his true shooting innings (which to me, should omit his 8 ball run to reach the finish line) he made 144 in four innings:

Balls per shooting inning = 144 / 4 = 36

Irving told me he believed he had to average 35 on his true shooting innings to contend for the top titles, and i recall that Jack Colavita came up with a similar guess regarding what it took. My guess is that, at his best, Sigel was getting about 40 - 45 balls per shooting inning, though I was once told that his stats in PPPA world championship play was about 13 BPI. I have been told that Mosconi's typical BPI was between 15 and 16, so if Willie played safe about as often as Sigel, one must guess that Willie averaged about 50 -60 balls per shooting inning.

Mr. Lipsky, sign me up for your cause. BPI doesn't cut it.

mjantti
04-03-2007, 06:05 PM
I agree with Steve here. One-inning safeties shouldn't be regarded as innings when calculating the BPI. I like playing safeties but I wouldn't like to have one lengthy safety battle ruin the BPI especially if we would be running high breaks between the safety battles. I think on an EPC 14.1 tournament roughly ten years ago used to have the "safety" option in the scoresheet and after the tournament the officials would give out two different BPI's for each player, with total innings and with safeties excluded. The system was probably omitted because it required more work from the officials.

cuetable
04-03-2007, 09:42 PM
OK, this sounds simple enough. I assume if he fouls on the safety, the point is deducted from his score but no inning is charged.

Here is a corner case: the player calls safe while on two fouls. He fouls. He shoots an opening break shot and banks a ball out of the rack and runs 28. How is this scored?

Let me guess...

He calls safe and fouls... No inning is charged.
Then he calls the bank on an opening break shot and runs 28... 28 points / 1 inning.

So, the inning only counts when the player call a shot at the beginning of his turn...
I like Steve's suggestion.

Bob Jewett
04-03-2007, 10:38 PM
... He calls safe and fouls... No inning is charged.
Then he calls the bank on an opening break shot and runs 28... 28 points / 1 inning.
...
I'm not certain, but I think the safety call, the foul, the loss of 1+15 points, the opening break shot, and the run of 28 are all considered to be in one inning, since his opponent had no turn at the table. My point was that the inning started with a called safe.

I have never seen a detailed explanation of how 14.1 scoring is to be done. For another example, suppose a player's 150th point is a combo out of a nearly full rack. The player blasts it and pockets 4 balls. Is his score 153? Common sense says one thing, but I think the rule book is silent on this point, except to say that all extra balls pocketed with the called ball are scored.

mjantti
04-04-2007, 04:41 AM
I have never seen a detailed explanation of how 14.1 scoring is to be done. For another example, suppose a player's 150th point is a combo out of a nearly full rack. The player blasts it and pockets 4 balls. Is his score 153? Common sense says one thing, but I think the rule book is silent on this point, except to say that all extra balls pocketed with the called ball are scored.

If you are playing a race to 150, I don't think you can have a final score of more than 150 points. The rulebook probably is silent here, because the issue is only related to calculating BPI's and high runs and they aren't a major issue in tournament play from the rulebook's point of view.

pdcue
04-04-2007, 10:40 AM
Bob, I didn't want to hijack your other thread, so I figured I'd start a new one.

You mentioned that there are other problems that crop up when certain innings are excluded. Since there are really no two way shots in straight pool, I'm trying to think of what you meant by this. Can you clarify?

To those of you who haven't seen the other thread, I am on a campaign to change the Balls-Per-Inning stat :). As it's presently calculated, innings consisting entirely of a safety are counted in the formula, bringing the overall number down heavily. To provide a quick example, someone who runs three 50s, but gets bogged down with a tight opponent during the safety battles, can easily have a BPI around 7. To delve further, take two players who ran the same 3 50s - one who did it in consecutive innings and another who was forced to engage in lengthy safe battles - they will have wildly different BPI calcs. I'm not sure what value, if any, this provides.

If discounting the safes made it such that official scorekeepers were necessary, I'd understand the difficulties. But you need scorekeepers to calculate a BPI as it is - and if you don't trust them enough to recognize a safe, you shouldn't be trusting them with your score.

OK, there it is. Who agrees and who doesn't?

- Steve

Perhaps the first question should be what is the purpose of
the BPI stat?

AFAIK - the 'Total Balls Pocketed' is the only stat used as a tie-breaker
in tournaments. It seems to me BPI, tho oft quoted, actually gives more
info on the style of a player than on his ability.

I do know that in the Carom games, the 'Points-Per-Inning' stat
is an important consideration. Could it be that 14.1 meerly
caried on with a tradition from Carom that was not so applicable to
the pocket games?

Dale

Steve Lipsky
04-04-2007, 10:59 AM
It seems to me BPI, tho oft quoted, actually gives more
info on the style of a player than on his ability.

Sometimes. But sometimes it's a reflection on the style of your opponent. I am a very aggressive straight pool player, but if my opponent wants to bog me down in safes every time a semi-tough shot comes up for him, I have to comply.

I do know that in the Carom games, the 'Points-Per-Inning' stat is an important consideration. Could it be that 14.1 meerly
caried on with a tradition from Carom that was not so applicable to
the pocket games?

Dale

Interesting. You might very well be right...

- Steve

Steve Lipsky
04-04-2007, 12:44 PM
In truth, however, in his true shooting innings (which to me, should omit his 8 ball run to reach the finish line) he made 144 in four innings:



SJM,

Nice post. Thanks for the words from Mr. Crane. Truly interesting!

You bring up a good point about the final inning. Ira Lee, NYC's greatest 3-cushion asset, has spoken to me about the same thing in billiards. In billiards it's even more a problem because average is such a widely-used statistic in that discipline.

The problem, of course, is those final points need to count somehow. It's not a true problem to somehow discount them if the player only goes 8-and-out. But if he goes 146-and-out, having a BPI of 4 isn't really accurate either :).

Ira and Will Hanisch, also from NYC, have a solution. (I apologize if this idea originally came from someone else; the only time I've ever heard it was from them.) They suggest counting successes divided by attempts. In other words, using "inning" as the denominator fails, as you mention, because the player doesn't have an opportunity to continue shooting past the end of the game. The denominator becomes the number of shots you actually shoot, and the numerator remains as pocketed balls.

In billiards, it works easier because your average is, well, an average. But in BPI-terms, you'd have to convert this decimal to a run, which can be done but imo it's not as pure.

What do you think?

- Steve

Steve Lipsky
04-04-2007, 12:49 PM
I'm not certain, but I think the safety call, the foul, the loss of 1+15 points, the opening break shot, and the run of 28 are all considered to be in one inning, since his opponent had no turn at the table. My point was that the inning started with a called safe.



Bob, this is indeed an interesting situation. But wouldn't it be scored the same way it would be scored currently? I assume that currently, the player would lose the points for the foul on one inning, and then automatically begin a new inning with the 28. In effect, because of the 3rd foul, he gets two consecutive innings on the scoresheet without his opponent getting one in-between.

So I guess the new system would score it pretty much the same. No inning counted for the foul, then an inning and 28 balls counted for the run.

- Steve

karma
04-04-2007, 01:01 PM
The way the BPI statistics are calculated traditionally, I have to agree that it isn't suited to rate a player's speed exactly. Maybe Hohmann's 50 BPI during the european championships being an exception.

But to evaluate a player's style the BPI can be quite a helpful tool, if you set it in relation to the games W/L index. E.g. a player with a relative low BPI stat, but more wins than losses is probably a rather cautious player.

Here are my stats from this season which rather reflect my style of play than it does how well I've played.

Main league: ~ 6 BPI, style: rather cautious, opponents can hit you with runs of 50+ any time
Minor league: 10 BPI, pretty aggressive, I'd rather shoot than play safe, not much danger of losing
Practice game to 1000: 25 BPI, strictly offense, always try to make a ball

The difference of 6 to 10 BPI is a _huge_ difference in style of play, at least it seems so to me.

Now, to change the way the BPI is determined is much more difficult than it sounds to rank players accurately imho. Enough situations were already mentioned.

To get an impression of a player's speed that I only know by his stats, I rather look at how many balls his opponents has made. Although not being foolproof either it often times was the better way to rate a player. I would really like a statistic of "balls made" vs. "balls allowed".

sjm
04-04-2007, 03:49 PM
SJM,

Nice post. Thanks for the words from Mr. Crane. Truly interesting!

You bring up a good point about the final inning. Ira Lee, NYC's greatest 3-cushion asset, has spoken to me about the same thing in billiards. In billiards it's even more a problem because average is such a widely-used statistic in that discipline.

The problem, of course, is those final points need to count somehow. It's not a true problem to somehow discount them if the player only goes 8-and-out. But if he goes 146-and-out, having a BPI of 4 isn't really accurate either :).

Ira and Will Hanisch, also from NYC, have a solution. (I apologize if this idea originally came from someone else; the only time I've ever heard it was from them.) They suggest counting successes divided by attempts. In other words, using "inning" as the denominator fails, as you mention, because the player doesn't have an opportunity to continue shooting past the end of the game. The denominator becomes the number of shots you actually shoot, and the numerator remains as pocketed balls.

In billiards, it works easier because your average is, well, an average. But in BPI-terms, you'd have to convert this decimal to a run, which can be done but imo it's not as pure.

What do you think?

- Steve

I know Ira and Will quite well, and they are definitely on to something for three cushion. Success ratio works pretty well in a game where players attempt to score on every trip to the table.

The 14.1 predicament is far more complex, however. Count defensive innings and a guy like Irving Crane looks bad, yet a Jimmy Caras, who was famous for shooting even the toughest shots in competition, would look good. Omit defensive innings and Crane would look better than Caras, because Irving was more selective about when to go for a run, meaning the average chance he took on was easier.

When it comes to straight pool, average margin of victory (with losses counted as negative numbers) probably offers a better measure of a player than BPI or any other similar measure. Karma made a similar point in the excellent post immediately preceding mine.

Actually, thirty years ago, total ball count was the tiebreaker to determine the order of finish. If you were among the eight that tied for 17th, but had the second best total ball count among those eight, you finished 18th. I thought that made a lot of sense.

Bob Jewett
04-04-2007, 05:23 PM
... I am on a campaign to change the Balls-Per-Inning stat :). ...
For me a more interesting stat is the average difficulty of the shots a player shoots. It's fairly easy to estimate the raw difficulty of each shot based on the ball positions measured in diamonds. I did this for seven matches in the 1976 14.1 WC (Asbury Park, PPPA) and the best average I measured was by Larry Lisciotti who won the tournament. His average shot was something like 2 diamonds from object ball to pocket and 1.6 diamonds from cue ball to object ball. See http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1994-04.pdf for details of the method.

cuetable
04-05-2007, 09:01 PM
I gave some more thought (thanks to Bob's correction) and I have a new suggestion (to support Stevie's point).
:)
At the beginning of a player's turn, he can do one of the two things

1, Call for a shot and he starts a "Scoring Inning". This "Scoring Inning" stops when the player misses after any amount of ball pocketed or the game point has been met. The ref will add the points then

2, Call for a safety and he starts a "Safety Inning". He get only one shot afterwards. Most of the time the ref will mark a "0" after the shot. However, if the player fouls, The ref will deduct the point(s) after the shot.

In the case as Bob pointed out earlier, a player calls for a safety and fouls for the third time. The score gets deducted 16 points and the "Safety Inning" stops. The balls get re-racked and the player has to shoot again. Before shooting he has to make another call again (to call a shot or to call a safety). If he calls for a shot then there is one more "Scoring Inning" added to him.

The score sheet can look like the attached pic (6 columns total). This is a rare example where a player get two innings during one visit to the table. In addition, we might be able to generate a defense effectiveness stat from such chart.

A lot of times when I (a sloppy straight pool player) don't have a good angle for a behind the rack break, I'd simply call for a bank shot to the side pocket. I will see if I can get lucky to get 1 more point and play a safety next. For a serious player however this will cost them 1 "Score Inning" and reduce their average...

example layout:
http://CueTable.com/P/?@4AFTR4BCYB3CCpA4DCYe4EFCe3FCxe4GBKP3HAMB3IAUe3JF bd4KDnP3LBjP3MEMO4NBJl3OBal3PIWb@

In 3 Cushion, every visit to the table is considered a "Scoring Inning" because players are always trying to score (even in two way shots). I have William's article here in hand and I will get his okay before putting it out...

cuetable
04-05-2007, 09:41 PM
For me a more interesting stat is the average difficulty of the shots a player shoots. It's fairly easy to estimate the raw difficulty of each shot based on the ball positions measured in diamonds. I did this for seven matches in the 1976 14.1 WC (Asbury Park, PPPA) and the best average I measured was by Larry Lisciotti who won the tournament. His average shot was something like 2 diamonds from object ball to pocket and 1.6 diamonds from cue ball to object ball. See http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1994-04.pdf for details of the method.

Bob, give me some time, I will make tools for you to do this :cool:

JoeW
04-08-2007, 09:56 AM
One reason for keeping the statistics is to get an idea of how well a person plays. There are a couple of things that might be useful.

1. What percentage of the balls did the player make in the game?

Pmade = sum of player’s ball made / sum of all balls made

SJM's post 04/03 at 08:48PM re Irving Crane is used for an example.

Assume a race to 250, Crane’s Pmade = 152/250 = 61%

Obviously I do not have the other player’s scores and do not know what score was used as the end point so I have had to make some assumptions. However note that if the game was played to 250 and 260 balls were made by both players because of fouls etc the statistics are not changed all that much with a divisor of 260. These kinds of statistics would be of most use when they are averaged over several matches.

2. What percentage of his innings were safes?

Psafe= sum of “0” score / number of player’s innings

Crane played 12/19 innings with “0” score = 63%

When calculating Psafe all “0” scores are assumed to be safes. The few times a player actually misses the system is forgiving and Psafe would average out over time.

3. How many balls does he usually make in an inning?

For average balls made I would calculate the sum of all positive innings and throw out the top and bottom score. The remaining innings are averaged.

ABPI = 32+28+28 /3 = 30

Scores 56 and 8 were dropped as outliers. The best run and the worst run are considered chance occurrences.

4. High average runs could be kept by simply calculating the sum of the highest runs over several matches divided by the number of matches. In this case 56/1 = 56

In this limited set of data, Irving Crane ran 30 balls per inning. He made 61% of the balls and he played safe 63% of the time when he was at the table. His high average run is about 56.

Seems like a reasonable handle on Irving Crane.
These stats could be kept for a match, a season or for life time averages given access to the data and a simple scoring system. No inferences are made about intentions and statistics are created from what they did not what someone thought they did.

sjm
04-09-2007, 04:47 PM
For average balls made I would calculate the sum of all positive innings and throw out the top and bottom score. The remaining innings are averaged....The best run and the worst run are considered chance occurrences.

Enjoyed your post, Joe, but it is here that I must take issue. The very best players will typically have one run in the 50 - 75 range in a typical race to 150. It's no aberration, and to discard it will produce a very misleading picture of the player's performance.

mjantti
04-09-2007, 07:09 PM
I think innings and thus BPI are easy to calculate if we would mark all runs in order "as usual" (won't go into scoring details here, sigh... see another thread... :) ) and if there is a safety, we could just mark down "S" to see if the inning was used just to make a safety. If a player tries to make a ball and misses, then it is counted as an inning and the run was "0". No further adjustments are needed imho. It doesn't change the BPI if a player ends his run with a miss or a safety. And I think that the opening shot should not be considered as an inning, unless a player tries to make a ball from it.

Example: player makes runs of 4, 15, 25, 50, S, S, S, S, -1S (intentional foul), 57-out. So he would make 150 points in 5 innings and having a BPI of 30 while with the current system he'd had 10 inning with a BPI of 15.

I don't think the last run should be omitted, even if the player would need to run just one to finish the set. Referring to the SJM's suggestion here.

Steve Lipsky
04-09-2007, 07:24 PM
Mr. Jewett,

As our resident expert on such matters, what would be the mechanism for getting this suggestion looked at by a governing body? Whether it's accepted or not, I'd sure like someone in an official capacity to take a look at it.

I am embarrassed to admit I wouldn't even know where to start on something like this.

Thanks,
Steve

Bob Jewett
04-09-2007, 09:38 PM
Mr. Jewett,

As our resident expert on such matters, what would be the mechanism for getting this suggestion looked at by a governing body? Whether it's accepted or not, I'd sure like someone in an official capacity to take a look at it....
Well, there are various problems.

The score sheets for 14.1 tournaments are not specified by the rules, so a tournament organizer is free to do whatever he wants, but he is likely to get great steaming piles of flak if the scoresheets are not understandable by the people who have to write numbers on them. If he wants to keep track of the number of draw shots and cuts over 30 degrees, that's fine, as far as the rules go. If he fails to have scoring that keeps track of the number of consecutive fouls....

So, the first step is to get the organizer on-board.

The next step is to publicize the results, and especially to explain and promote the particular measure of ability you have innovated.

As for getting in the Rules and Records Book, I just talked to Mike Shamos about that and it seems that the BCA no longer has a Records Committee. I don't know if the WPA has a Records Committee. Perhaps we could start one.

Steve Lipsky
04-10-2007, 07:22 AM
Well, there are various problems.

The score sheets for 14.1 tournaments are not specified by the rules, so a tournament organizer is free to do whatever he wants, but he is likely to get great steaming piles of flak if the scoresheets are not understandable by the people who have to write numbers on them. If he wants to keep track of the number of draw shots and cuts over 30 degrees, that's fine, as far as the rules go. If he fails to have scoring that keeps track of the number of consecutive fouls....

So, the first step is to get the organizer on-board.

The next step is to publicize the results, and especially to explain and promote the particular measure of ability you have innovated.

As for getting in the Rules and Records Book, I just talked to Mike Shamos about that and it seems that the BCA no longer has a Records Committee. I don't know if the WPA has a Records Committee. Perhaps we could start one.

Thanks Bob. I think a great first place for us to start is to come up with an official scoresheet. If it's user-friendly, I'm sure it would be adopted by the major tournaments in a heartbeat, especially because, as you say, there currently isn't any officially-accepted scoresheet. Once all the organizations are using the same sheet, it will be much easier to standardize the statistics.

We have some pretty creative people on AZ; let's come up with something!

- Steve

JoeW
04-10-2007, 10:28 AM
I agree, the best place to start is with an official score sheet. The sheet should be based on the desired information such as differentiating a miss from a safe. However, the sheet needs to be so easy to use that the instructions could be placed at the top or bottom of the sheet and a person with an 8th grade education could easily understand it. This 8th grade reading level is the criteria I use when constructing surveys so it has nothing to do with pool players. Inferences need to be excluded and only observations included to create a reliable instrument that would stand the test of time. Perhaps some one like Bob J. could create a draft for others to comment on, try out, and then submit it to several organizations as a group effort

bruin70
04-14-2007, 08:30 PM
I agree in theory for sure that it would be a much more accurate representation of your average. Except, the thought crossed my mind that quite often in a match if you don't get on your breakshot well enough to contact the rack, it isn't unusual to pocket the ball and play safe. These intentional 1 ball innings would cloud the true bpi stat regardless. :(

then that is the fault of the player making a booboo, therefore he deserves the lower bpi as a result.

bruin70
04-14-2007, 08:33 PM
Bob, I didn't want to hijack your other thread, so I figured I'd start a new one.

You mentioned that there are other problems that crop up when certain innings are excluded. Since there are really no two way shots in straight pool, I'm trying to think of what you meant by this. Can you clarify?

To those of you who haven't seen the other thread, I am on a campaign to change the Balls-Per-Inning stat :). As it's presently calculated, innings consisting entirely of a safety are counted in the formula, bringing the overall number down heavily. To provide a quick example, someone who runs three 50s, but gets bogged down with a tight opponent during the safety battles, can easily have a BPI around 7. To delve further, take two players who ran the same 3 50s - one who did it in consecutive innings and another who was forced to engage in lengthy safe battles - they will have wildly different BPI calcs. I'm not sure what value, if any, this provides.

If discounting the safes made it such that official scorekeepers were necessary, I'd understand the difficulties. But you need scorekeepers to calculate a BPI as it is - and if you don't trust them enough to recognize a safe, you shouldn't be trusting them with your score.

OK, there it is. Who agrees and who doesn't?

- Steve

i must be missing something. all shots must be called. if you don't call a safe, it's nor a safe,,,just a fortunate roll on an attempted shot.

Steve Lipsky
04-14-2007, 09:12 PM
i must be missing something. all shots must be called. if you don't call a safe, it's not a safe,,,just a fortunate roll on an attempted shot.

Bruin,

The only time I would actually vocally call a safe in a game, even in a world championship, would be if I'm playing safe in a way where a ball might unintentionally go in. A classic example might be a safe where I'm banking a ball uptable, leaving the cueball frozen on an object ball, and there is a danger that the ball I bank might actually go in a pocket. Here I would actually say out loud, "safe".

On 95% of safes, since there's no danger of a ball going in unintended, what is the point of saying out loud, "safe"?

So my point with that post was, if you don't trust a scorekeeper enough to recognize these obvious, uncalled safes, you shouldn't be trusting them with your score.

- Steve

sjm
04-14-2007, 09:51 PM
On 95% of safes, since there's no danger of a ball going in unintended, what is the point of saying out loud, "safe"?

In refereed matches in the days when a straight pool event decided the world championship, the referee always announced the intention of the player. As you note, often, the fact that the player is not attempting to pocket a ball will be obvious in the context of play to both players and to the referee. However, it may be less obvious to fans, some of whom may not be sitting where whether any ball is playable is as clear, and some of whom are watching straight pool for the very first time.

I have always felt that the announcement of a safety is a very fan friendly practice.

JoeW
04-15-2007, 08:52 PM
When playing 14.1 the shooter must designate ball and pocket. While obvious shots are often not spoken aloud, the player calls all non-obvious shots such as a bank, etc.

If a player does not call a shot and the shot is not an obvious line to a pocket then it must be a safe. Isn’t this correct?


Here is a suggested scoring sheet that probably needs revising. The categories should be obvious where "S" means “safe.” All numbers represent the quantities of balls pocketed or penalties. Any inning could be accompanied by the letter "S" indicating that the inning ended with a safe. The sheet is a variation of the counters on a Gold Crown.

Number of racks 7 = (50+42)/14

John won 50 -41 in 5 innings. John played 3 safes or 60% of the time. His BPI= 12.5 or (15+30+0+5) / 4 the first inning is not counted as it was a safe with no score.

Frank lost and played safe 75% of the time (He only played four innings). His BPI = 10.5 or (10+3+27+2) /4



http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q146/JoeW04/score2.jpg

Steve Lipsky
04-16-2007, 07:03 AM
When playing 14.1 the shooter must designate ball and pocket. While obvious shots are often not spoken aloud, the player calls all non-obvious shots such as a bank, etc.

If a player does not call a shot and the shot is not an obvious line to a pocket then it must be a safe. Isn’t this correct?


Here is a suggested scoring sheet that probably needs revising. The categories should be obvious where "S" means “safe.” All numbers represent the quantities of balls pocketed or penalties. Any inning could be accompanied by the letter "S" indicating that the inning ended with a safe. The sheet is a variation of the counters on a Gold Crown.

Number of racks 7 = (50+42)/14

John won 50 -41 in 5 innings. John played 3 safes or 60% of the time. His BPI= 12.5 or (15+30+0+5) / 4 the first inning is not counted as it was a safe with no score.

Frank lost and played safe 75% of the time (He only played four innings). His BPI = 10.5 or (10+3+27+2) /4



http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q146/JoeW04/score2.jpg


Joe,

I think you're on to something, but I also feel it's important to keep a rack-by-rack score, which accomplishes two things:

1) If a math mistake is made, it's pretty easy to figure out where it happened.

2) When there is a midrack change-of-inning, your scoresheet above (unless I am missing something) makes it tough to figure out how many balls you've made (during that rack).

If you can figure out a way to add that, I think we're there.

- Steve

JoeW
04-16-2007, 07:57 AM
Numbers in parentheses following the inning score would indicate the number of balls on the table at the end of the inning. A "1" means that a re-rack was needed. The rack count could be in a seperate column or in a parenthetical note. I will revise the table later today if I have time.

On the other hand one could use a small set of string counters for scoring and enter the results on a sheet similar to the one shown above. Now it just so happens that we have been discussing the creation of minature string counters in another thread :D

JoeW
04-16-2007, 09:06 AM
Here is a revised scoring sheet. The center colums indicate the number of balls left on the table. It is similar to a rack score without the messiness. Rack scores can be reconstructed from the "Score" column.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q146/JoeW04/score3.jpg

Steve Lipsky
04-16-2007, 10:39 AM
Here is a revised scoring sheet. The center colums indicate the number of balls left on the table. It is similar to a rack score without the messiness. Rack scores can be reconstructed from the "Score" column.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q146/JoeW04/score3.jpg

Please don't make us switch to the wacky European way of scoring! There is something inherently confusing about writing a number down on a scoresheet which is not your score. If I make 6 balls, I should be writing down "6", not "9".

Europe has many wonderful things. Please let us keep our straight pool scoring system. It's better. :)

- Steve

JoeW
04-16-2007, 10:43 AM
OK - back to the drawing board. I think that I can set up something like a bead counter on paper. Just need a little time to do it.

JoeW
04-16-2007, 12:16 PM
Here is a score sheet that keeps score something like the counters over the table. The number of balls made in each rack is entered as a separate number in the “R” column.

The balls on the table = 15- the last entry in the “R” column.

The sum of the "R" scores is the score for the inning and may or not be accompanied by an "S" for safe.

An uncalled "safe" is here defined as any shot that is not called and does not have an obvious line to a pocket.

The penalty column is used to enter the penalty subtracted from the total score.

Total is the sum of the score column entries minus any penaties for that inning.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q146/JoeW04/score4.jpg

If the player runs multiple racks, the first score in "R" keps the rack right, check marks indicate 14 balls or the whole rack, the last entry is needed to keep the rack right. so an entry like 2 x x x x x 11 means the player ran 83 balls and there are four balls left on the table.

bpi= sum of inning except (0s) / number of these innings.
%safe = Sum of S / total innings

Created by Joe W and placed in the public domain for anyone to use at any time -- enjoy.

mjantti
04-17-2007, 01:44 PM
Please don't make us switch to the wacky European way of scoring! There is something inherently confusing about writing a number down on a scoresheet which is not your score.


I'm sorry Steve, the problem here lies in thy cranium ;)

JoeW
04-17-2007, 02:26 PM
Here is a link to the score sheet with instructions. It is three pages long and can be printed with MS Word. By the way, you can use it for practice sessions playing the Ghost and determine your BPI and safe%.

Our european friends can use the R column for balls onthe table

Bob Jewett
04-17-2007, 02:54 PM
Here is a score sheet that keeps score something like the counters over the table. The number of balls made in each rack is entered as a separate number in the “R” column.
...
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the European style (as I understand it) is a better way to go. It is a little harder to figure out the innings, but it ensures that you always have room for the rack score. Of course it would be better if each table had a scorekeeper to mark down runs/fouls/totals, but there is not a suitable funding model for that.

As I understand it, there are three columns for each player:

Balls on table at start of turn
Balls made from rack + foul
Total score at end of inning

In the case of a long run, there are a bunch of 15's entered in the first column for the runner and/or a bunch of 14's in the second column, while the other player gets a bunch of blank rows on his part of the scoresheet.

So, a few questions for anyone who has used this sort of scoring.

Is the above more or less correct?
Do you enter both the 15's and 14's for a long run?
Do you keep the total score up-to-date during a long run?
If you mark the total score during the long run, do you do anything special to indicate that the run has not ended?
Do you use a special symbol for foul and safe? (I have seen F and S used on US 14.1 scoresheets.)

That's all I can think of for now.

JoeW
04-17-2007, 03:33 PM
I do not know how the Europeans do it but I revised my score sheet so that the user now enters the balls made in the current rack and then enters an “X” for each rack that he runs. The balls made in the final rack is the last number in the “R” column. This takes less space and it is easy to calculate the balls on the table as 15 - last R value.

R looks something like this, 3xxxx5. The player made the last three balls in the current rack, ran four racks and made 5 in the final rack for a "Score" = 64 or 3+14+14+14+14+5 . Balls on the table = 10 or (15-5 ).

If the player made only 3 balls the entry would be “3”.

If the player made three in the current rack and five in the next rack the “R” values would be 3,5

Steve Lipsky
04-17-2007, 07:23 PM
How about something like this?

I tried to keep the integrity of both the rack and the innings. The "continuous" columns for each player are just to make it easier to sight runs (the box should be checked if a player was on a run at the beginning of the rack and continued on the same run at the end of the rack).

Misses are marked with " / ", safes are marked with "S", fouls with "F", and intentional fouls with "IF".

40286
(Please disregard the green arrows in the upper left of some cells. Excel was having trouble with the numbers-to-text thing :).)

Rack 3 is a good example to look at. Since Player 2 ran the previous rack, it was his turn at the start of rack 3. The immediate " / " signifies he missed the break shot. Player 1 then ran 3 and missed. Player 2 ran 6 and missed, and Player 1 finished the rack with 5.

In rack 8, Player 2 began by running 3 then playing safe (no " / "). They engage in a safe battle, with player 2 eventually winning it and running 6 before missing. Player 1 finishes the rack with 5, then runs out.

I'm sure improvements can be made, so any suggestions would be great.

Thanks,
Steve

P.S. All necessary statistics can be gleaned from this sheet, I believe. BPI, safe percentage, and high runs.

Steve Lipsky
04-17-2007, 07:31 PM
Joe, I'm going to take a further look at your scoresheet tomorrow when I have some time. Thanks for your hard work!

- Steve

mjantti
04-17-2007, 08:10 PM
Here's an example of a european scoresheet. I say it again, it's very simple and covers many things.

The match progress:

1. Player A starts, 15 balls on the table, makes a safety - run of 0 (could be also marked as "S" to exclude the inning from BPI).
2. Player B gets to the table, 15 balls on the table, scores 8 balls and has a total score of 8.
3. Player A returns to the table with 7 balls on the table, after he has reached the break ball, the rack is put together thus adding 14 balls to the table and the "table" column has now 21. He proceeds to run the rack (table +14 = 35) and another 35+14 = 49 and misses while 11 balls on the table. So he ran the table minus the balls remaining 49-11 = 38. His total score is now 38.
4. Player B returns with 11 balls on the table. Runs the first rack (table 25) and another (table 39) and another (table 53) and misses with 3 balls remaining thus making a run of 53-3=50 and has a total score of 58.
5. Player A, 3 balls on the table, makes 1 (duh) and has a total score of 39.
6. B, 2 balls at the table, reaches the break ball (table 16), runs another rack (table 30) and another (table 44) and misses with 11 balls on the table thus running 44-11=33 with now a total score of 91.
7. A, 11 balls on the table, clears the table (table 25), runs a rack (table 39) and another (table 53) and misses while 12 balls on the table running 53-12=41 and totalling now 80.
8. B comes to the table with 12 balls in there and runs the remaining 9 balls to win 100-80.

Under the scoring are match statistics. If the "safety system" would be in use, Player A's first inning would have "S" on the score column thus having a total of 3 innings.

Some scorekeepers use only a "x" to mark another rack in the table column, but then they usually mark the "score" column adding 14 points after each completed rack.

The simplicity lies in the fact that only thing you need to do is keep adding 14 points to table column or the score column. You don't need to pay attention to anything during the inning except marking a new rack.

If a player ends his run with a foul, the score column has the total run minus one for instance if Player A's 2nd inning would end in a foul he would have 38-1 in the "score" with 37 in "total".

Runs ending with either a safe or a miss doesn't matter in BPI. Only if the innings consists only of one single safety, the innings could be omitted from the BPI.

Keeping things simple is very important while creating an uniform scoresheet.

Steve's proposition is unfortunately very complicated and still I can't easily see the number of innings there.

Only thing the European scoresheet does not cover is the fact what is the exact score at a certain point of a run. But the player at the table can really easily calculate the exact score in mid-run. Also it's not very viewer friendly as the opponent doesn't need to keep the exact score anywhere. That's why for instance EPC has a separate scorekeeper to press a button on a laptop to add the score one by one.

Steve Lipsky
04-22-2007, 04:56 PM
Steve's proposition is unfortunately very complicated and still I can't easily see the number of innings there.

Hey Mikko. I think we may be at an impasse here. The differing ways to score the game are just too ingrained in us to be able to easily see the simplicity of each other's scoresheets.

Right after I created my version, I thought that would be the end of the issue. I really did. Even though there are a number of columns, really the only effort a player had to put in would be to write down the number of balls he got that rack. Everything else takes care of itself.

However, I now appreciate that the differences between the systems are just too severe. I looked at your spreadsheet and I do see the simplicity; the problem for me lies in the fact that you'll never get me to write down scores I haven't earned yet. It just goes against any scoring mentality I've ever known, for basically anything. That aside, the European model is very efficient - though I must admit to not seeing anything more efficient about it than the US version.

As to your one comment about my sheet, and how you still can't see the innings very easily: Even if that's the case, I'm not sure you have to. Nobody really cares about innings during the game. They are usually calculated afterwards, and in less than a minute with my sheet you'll be able to figure it out, along with every other stat related to 14.1.

Still, my main point with this post is to say that, after hearing from both sides, it doesn't look like we're going to resolve this issue. It's not fair for the Americans to ask the Europeans to re-learn their scoring methods, and vice versa. It looks like the only positive that came out of this whole thread is that we've finally recognized that there is indeed a difference in scoring between the two regions. At least for future tournaments, the players will hopefully be informed of this and can check each other's scores appropriately.

Finally, Joe, I looked at your scoresheet and although I think it is very good, it falls under the same "american system". I think we're just at an impasse and not much is going to change that.

- Steve

mjantti
04-23-2007, 08:55 AM
Words of wisdom from Steve.

Williebetmore
04-23-2007, 10:22 AM
Words of wisdom from Steve.

MJ,
While I agree with Steve that the European method is NOT for me; I will say that your European beer glasses (in your avatar) ROCK. I am planning on changing as soon as I can find a place to purchase such glasses.

JoeW
04-23-2007, 11:41 AM
Oops, still needs a little work, I'll post it later.

Irish634
04-23-2007, 01:43 PM
How about something like this?

I tried to keep the integrity of both the rack and the innings. The "continuous" columns for each player are just to make it easier to sight runs (the box should be checked if a player was on a run at the beginning of the rack and continued on the same run at the end of the rack).

Misses are marked with " / ", safes are marked with "S", fouls with "F", and intentional fouls with "IF".

<<<Snipped>>>





Steve,

Just a suggestion, and I understand the desire to keep the score sheet small. But, how about adding an additional column titled "inning" and adding a row for each inning played?

An example pulled from your table:
40639

I am not sure how feasible it is, just something that came to mind.

Craig

mjantti
04-23-2007, 06:35 PM
MJ,
While I agree with Steve that the European method is NOT for me; I will say that your European beer glasses (in your avatar) ROCK. I am planning on changing as soon as I can find a place to purchase such glasses.

Honestly, those two men in my avatar don't include me. I'm also searching for that place where beer is served in glasses like that. But if I find it, you can be sure that you're the first one to know :p

Steve, you said that you refuse to write down a score you haven't earned yet. The "table" doesn't contain information on the score, it does contain the information which tells you how much someone can earn, the table column can be omitted after the match because it doesn't have much info on the run, just a column to help you out to calculate the score and it shouldn't be used for live scoring. Your chart makes it difficult to figure out the inning because you seem to want to put each rack on a new row which I don't understand. My European system has one inning per one row, simple as that. The "score" column is the same with "run" you can easily see the run for each inning in one column, no extra marks there to confuse you, except the fact that you don't mark the score between racks, unless there is live scoring needed.

You also mentioned that it is "easy" to calculate the innings from your scoresheet. I don't think so considering the scenario that we are playing the EPC with 24 tables each providing a scoresheet every 2 hours with 2 player's innings to be calculated and we all know how much tournament officials like the extra work :)

Also, if a players ends the run with a miss or a safety, it doesn't change the BPI so it doesn't really matter if a run ends with either one. Only with a one-shot inning it makes a difference.

My chart is missing titles "inning" on top of the bolded numbers if some one haven't figured that out yet.

Imho this comes all down to the difference that should we mark each rack on a new row or should we keep one inning per one row. And should we calculate the score between every rack or only after the the inning. I don't see any other major differences between the systems. But I guess we all agree that the universal score sheet should be as simple as possible ?

I think both systems are good and efficient, American system provides the score after each rack but also requires more writing during the inning and the match data is not easily accessible after the match. European system is easier to deal with after the match, every piece of data is accessible after the match (runs, innings -> average) but lacks the system for knowing exactly what the score is after each shot. Also, I think European system requires more work if there are a lot of innings but is easier to deal with with very few innings which I think is the main reason it's used at the EPC for instance.

Steve is right, we are at an impasse here... sigh. :)

cuetable
04-23-2007, 08:45 PM
Hi Steve:

After looking at Mikko's post, I have thought of another "inning based" scoresheet using your previous example.

the plus sign " + " indicates the beginning of a rack. It also signifies the continuation of a run. In this case, we can count the plus signs to get total racks played (11). Not to steer too far from the topic, this "indicating" technique has been used in multipage cuetable layout coding. (And Steve was the first one to suggest about having multiple pages for WeiTable)

In the 5, 6, 7 inning players played safeties, we can take 3 off the total innings to get the number of "offensive innings" (maybe "scoring innings" are better words) and we can count the average from there. 100/(9-3) =16.66

The break shot should be marked as " +S". If a player foul on the breakshot then it will be marked as "+F -1".

In the case of 3 foul it will be marked as "F -16 +S" or "IF -16 +S".

If the player run 3 racks and scratches on the breakshot, it will be "14+14+14+F -1"

I think this is pretty clear and easy to do :)

JoeW
04-23-2007, 08:53 PM
Revision based on all of the prior posts and intended to reconcile some differences. The sheet shows the number of balls on the table at the beginning of the turn. It allows for scores up to 140 in the rack column (280 if two lines are used). It keeps track of safes and allows for calculation of BPI and % safes.

Definitions:
In = Inning
OT= On Table or Balls on the table at the start of turn
15- the last rack entry for the opposing player is the OT value for the next player

Rack = Number of balls made
Enter the number of balls made in the current rack.
If all balls are made in the next rack enter “/.”
After five “/” convert the slash to an “X” indicating six racks, etc
Last entry is the number of balls made in the last rack


/ = 14
// = 28
/// = 42
//// = 56
///// = 70
X//// = 84
XX/// = 98
XXX// = 112
XXXX/ = 126
XXXXX = 140

Pen= Penalty assigned for foul, scratch, etc
Sco = sum of rack minus any penalty
S = Safety any missed shot where the object ball does not have a direct line to the pocket.
Tot = Total or the cumulative score.

BPI = sum of all scores except “0s” divided by the number of scores used.
S% = Number of “S” in Score column divided by the total number of innings.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q146/JoeW04/Scor3a.jpg


John
BPI = (74+5+0+37+34) / 5 = 30
S% = 3/6 = .5 = 50%

Frank
BPI = (3+38+90+5) / 4 = 34
S% = 4/5 = .8 = 80%

Score sheet i attached as a doc file.

JoeW
04-23-2007, 08:59 PM
Duplicate post

mjantti
04-24-2007, 04:38 AM
Enter the number of balls made in the current rack.
If all balls are made in the next rack enter “/.”
After five “/” convert the slash to an “X” indicating six racks, etc
Last entry is the number of balls made in the last rack

/ = 14
// = 28
/// = 42
//// = 56
///// = 70
X//// = 84
XX/// = 98
XXX// = 112
XXXX/ = 126
XXXXX = 140



I like this idea.

I think the penalty column can be omitted, the "score" column can have that information too. If a player ends his 80 ball run with a foul, it can be marked down as "80-1". I don't think it needs a separate column. Good job, Joe.

Bob Jewett
04-24-2007, 10:56 AM
Revision based on all of the prior posts and intended to reconcile some differences. ... Score sheet i attached as a doc file.
I like this version, but the .doc file seems not to have shown up. If you haven't already, you need to include an explanation of the symbols on the sheet. I propose "F" for a foul, and script "S" for a safety (to avoid confusion with a "5". For the special cases of two- and 16-point fouls, they could be recorded as "F-2" and "F-16" while a simple "F" would be a single point deducted.

JoeW
04-24-2007, 11:58 AM
The attached file uses a "$" to mark "Safe." So there should be no confusion between " 5" and "S". The $ should not be too inconvient for some as we use slash 7 to insure that a 7 is not misinterpted as a 1.

It is noted that penalty should always be a F-1 (or whatever) and that it is always a negative number. That should take care of that problem and idicates that it is to be removed.

Because there is more room on and 8 1/2 X 11 sheet the column headers are written out and there is room for 35 innings - Hopefully more than anybody needs!

See next post, I had to break apart and load two files -- it worked.

JoeW
04-24-2007, 01:38 PM
Let's see if I can fake this machine. Scoresheet3a.doc is the instructions. Scoresheet3b.doc is the sheet. These are revised per the above post.

Bob Jewett
04-24-2007, 01:59 PM
Let's see if I can fake this machine. Scoresheet3a.doc is the instructions. Scoresheet3b.doc is the sheet. These are revised per the above post.
I recommend putting the abbreviations and a short multiplication table on the bottom of the score sheet. You and I will look at 3X ////10F-1 and immediately say "96" but some will have trouble with 6 racks plus some details.

Now all we have to do is convince the next 14.1 tournament to use these sheets.

JoeW
04-24-2007, 02:51 PM
Good idea for the multiplication table. The next revison I will include a small table at the bottem of the score sheet similar to the one in the instructions only in table format with slashes in column two and Xs in column three. I had a neat one but it got lost in the upload process. Looked something like this

1 / = 14 X////=84
2 / / = 28 XX///= 98
etc

There will only be room for 25 or so innings and it may be necessary to use two sheet for some games.

I will wait a day or so to make the revisions as there may be more edits that are worthwhile.

I think this thing should be called the "AZbilliards 14.1 Score Sheet". It was designed and edited by many AZB members.

cuetable
04-25-2007, 07:44 AM
I found a small thing in the chart I posted earlier:

At the 6th inning for Player 1 he made an intentional foul (IF -1) and we deducted his score by 1 pt (from 63 to 62).

However, this really means he has ran 101 pts, his BPI should be ( 101/(9-3)=16.83 )

So, we should add all the penalty pts back when calculating the offensive BPI...

Joe's idea is quite clever. However, I believe we need a simpler idea for phase one. " +14+14+14+5 " might appear longer than " ///5 ", but it is more universal and easier to explain to new users, Besides it indicates "4 new racks played".

Think of the general meaning of plus sign "+"

1, to add/attach something new. for example: 1+2=3, "ADD 2 to 1 and we get 3"
2, to merge/connect its neighboring elements into a whole. for example: you+me = we, "you AND me form we"

As Joe has pointed out that this really is a public effort and we share similar visions. I am just happy to be "plus-ed" to this discussion. ;)

JoeW
04-25-2007, 09:19 AM
One of the ways we could use the 14+ notation would be to place the score sheet in landscape mode. The sheet would be 11.5" wide and this would allow for several rows of "14" The problem here is that one still has to add up all of the "14s" on a long run to get the score. with X//// it is easy to see that six racks have been run. Bob's idea for a table the states that X//// = 84 is efficient and easy if it is located on the bottom of the sheet.

I do think that listing things in different columns keeps the sheet clean and easier to read and evaluate at some later time. I think that I can make the sheet so that it will accept either type of scoring notation and will try that.

I think I agree with the idea that "all the balls made" should be included in the calculation of BPI. OTOH if the player is penalized for a shot then in one sense, he did not make the ball. So there is an alternate point of view if we define BPI as all balls legitimately made. Of course we now have the problem of "15" point penalties and that sort of thing.

Any ideas on how to define BPI so everyone agrees?

cuetable
04-25-2007, 11:32 AM
If the text string gets too long we can bring in the multiply sign to help. Imo it will be better to have something that's intuitive for people to understand and then adapt.


Here are some examples.

In example 1

Inning 1, P1 broke a new rack (note the plus "+" sign), P2 played an intentional foul. Score: 0: -1
Inning 2, P1 went for a shot and miss, P2 ran the remain 14 balls PLUS 9 more racks PLUS 11 more balls

If we count the plus "+" signs, we find out Player 1 made total of 10 break shots during this run


In example 2

Same story as example 1, however we replaced the long string of texts with the introduction of multiply sign "X"


In example 3

Inning 1, P1 broke a new rack (note the plus "+" sign), P2 played an intentional foul. Score: 0: -1
Inning 2, P1 went for a shot, ran 14, rack and foul on the breakshot, P2 ran 10 racks PLUS 11 more balls

By looking at the equation, we learned this is 151 balls run, 10 of them are breakshots

In example 4

Inning 1, P1 broke a new rack (note the plus "+" sign), P2 played an intentional foul. Score: 0: -1
Inning 2, P1 went for a shot, ran 13 and miss, P2 ran the remain 1 ball, PLUS 10 more racks PLUS 10 more balls

By looking at the equation, we learned this is also 151 balls run, 11 of them are breakshots


In all four examples P2 has a BPI of 151/1 ...

Bob Jewett
04-25-2007, 02:40 PM
If the text string gets too long we can bring in the multiply sign to help. ..
I think that the whole point of this exercise is to have a score sheet design that allows all marks and notations to appear on the score sheet. A multiplication sign is only useful if you know what number goes in front of the multiplication sign. You don't know what that number is until the end of the run. In the mean time you have to mark the racks down somewhere. That place may as well be right by the inning score and total score.

Back in the days when 14.1 tournaments had a scorekeeper and a referee at each table, it was easy. The referee counted the run ball by ball, with the scorekeeper following on scratch paper. At the end of the run, the referee would reiterate the count and it would be verified by the scorekeeper, and just the run and total would be written in two small boxes on the score sheet. At the same time the scorekeeper would update the score display which was typically some kind of projector.

cuetable
04-25-2007, 03:58 PM
I think that the whole point of this exercise is to have a score sheet design that allows all marks and notations to appear on the score sheet. A multiplication sign is only useful if you know what number goes in front of the multiplication sign. You don't know what that number is until the end of the run. In the mean time you have to mark the racks down somewhere. That place may as well be right by the inning score and total score.


Hi :

What you mentioned is true, one probably have to keep track the racks somewhere else when using a multiplication sign. This indeed can be problematic

I have adapted Joe's system in example 2 below. I think we should underline it to be clear...

Here is the scenario for the attached picture:

Inning 1, P1 broke a new rack (note the plus "+" sign), P2 played an intentional foul. Score: 0: -1
Inning 2, P1 went for a shot, ran 13 and miss, P2 ran the remain 1 ball, PLUS 10 more racks PLUS 10 more balls

There are 9 breakshots in XXXXX (140)
There are 10 breakshots in XXXXX+2 (142)
There are 10 breakshots in 3+XXXXX (143)
There are 11 breakshots in 3+XXXXX+2 (145)
:)

Steve Lipsky
04-25-2007, 04:48 PM
To some extent I think you guys are losing the forest for the trees. As far as I can tell, the newest scoresheets being shown don't resemble either the American or the European system too closely. An analogy would be if these two cultures were trying to communicate, your answer is inventing a whole new language, rather than to just choose one of the existing ones and have one side learn it.

Both original styles work pretty well; it's only a matter of a few small tweaks, isn't it?

If these new versions are intended for the serious AZB member to keep track of his practice runs, I can see their value. Many of the AZB members would like to see as many possible statistics of their play as they can, and (most importantly) will take the time to learn a new system. I am also tempted to say the average IQ on this board is probably somewhat higher than that of the average poolroom ;).

I do not think these new systems are going to be adopted by the pro players in tournament conditions, because all they want is a system that lets them keep their minds on the game. In the last 14.1 championship, I had such problems reconciling my scores with Gilliano Schmidt's that, after much exasperation, we just got someone else to score the match for us. It was taking too much energy trying to deal with the scoresheet. And that was with each of us scoring the matches as we each knew how - can you imagine the difficulty we would have had if neither of us knew how to use the scoresheet?

This is only my opinion, and I have been trying to hold my tongue because I know that several of you are working very hard on this. But it seems with each new iteration, the sheets are becoming more and more foreign from anything we've ever seen before. Even if the new versions worked better than anything we've had previously, there's an "adoption" problem with things so different. If they're so different that they border on intimidating, my prediction is no one will use it.

- Steve

cuetable
04-25-2007, 09:29 PM
Hi Steve:

I am moving back to my first 14+ system now (see example 1 in prev posts) and created a simple PDF file for the sheet. It can be found here:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=699767&postcount=6

I believe it is simple enough and does what you asked for in the original thread: to keep track of the innings easily and id the offensive/safety innings. At the same time it's not too difficult to understand. Please feel free to offer any comments or suggestions.

Caromsoft
04-25-2007, 11:17 PM
Just as an exercise I am working on a computerized straight pool scoring system. I should have it ready in a day or so for people to try out if interested.

Here are a couple of screenshots. It has changed a little since I made these. It will work with 2 players or 1 player for practicing. When it is ready I will post it in a new thread if there is interest.

cuetable
04-26-2007, 08:35 AM
For another example, suppose a player's 150th point is a combo out of a nearly full rack. The player blasts it and pockets 4 balls. Is his score 153? Common sense says one thing, but I think the rule book is silent on this point, except to say that all extra balls pocketed with the called ball are scored.

Hi Bob:
I found this as I went through everyone's posts and it is an interesting question.

IMO as long as the player has made the called shot, we add 4 more pts to the inning and conlude his final score to 153. The game stops there.

sjm
04-26-2007, 04:06 PM
Back in the days when 14.1 tournaments had a scorekeeper and a referee at each table, it was easy. The referee counted the run ball by ball, with the scorekeeper following on scratch paper. At the end of the run, the referee would reiterate the count and it would be verified by the scorekeeper, and just the run and total would be written in two small boxes on the score sheet. At the same time the scorekeeper would update the score display which was typically some kind of projector.

Wow, good memory!

I served as scorekeeper in the late 70's and early 80's at the World Straight Pool Championships on several occasions. I really miss the easels onto which the score, kept manually, was projected. Here's what it looked like:


Crane----------------Rempe

Score----------------Score
117 --------------- 139

Run ------------------ Run
59

Fouls --------------- Fouls
-------------------- 1

The meaning is as follows: At the beginning of the current inning, the running score was 139 - 58. Crane's run through the beginning of the current rack is 59, so the score at the beginning of this rack is 139-117. This information will remain unchanged until either Crane's inning ends or the rack is completed. Rempe fouled to end his last inning.

I always thought this a nice way to display the score.