Stats question
- Thread starter poolnoob
- Start date
poolnoob...It's based on the saying in baseball, "he's batting 1000", meaning making no errors. There have been only a couple of recorded instances where poolplayers played at a "1000" level, but many in the 900+ range, meaning they made a few errors (an error could be missing, scratching, or playing a bad safety, among others).
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Ok, so say you've shot 30 times and made one error. Do you drop 1/30th of 1000? How cut and dry is an error? It seems some judgments must be borderline and subjective.
If it's like baseball, I would imagine it's 29/30 * 1000 or (30 - 1)/30 * 1000 or 1000 - (1/30 * 1000). There are other ways but I need to stop here
There is logic to it...
Doesn't this come from a system devised by Accustats? Isn't the name Accustats derived from the system?
Doesn't this come from a system devised by Accustats? Isn't the name Accustats derived from the system?
I believe this is their accustats rating. Accustats originally wasn't about filming videos of pros and selling them, it was a project to figure out a universal rating system for how someone is shooting. I don't know if they ever released the formula but it does account for errors, break and runs, misses, etc.
Any system will be subjective but that doesn't mean you can't trust the results. Usually a knowledgeable spectator can tell what the player was trying to do, even if they dog it. I'll take the accustats rating over an educated guess.
Any system will be subjective but that doesn't mean you can't trust the results. Usually a knowledgeable spectator can tell what the player was trying to do, even if they dog it. I'll take the accustats rating over an educated guess.
Accu-Stats used to have the formula and sample score sheets up on their website, but I believe they're gone now. It's a great system for telling how well (or poorly) a player actually shot in any given match.
Roger
rep for the link accu-fan 
That's pretty interesting to see how they calculate it. Lots of subjective stuff there, like rating whether a shot is harder than a spot shot... deciding if a guy planned a safety after running several balls... etc. But with a guy doing everything carefully and making good judgment calls, I bet you should have a pretty fair assessment. It should be really rare for a guy to play better than his opponent (according to the rating) and lose.
That's pretty interesting to see how they calculate it. Lots of subjective stuff there, like rating whether a shot is harder than a spot shot... deciding if a guy planned a safety after running several balls... etc. But with a guy doing everything carefully and making good judgment calls, I bet you should have a pretty fair assessment. It should be really rare for a guy to play better than his opponent (according to the rating) and lose.CreeDo...Pat Fleming's forumla also had a way to show the difference between 'forced' and 'unforced' errors. For example, if someone was completely hooked, and missed the hit, that was recorded as an unforced error. A poorly played safety, or a miscue, on the the other had, would be recorded as a forced error. I always thought it was a very well thought out process that Pat came up with.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
in a nutshell, 90% shot success rate. 850-1000 is roughly world class.
That's a good point. And I think it was mentioned it's inspired by baseball. Tennis also uses forced and unforced errors. The means are there to work this stuff out. It's almost too bad that accustats is so focused on video that the stats are completely abandoned. It was a worthy project and deserves some attention. You can watch 20 recent accustats videos without hearing a peep about them, though maybe someone is still tracking them. The info should be collated and posted somewhere.
Thanks, that is what i am looking for, but way too technical for me to understand in a short period of time.