Break Stats -- Kamui Challenge, Shaw vs. Deuel 8-Ball on 7-Foot Table, July 23, 2015

[AtLarge]

Break Stats -- Kamui Challenge, Shaw vs. Deuel 8-Ball on 7-Foot Table, July 22, 2015

Here are some results from CSI's Kamui Challenge 2015 -- Jayson Shaw vs. Corey Deuel in 8-Ball -- played July 22 at the Rio Las Vegas Hotel & Casino with pay-per-view streaming by CSI. Shaw won 21-20.

The conditions for this call-shot 8-ball match included the following: 7-foot Diamond table with pro-cut pockets, Simonis 860 cloth, Magic Ball Rack, Cyclop balls, alternate breaks from anywhere behind the head string, breaker racks for himself, table open after the break, breaker has choice of spotting the 8-ball or re-breaking if he makes the 8-ball on the break (happened once), ball in hand anywhere after a foul on the break, and cue-ball fouls only.

■ Shaw broke 20 times, with the following results:

• Made at least one ball (and did not foul) and won the game -- 10 (50%)
• Made at least one ball (and did not foul) and lost the game -- 3 (15%)
• Broke dry or fouled but won the game -- 2 (10%)
• Broke dry or fouled and lost the game -- 5 (25%)

■ Deuel broke 21 times, with the following results:

• Made at least one ball (and did not foul) and won the game -- 10 (48%)
• Made at least one ball (and did not foul) and lost the game -- 5 (24%)
• Broke dry or fouled but won the game -- 2 (10%)
• Broke dry or fouled and lost the game -- 4 (19%)

For the two players combined, the breaker made at least one ball and did not foul 68% of the time (28 of 41), won 59% of the games (24 of 41), won 71% of the games (20 of 28) in which he made a ball on the break, broke and ran 46% of the games (19 of 41), and broke and ran 68% of the games (19 of 28) in which he made a ball on the break.

Break-and-run games -- on all breaks:

Shaw -- 10 of 20 (50%)​

Deuel -- 9 of 21 (43%)​

Total -- 19 of 41 (46%)​

Break-and-run games -- on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):

Shaw -- 10 of 13 (77%)​

Deuel -- 9 of 15 (60%)​

Total -- 19 of 28 (68%)​

Shaw's 10 B&R games consisted of one alternating-break 6-pack and four singles.​

Deuel's 9 B&R games consisted of one alternating-break 3-pack, two alternating-break 2-packs, and 2 singles.​

Missed shots (excluding on breaks):

Shaw -- 5​

Deuel -- 5​

Total -- 10​

Fouls:

Shaw -- 3 (including 2 on the break)​

Deuel -- 7 (including 3 on the break)​

Total -- 10​

Safeties:

Shaw -- 1​

Deuel -- 0​

Total -- 1​

Run-outs from first shot after break:

By Shaw after his own successful break -- 10 of 13 (77%)​

By Shaw after Deuel's failed break -- 4 of 6 (67%)​

By Shaw, total -- 14 of 19 (74%)​

​

By Deuel after his own successful break -- 9 of 15 (60%)​

By Deuel after Shaw's failed break -- 5 of 7 (71%)​

By Deuel, total -- 14 of 22 (64%)​

​

Total for Shaw and Deuel -- 28 of 41 (68%)​

Run-outs from first shot after Shaw's break:

By Shaw -- 10 of 13 (77%)​

By Deuel -- 5 of 7 (71%)​

Total -- 15 of 20 (75%)​

Run-outs from first shot after Deuel's break:

By Deuel -- 9 of 15 (60%)​

By Shaw -- 4 of 6 (67%)​

Total -- 13 of 21 (62%)​

 

[AtLarge]

Match length, from lag to final ball, including racking and time-outs = 165 minutes

Average minutes per game for 41 games = 4.0

 

[AtLarge]

Whoops -- I got the date wrong in the thread title -- should be July 22. Anyone know how to edit a thread title? I tried "Go Advanced" under "Edit," and it allowed me to change the title on the post, but the title in the list of threads did not change.

 

[Cardigan Kid]

AtLarge, I know it's only a one match sample, but how do the numbers match up to the percentages/averages of the accu stats 8 ball invitational which was on 9 foot diamond pro am?

 

[BRussell]

When it was 17-17, Ken said that Corey's break was illegal because he didn't contact the second ball. He ended up not calling it on him, saying that it was Jayson's responsibility to call it. I've never heard of a rule that you have to hit certain balls in 8-ball. Had Ken just lost his mind for a minute, or was that a special rule they had for that match?

 

[AtLarge]

When it was 17-17, Ken said that Corey's break was illegal because he didn't contact the second ball. He ended up not calling it on him, saying that it was Jayson's responsibility to call it. I've never heard of a rule that you have to hit certain balls in 8-ball. Had Ken just lost his mind for a minute, or was that a special rule they had for that match?

I'm with you on that one. What Ken said was a mystery to me. I thought they were using BCAPL/USAPL rules, where the break requirement is stated as follows:

"You begin the break with ball in hand behind the head string. The break is not a called shot, and you may not call a ball or a safety on the break. There is no requirement for the cue ball to contact any particular ball first. You must legally pocket a ball or cause at least four object balls to contact one or more cushions or it is an illegal break. If you legally pocket a ball, you continue to shoot. If you do not legally pocket a ball or you commit a foul, your inning ends."

WPA (world-standardized) rules are similar.

 

[AtLarge]

AtLarge, I know it's only a one match sample, but how do the numbers match up to the percentages/averages of the accu stats 8 ball invitational which was on 9 foot diamond pro am?

Yeah, we'll be able to get a better comparison after the US Open 8-Ball matches, comparing this year's event on 7-footers with last year's event (CSI Invitational 8-Ball Championship) on 9-footers and with the Make-It-Happen Accu-Stats event on 9-footers.

But as to your specific question:

Made at least one ball and did not foul

Shaw/Deuel -- 68% (28 of 41)​

A-S MIH -- 73% (85 of 117)​

Breaker won game

Shaw/Deuel -- 59% (24 of 41)​

A-S MIH -- 61% (71 of 117)​

Break-and-run games -- on all breaks

Shaw/Deuel -- 46% (19 of 41)​

A-S MIH -- 50% (59 of 117)​

Break-and-run games -- on successful breaks

Shaw/Deuel -- 68% (19 of 28)​

A-S MIH -- 69% (59 of 85)​

Games ended in breaker's or non-breaker's first inning

Shaw/Deuel -- 85% (35 of 41)​

A-S MIH -- 85% (99 of 117)​

So, our hypothesis, subject to considerable further testing, might be: 8-Ball played by top pros produces about the same stats whether it is played on Diamond 7-footers or Diamond 9-footers.

 

[Celtic]

I'm with you on that one. What Ken said was a mystery to me. I thought they were using BCAPL/USAPL rules, where the break requirement is stated as follows:

"You begin the break with ball in hand behind the head string. The break is not a called shot, and you may not call a ball or a safety on the break. There is no requirement for the cue ball to contact any particular ball first. You must legally pocket a ball or cause at least four object balls to contact one or more cushions or it is an illegal break. If you legally pocket a ball, you continue to shoot. If you do not legally pocket a ball or you commit a foul, your inning ends."

WPA (world-standardized) rules are similar.

Well, it might be a little much to expect a professional pool commentator working on the match to know the rules of the game in the match he is commentating on...

Also, give Ken time, he has only been doing this since... hmm...

You know what, I have watched "a lot" of snooker. I do not think one single time I have heard a commentator blurt out a wrong rule. In fact they have sometimes impressed me by knowing the most detailed little nuances of rules and comment on them when they rarely come up in matches.

It seems to me, snooker commentators really look at what they do as a profession, they take it seriously, they prepare for the match by reading about the players, they prepare for their job by learning the rules of the game inside and out, they learn the general strategy and are normally "very" knowledgeable about the game and how it is played.

If CSI ever actually "does" get that extra few people who are non-pool fans to tune in and check out their product this type of thing just kills it.

I remember one day watching a small part of a TAR match at the end of work and a couple work mates came up to look. They laughed and thought it looked hokey and cheap. The sound booth room flash looked like egg cartons they said, the room was boring looking, there was no presentation. These are two prospective customers who came and went just like that. You get one chance to impress people and hook them in, and you get that same one chance to leave them unimpressed and have them walk away for ever.

And a lot of the problem was that they looked at TAR and what they saw looked somewhat easy. They saw a table they play on, a game they might have played, a shot or two they might have made at the pool hall after a couple beer. They did not stick around long enough to see a 6 pack or 7 pack and contemplate the skill in what was happening.

That is where snooker beats pool on the "casual viewer" (and that is where snooker beats pool on the money front, the "casual viewers"). Snooker is a game played on a hard table and that 2 or 3 shots a casual person glancing at the TV sees makes that clearly evident. That casual viewer does not need to see a century to see he is seeing something special, so they watch a bit more. They know they simply cannot do what they see within 2 minutes of watching and the table is tough enough looking to them that they also know that as good as that guy is they are watching he could miss at any moment, nothing is a given. There is no "well that was a good break, he is out" in snooker, but how often due we hear that in pool? No one wants to watch sports where the runout is a forgone conclusion, and even the commentators say so. That is just ASKING people to flip the channel to something else.

That is all why this switch to bar boxes is so backwards. Pool needs (needed) to go the other direction. It needed to try to capture the same sense of difficulty that snooker sells to the casual viewer. Tight pockets, 10-foot table, and a game the general public know and have very firmly made clear that it is THE game they will continue to play and understand and prefer (even after DECADES of professional pool producers trying to jam 9-ball and now 10-ball down their throats).

8-ball is THE future of pool, if pool is to have a future at all. It is the only game the general public, the casual viewer understands and relates to and they have made VERY CLEAR they are not interested in learning the 9-ball or 10-ball rules or watching that game played by the pros. People watch professionals play games they know, play, or have played. Golfers watch pros play the same game they do with the same rules. Sure the courses are tougher, the tees are set farther back, but when you watch Phil play in the US Open he is playing the same game you do at your local club. Football players play the same game their fans played in high school, tennis players play the same game their fans go out and mess around with for exercise. There are almost "no" spectator sports that are popular where the game being played is "not" what the spectators of that game actually play. Different equipment or courses? Absolutely, different game altogether? Absolutely not, that is simply asking for failure.

I "tried" to help Mark G a long time ago into seeing some of the issues pool was having and wrote him a small thesis (you think this post is long) on a potential rough path to move forward on. It made 8-ball THE game. It combined the BCAPL league system and professionals and put them under 1 umbrella, making "professional" status another level under the BCAPL system, above that of the "Master" or "Grand Master". The BCAPL would have broadened out to become both an amateur league system, and a professional pool organization all wrapped into one. The league system and Vegas Nationals event would have become akin to the "Q School" of pool. Professional status would have been gained via finishing high in the premier amateur events (Masters and Grand Masters levels).

A small amount of money would have trickled up into the professional tour, and that money would have been used for purses for events and eventually having no entry into pro events for people who won professional status. The benefits of the amateurs playing in the leagues and paying into that system would be that all streamed pro events, live pro events, ect... would be free to view for BCAPL members. There would be no $59 ppv for the events this week for BCAPL members. Those members would have paid a small premium on their league fees and membership fee, but with that comes free access to all live content through the BCAPL website. With that massive number of BCAPL members having access to the streaming content the number of viewers would increase, and with that increase in viewers the ability to market advertising on the BCAPL website and on the streams increases. For the amateur players, the other benefit is that they are all actually playing in the same system that leads to pro pool. Most would likely never get there, but for everyone there they are on a path that "does" lead to pro pool for a select few, and they might play those people who one day they watch on the streams winning the pro events.

It would have been a remarkable way to promote new players into that league system, to get young people interested in pool, not so they can sit in a pub and drink some beers and maybe play in an event in Vegas for some cash, but because if they play the BCAPL that is actually a path that could lead them to becoming a professional pool player. And if done right, that "being a pro pool player" might have become something that was actually a positive.

Blah, this is so long. I am bowing out here. Pool depresses me. This game can do so much better.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Most, if not all, snooker commentators are ex pro players, certainly on the bbc. They'd better know the rules.

 

[Cameron Smith]

I agree with much Celtic's post. Though to be fair to TAR, I think their product was never intended to cater to anyone other than the avid fan. I actually enjoyed the intimate atmosphere of the TAR studio, though I understand how the presentation would not grab newcomers.

But yes, I am saddened by the current state of pool. It has declined so much since I started watching with Alex's world title win in 2004. I don't follow many events anymore, and rarely watch any matches outside of youtube videos of favorite players. I do however love what Joe Tucker is doing and would be excited if American Rotation took over. Very fun to watch.

 

[westcoast]

Well, it might be a little much to expect a professional pool commentator working on the match to know the rules of the game in the match he is commentating on...

Also, give Ken time, he has only been doing this since... hmm...

You know what, I have watched "a lot" of snooker. I do not think one single time I have heard a commentator blurt out a wrong rule. In fact they have sometimes impressed me by knowing the most detailed little nuances of rules and comment on them when they rarely come up in matches.

It seems to me, snooker commentators really look at what they do as a profession, they take it seriously, they prepare for the match by reading about the players, they prepare for their job by learning the rules of the game inside and out, they learn the general strategy and are normally "very" knowledgeable about the game and how it is played.

If CSI ever actually "does" get that extra few people who are non-pool fans to tune in and check out their product this type of thing just kills it.

I remember one day watching a small part of a TAR match at the end of work and a couple work mates came up to look. They laughed and thought it looked hokey and cheap. The sound booth room flash looked like egg cartons they said, the room was boring looking, there was no presentation. These are two prospective customers who came and went just like that. You get one chance to impress people and hook them in, and you get that same one chance to leave them unimpressed and have them walk away for ever.

And a lot of the problem was that they looked at TAR and what they saw looked somewhat easy. They saw a table they play on, a game they might have played, a shot or two they might have made at the pool hall after a couple beer. They did not stick around long enough to see a 6 pack or 7 pack and contemplate the skill in what was happening.

That is where snooker beats pool on the "casual viewer" (and that is where snooker beats pool on the money front, the "casual viewers"). Snooker is a game played on a hard table and that 2 or 3 shots a casual person glancing at the TV sees makes that clearly evident. That casual viewer does not need to see a century to see he is seeing something special, so they watch a bit more. They know they simply cannot do what they see within 2 minutes of watching and the table is tough enough looking to them that they also know that as good as that guy is they are watching he could miss at any moment, nothing is a given. There is no "well that was a good break, he is out" in snooker, but how often due we hear that in pool? No one wants to watch sports where the runout is a forgone conclusion, and even the commentators say so. That is just ASKING people to flip the channel to something else.

That is all why this switch to bar boxes is so backwards. Pool needs (needed) to go the other direction. It needed to try to capture the same sense of difficulty that snooker sells to the casual viewer. Tight pockets, 10-foot table, and a game the general public know and have very firmly made clear that it is THE game they will continue to play and understand and prefer (even after DECADES of professional pool producers trying to jam 9-ball and now 10-ball down their throats).

8-ball is THE future of pool, if pool is to have a future at all. It is the only game the general public, the casual viewer understands and relates to and they have made VERY CLEAR they are not interested in learning the 9-ball or 10-ball rules or watching that game played by the pros. People watch professionals play games they know, play, or have played. Golfers watch pros play the same game they do with the same rules. Sure the courses are tougher, the tees are set farther back, but when you watch Phil play in the US Open he is playing the same game you do at your local club. Football players play the same game their fans played in high school, tennis players play the same game their fans go out and mess around with for exercise. There are almost "no" spectator sports that are popular where the game being played is "not" what the spectators of that game actually play. Different equipment or courses? Absolutely, different game altogether? Absolutely not, that is simply asking for failure.

I "tried" to help Mark G a long time ago into seeing some of the issues pool was having and wrote him a small thesis (you think this post is long) on a potential rough path to move forward on. It made 8-ball THE game. It combined the BCAPL league system and professionals and put them under 1 umbrella, making "professional" status another level under the BCAPL system, above that of the "Master" or "Grand Master". The BCAPL would have broadened out to become both an amateur league system, and a professional pool organization all wrapped into one. The league system and Vegas Nationals event would have become akin to the "Q School" of pool. Professional status would have been gained via finishing high in the premier amateur events (Masters and Grand Masters levels).

A small amount of money would have trickled up into the professional tour, and that money would have been used for purses for events and eventually having no entry into pro events for people who won professional status. The benefits of the amateurs playing in the leagues and paying into that system would be that all streamed pro events, live pro events, ect... would be free to view for BCAPL members. There would be no $59 ppv for the events this week for BCAPL members. Those members would have paid a small premium on their league fees and membership fee, but with that comes free access to all live content through the BCAPL website. With that massive number of BCAPL members having access to the streaming content the number of viewers would increase, and with that increase in viewers the ability to market advertising on the BCAPL website and on the streams increases. For the amateur players, the other benefit is that they are all actually playing in the same system that leads to pro pool. Most would likely never get there, but for everyone there they are on a path that "does" lead to pro pool for a select few, and they might play those people who one day they watch on the streams winning the pro events.

It would have been a remarkable way to promote new players into that league system, to get young people interested in pool, not so they can sit in a pub and drink some beers and maybe play in an event in Vegas for some cash, but because if they play the BCAPL that is actually a path that could lead them to becoming a professional pool player. And if done right, that "being a pro pool player" might have become something that was actually a positive.

Blah, this is so long. I am bowing out here. Pool depresses me. This game can do so much better.

I agree that things could be done differently, but 8 ball probably isn't the answer. I used to think so, but then I watched top pros play 8 ball and it is too easy for them. Yes, 10 foot tables with tight pockets may make it more difficult, but they still would probably make it look too easy. 10 ball on a 10 footer is the most challenging.

 

[Celtic]

I agree with much Celtic's post. Though to be fair to TAR, I think their product was never intended to cater to anyone other than the avid fan. I actually enjoyed the intimate atmosphere of the TAR studio, though I understand how the presentation would not grab newcomers.

I agree 100%, I loved TAR and I supported them every time I was able to watch a match they put on, as Justin could probably attest to.

I post the musings of the people who happed to be there at the time who glanced at the product and gave their opinion on it as a potential piece of information for those still trying to figure out how to get more people interested in watching pool. I wanted them to know that when the general public "did" see the product, this is the reaction I saw first hand. The fix for it? Ehh, that can be debated ad nauseum and I already went on the above tangent and countless others on my thoughts on what pool might do to appeal more to the general public. I was not named the 8-ball jihadist for nothing.

 

[BasementDweller]

I agree that things could be done differently, but 8 ball probably isn't the answer. I used to think so, but then I watched top pros play 8 ball and it is too easy for them. Yes, 10 foot tables with tight pockets may make it more difficult, but they still would probably make it look too easy. 10 ball on a 10 footer is the most challenging.

8 Ball on any size table with American style pockets will always be too easy for the pros unless you get ridiculously small -- like in the 3 3/4 range. There's just not enough cue ball movement required to make the small pocket size that much of a factor.

I think the answer is to introduce snooker style pockets into the mix or add another row of balls. Maybe 21 ball 8 Ball on a tight 10 footer might work.

 

[Celtic]

I think the answer is to introduce snooker style pockets into the mix

That has been done, certainly a solid game.

The problem with that game and the key thing that will keep it from potentially becoming huge? It is called "Chinese" 8-ball. That name alone kills it's chances from progressing forth. No game that wants to become internationally played and take over the world can be named for a region.

If "Chinese" 8-ball were named something non-regional, Curved Pocket 8-Ball or something equally dumb, it would actually have a good chance to gain some footing in Europe where it acts as a cross between WPA rules 8-ball and English 8-Ball. TBP I think that game would possibly slowly take over from English 8-ball. Not if it is called "Chinese" 8-ball though.

In America? Forget about it. There is no chance America would adopt a game called "Chinese 8-ball", it would just seem down right unpatriotic!

"Chinese" 8-ball is a great game and has many of the changes that pool needs, but it needs a official name change and then needs to be clearly "re"-introduced to the world under a new non-regional name in tournaments in America, Europe, and Asia. The people in charge of that game should read this and take note if they want it to gain traction abroad. There are a lot of people talking about the game and some interest in it, but that name is a barrier to international success and growth.

 

[AtLarge]

Well, it might be a little much to expect a professional pool commentator working on the match to know the rules of the game in the match he is commentating on...

Also, give Ken time, he has only been doing this since... hmm... ...

Of course, it's possible that Ken just had a mindo.

But I doubt it. He's good with the rules.

A few months ago there was a bar-box 8-Ball event where Corey was pattern racking and breaking by banking the back corner ball into a head pocket. He was springing loose the group he wanted to (either solids or stripes) and leaving the other group with clusters. This drew quite a bit of criticism.

Perhaps for this Shaw/Deuel match (and maybe for the upcoming US Open 8-Ball?) they agreed in advance that it would be illegal to break that way -- requiring that you had to hit either the top or second ball on the break.

That would certainly explain Ken's statements on the stream.

 

[kaznj]

Someone put up an analysis of Corey break with a video or a picture explaining the rack and the break. Does anyone have a link to this? This was a soft break on a bar table, 8 ball.

 

[AtLarge]

Someone put up an analysis of Corey break with a video or a picture explaining the rack and the break. Does anyone have a link to this? This was a soft break on a bar table, 8 ball.

You may be talking about some other event. In this Kamui Challenge, Deuel wasn't soft breaking, he was using sort of a medium-to-hard speed break into the second ball. The match video is available on the CSI website: http://www.playcsipool.com/

[Edit -- I'm guessing now that you know the video you're looking for isn't from this event, and you just put your question in a thread about Corey. Sorry I don't know the link you seek.]