Question about one of At Large's stats

BmoreMoney

BmoreMoney

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So first of all thanks Large, as always. So after reviewing his stats for the recent MIH, I noticed something. It's the same thing that I always seem to notice and am curious about. In regards to the " break and won game " stats. Regardless of the game, players , tables, venues, it seems like the overall average of the breaker winning the game seems to always be around mid 50 something %. Let's just use 55% since that's what it is for the MIH. In gambling terms, sure a 10% advantage is huge. I'm not looking at it like that though, in a more real world example - the breaker is only winning 5% more than half of the time. When looking at it like that it seems like an extremely low number.

What I'm getting at is the break is supposed to be a huge advantage in all games ( except 14.1 of course ). With the level these guys ( and all pros really ) it would seem to me that the breaker should be winning way more than 5% more to heh an half of the Han he games they break. No, not all breaks will be B&R'so but at the hanger is level one would think ; 1) most of the time they will be making at least one ball on the break, 2) and as such when it's not a B&R they are still in control of the table and should be able to play good safeties etc.

I understand a B&R won't always be there nor will a chance at a good lock down safety. However in totality it seems like it would end up being much more of an advantage than what the numbers seem to show. What do yall think about this? Does the 55% average make sense to you or does it seem as if maybe you'd think it would be more in the 70% or whatever range?
 
Interesting question for sure. I think there are 2 main reasons why this percentage is lower
then one might expect.

1) These stats include the breaks of the losing player aswell, for example in the MIH 8-ball Shaw
beat one of his opponents 10-0 and they each broke 5 times. So 1 guy won 100% of his games on
the break and the other guy 0% for an average of 50%. This does not mean the break wasn't huge
in this particular match. It was.

2) In more normal matches (espescially 8-ball) when a player makes a ball on the break and goes for
the runout but does not run out he will lose that game a very high percentage of the time espescially
at the pro level.

Kind regards, Dave
 
Double-Dave said:
Interesting question for sure. I think there are 2 main reasons why this percentage is lower
then one might expect.

1) These stats include the breaks of the losing player aswell, for example in the MIH 8-ball Shaw
beat one of his opponents 10-0 and they each broke 5 times. So 1 guy won 100% of his games on
the break and the other guy 0% for an average of 50%. This does not mean the break wasn't huge
in this particular match. It was.

2) In more normal matches (espescially 8-ball) when a player makes a ball on the break and goes for
the runout but does not run out he will lose that game a very high percentage of the time espescially
at the pro level.

Kind regards, Dave
Click to expand...


As to #2, I get that but the break and run stats are pretty much always higher and I could see what you're saying wig lower level players for sure but when we're talking about elite players and pros they are WAY more likely to just run out OR know when it's proper to play a safety as opposed to just trying to run out every time .
 
I think the proofs there

BmoreMoney said:
it seems like it would end up being much more of an advantage than what the numbers seem to show. What do yall think about this? Does the 55% average make sense to you or does it seem as if maybe you'd think it would be more in the 70% or whatever range?
Click to expand...

To your point, that's the reason that I don't buy the agreement that the soft break is such a lock or that pattern racking has the effect that so many think it does.
 
Accu-Stats determined long ago that the breaker in pro 9-ball tournaments was actually winning less than half the time.

When Pat Fleming won the lag he would sometimes give the break to the other player.
 
PoolBum said:
Accu-Stats determined long ago that the breaker in pro 9-ball tournaments was actually winning less than half the time.

When Pat Fleming won the lag he would sometimes give the break to the other player.
Click to expand...

Huh? Seriously ? That makes no sense to me at all, can't see how that's even possible, maybe in small selected pickets but over a large sampling seems near impossible no? Furthermore , in a winner break format - which is pretty much what it always used to be it's impossible !
 
BmoreMoney said:
Huh? Seriously ? That makes no sense to me at all, can't see how that's even possible, maybe in small selected pickets but over a large sampling seems near impossible no? Furthermore , in a winner break format - which is pretty much what it always used to be it's impossible !
Click to expand...

I think the breaker winning below 50% number was from before templates and the advent of the soft / controlled break. My guess is that making a ball and have a decent shot or potential good safety on the low ball were the big factor.
 
BmoreMoney said:
Huh? Seriously ? That makes no sense to me at all, can't see how that's even possible, maybe in small selected pickets but over a large sampling seems near impossible no? Furthermore , in a winner break format - which is pretty much what it always used to be it's impossible !
Click to expand...
Why would it be impossible?

I'm pretty sure that at the level my pool-playing buddies and I play, the break is a disadvantage because we're not good enough to run racks the majority of the time (nowhere near it), but we're all good enough to run several balls most of the time, leaving an easier run out for the next player.
 
BRussell said:
Why would it be impossible?

I'm pretty sure that at the level my pool-playing buddies and I play, the break is a disadvantage because we're not good enough to run racks the majority of the time (nowhere near it), but we're all good enough to run several balls most of the time, leaving an easier run out for the next player.
Click to expand...

But as I stayed earlier we were talking about elite players
 
PoolBum said:
Accu-Stats determined long ago that the breaker in pro 9-ball tournaments was actually winning less than half the time.

When Pat Fleming won the lag he would sometimes give the break to the other player.
Click to expand...

Pat did that survey how many years ago? 20 or more. Top players have a much better break today and can read and rig the rack. Johnnyt
 
Johnnyt said:
Pat did that survey how many years ago? 20 or more. Top players have a much better break today and can read and rig the rack. Johnnyt
Click to expand...

Agreed, and yet the win percentages are still much closer than you might think.

Looking at At Large's break stats from the 2016 U.S. Open, the breaker won 54% of the games. And these are from streamed matches only, which on average would involve more elite players (who therefore win a greater percentage of the games in which they break) than the field as a whole.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=438461&highlight=break+stats
 
BmoreMoney said:
As to #2, I get that but the break and run stats are pretty much always higher and I could see what you're saying wig lower level players for sure but when we're talking about elite players and pros they are WAY more likely to just run out OR know when it's proper to play a safety as opposed to just trying to run out every time .
Click to expand...

The break and won% in 8 ball should depend mostly on post break skills, pattern play since in 8 ball, successful break % (73% for MIH according to AtLarge stats) is much higher than 9b or 10b unless breaker has high quality break

Individual break and won %:
Shaw -- 64% (28 of 44)
Van Boening -- 57% (29 of 51)
Deuel -- 56% (22 of 39)
Appleton -- 55% (21 of 38)
Morra -- 49% (18 of 37)
Morris -- 50% (21 of 42)

Total -- 55% (139 of 251)


Individual Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Shaw -- 75% (33 of 44)
Van Boening -- 82% (42 of 51)
Deuel -- 85% (33 of 39)
Appleton -- 66% (25 of 38)
Morra -- 65% (24 of 37)
Morris -- 60% (25 of 42)

Total -- 73% (182 of 251)

Looking at above 2 individual stats, break and won% and successful break %, it is clear that the lower break and won % is due to lower post break performance
Shaw, Darren, Rodney had best post break performance/pattern play 84% won from successful breaks. Shane,Deuel, Morra had worst post break performance less than 70%. We are not surprised that Shaw and Darren are tops since they were former E8B champions.
So my guess is the break and won 55% is close to 50% cos you have 3 top post break performers and 3 low post break performers so they balance each other to bring average to close to 50%
:)
 
Double-Dave said:
Interesting question for sure. I think there are 2 main reasons why this percentage is lower
then one might expect.

1) These stats include the breaks of the losing player aswell, for example in the MIH 8-ball Shaw
beat one of his opponents 10-0 and they each broke 5 times. So 1 guy won 100% of his games on
the break and the other guy 0% for an average of 50%. This does not mean the break wasn't huge
in this particular match. It was.
Click to expand...

In the recent MIH 8-Ball Invitational:
• Match winners won 69% (86 of 124) of the games in which they were the breaker
• Match losers won 42% (53 of 127) of the games in which they were the breaker
• Combined -- 55% (139 of 251) of the games were won by the breaker

Double-Dave said:
2) In more normal matches (espescially 8-ball) when a player makes a ball on the break and goes for the runout but does not run out he will lose that game a very high percentage of the time espescially at the pro level. ...
Click to expand...

Yes. In that MIH 8-Ball event, the breaker broke successfully in 182 of the 251 games. He proceeded to run out (B&R games) in 102 of those 182 games. So there were 80 games in which he broke successfully but did not run out. He lost 61 of those 80 games -- 76%.

[Note -- you said "goes for the runout." Those 61 losses included a game where the breaker played safe after the break rather than going for the runout.:)]
 
And looking just at game results after successful breaks:

In the recent MIH 8-Ball Invitational:
• Match winners won 76% (77 of 101) of the games in which they broke successfully
• Match losers won 54% (44 of 81) of the games in which they broke successfully
• Combined -- the breaker won 66% (121 of 182) of the games in which he broke successfully
 
AtLarge said:
In the recent MIH 8-Ball Invitational:
• Match winners won 69% (86 of 124) of the games in which they were the breaker
• Match losers won 42% (53 of 127) of the games in which they were the breaker
• Combined -- 55% (139 of 251) of the games were won by the breaker



Yes. In that MIH 8-Ball event, the breaker broke successfully in 182 of the 251 games. He proceeded to run out (B&R games) in 102 of those 182 games. So there were 80 games in which he broke successfully but did not run out. He lost 61 of those 80 games -- 76%.

[Note -- you said "goes for the runout." Those 61 losses included a game where the breaker played safe after the break rather than going for the runout.:)]
Click to expand...

Still having a little trouble wrapping my head around this. But as to what I was saying we will pay no attention to the " successful " break stats. So that leaves the general break stats, which I would believe the combined number is the important one for this discussion. That puts us right back to where we started with my initial question. All I'm saying is it just seems to me that the breaker ( at this level at least ) would be in much more control than what the 55 indicates. I do have one question though, why when you take the info broken down into winners and loses does it come up to greater than 100%?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top