Who will be Player of the Decade?

[Poolplaya9]

I make no judgement on skill...my definition is purely results focused, which is exactly what I believe was asked by the OP.

Maybe the OP can clarify whether they meant the most skillful player of the decade, or the player that has had more success (that is still subjective, but clearly different to skill level).

By your logic SVB should be one of the greatest Mosconi Cup players of all time because of his skill level, despite a very poor (team) win record and therefore a lack of success.

You didn't read very carefully. The definition I gave, which is the correct definition, was the "player of the decade is defined as the person that has demonstrated the greatest level of skill over a specified time frame, in this case the beginning of 2010 to the end of 2019." Not just who we think has the most skill in our opinion, but who has done the most to demonstrate it over the decade and demonstrated means results--ALL results, and with those results weighted SOLELY by the quality and depth of the field.

The problem with your logic (among many) is that you only want to consider world championships, which answers the question of "who has the most world championships", but that quite simply isn't the question that is being asked. The question that is being asked is who is the player of the decade. Who has the most world titles will very often have a different answer since it is a totally different question. You have to stick to answering the question being asked of you, not some other random question even if you deem other said random question to be a more important one (and whether that is true or not is another unrelated debate entirely).

Another problem with your logic aside from not really wanting to consider anything outside of world championships, is that to whatever minuscule extent you are willing to consider the US Open and any other events that don't have the word "world" in the title you are not giving them nearly enough weight either because of the location in the world in which they were played, or because they lack the word "world" in the title. First, location and the word in the title should be given zero consideration. None. Zilch. What matters is how strong the field was in each event, and how deep it was. If a world championship has a lessor quality or less deep field than say the US Open then it should carry less weight, and if it had an equal field to the US Open it should carry equal weight, and if it had a very very slightly better quality and depth of field then it should carry very very slightly more weight. The name of the event or where it was played is immaterial.

Your analysis needs to be honest, not biased, and up until now it hasn't been honest at all and you have been letting your bias do some bad analysis.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Pool is a strange one perhaps, in that although a US game, it is now played to a high level in many places and I suspect its only really the US players/fans that place a huge weight on the US tournaments over the truly global ones such as the World Championships.

I think the very clear reality that has been shown over and over is that you are dismissive of anything played in the US--not that the US is dismissive of other events in the world. When you can ignore where a tournament was played, and what words are in the title of the event, and evaluate events solely based on the quality and depths of their fields, then you will finally be able to do an unbiased analysis like most of the US posters have been doing.

 

[Nick B]

A factual statement

But also perhaps that allows me to look without bias (or with a different bias you could argue)..the vast majority of you on here are from the US and you're all claiming a man who has never won a World Title is the greatest player of the decade.

My gut feel is that Darren Appleton (yes a Brit) is probably the player of the decade due to the major titles he's won, not the sheer volume of tournament wins...but I'm not saying he absolutely is as I haven't done the analysis to back that up.

It would be interesting to see if my stance is still in the minority amongst the non-American posters on here, as typically sports are either Global and not really played in the US or played almost exclusively (at the top level) in the US. Pool is a strange one perhaps, in that although a US game, it is now played to a high level in many places and I suspect its only really the US players/fans that place a huge weight on the US tournaments over the truly global ones such as the World Championships.

OK it's time for a Canadian to mend the fences and fix this Brit vs. USA show down. Firstly I'm a huge Darren Appleton fan and even went down to Vegas to watch him and SVB do one of the TAR events. Darren plays great patterns and has the BEST CUE BALL Touch of any player I have ever seen. The reality is that SVB's overall game is better. DA is already in the hall so his legacy is home and dry. Regardless of whether SVB plays again his is entrance is a lock.

Now on to the original topic...Player of the decade. SVB has more hardware than Lowes. Not acknowledging that he owns this decade is simply not looking at the results objectively. Hell even his One Pocket game has improved a bunch and he took down some DCC and Make it Happen events with a killer field. This has kind of become like a bad "Big Bang" episode were the nerds are all sitting around debating Superman vs all the other Superheros...Batman is dark and has cool toys...The Flash is so fast you can't hit hit...Thor has the hammer...blah...blah...blah.

Superman is Superman. SVB is our Superman.

 

[PhilosopherKing]

For those who don't know, "Player of the Decade" is an actual award. That being said, if anyone knows who decides and what criteria is used, it might help the discussion.

 

[AtLarge]

... My gut feel is that Darren Appleton (yes a Brit) is probably the player of the decade ...

He's certainly a contender for the honor (despite his relative slump for the last couple of years).

 

[AtLarge]

For those who don't know, "Player of the Decade" is an actual award. That being said, if anyone knows who decides and what criteria is used, it might help the discussion.

I think it's just something that is declared by publications like Billiards Digest and Pool & Billiard Magazine. AzB might even name one. Different organizations might declare different winners.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I think it's just something that is declared by publications like Billiards Digest and Pool & Billiard Magazine. AzB might even name one. Different organizations might declare different winners.

Correct and I think the general criteria is always who has demonstrated the greatest skill and accomplishment over the course of the decade. Unlike what some posters seem to think it isn't about who has the most world titles other wise the award would be called "most world titles in the decade".

 

[PhilosopherKing]

I think it's just something that is declared by publications like Billiards Digest and Pool & Billiard Magazine. AzB might even name one. Different organizations might declare different winners.

I see.

I wonder what the criteria is. If it were simply a subjective "Who's the best player?", Efren probably would have won the past two decades regardless of the awards' sources.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I see.

I wonder what the criteria is. If it were simply a subjective "Who's the best player?", Efren probably would have won the past two decades regardless of the awards' sources.

Of course it isn't intended to just be subjective otherwise the award would be called "our opinion for the highest skilled player". They try to have it be more objective by having it be based on accomplishments over the course of the decade hence "the player of the decade" based on accomplishments in the decade. In their articles where they name the recipient they usually spell out why they chose who they chose and it is always based on accomplishment.

 

[vjmehra]

Dude you are ridiculous and your logic is beyond flawed. You say you are not bias yet claim Darren is player of the decade LMFAO! How much you wanna bet on Darren over SVB in any game? You sound like a troll especially now that you are saying Darren should be player of the decade? When is the last time he has even won a tournament? Typical jealous hater

Um...ridiculous comments like that ruin your otherwise fairly logical comments so far.

I very clearly stated I was a Brit, I also very clearly stated my criteria and also mentioned that I felt people (myself included) may well be displaying unintentional bias.

I also said that my gut feel was that it was Darren Appleton, but had not done the analysis to back it up.

At no point did I ever state that Darren Appleton was conclusively the best player of the last decade.

To quote myself:

My gut feel is that Darren Appleton (yes a Brit) is probably the player of the decade due to the major titles he's won, not the sheer volume of tournament wins...but I'm not saying he absolutely is as I haven't done the analysis to back that up.

By all means pick holes in my points if you feel they are flawed, but don't say things that are clearly untrue.

 

[vjmehra]

You didn't read very carefully. The definition I gave, which is the correct definition, was the "player of the decade is defined as the person that has demonstrated the greatest level of skill over a specified time frame, in this case the beginning of 2010 to the end of 2019." Not just who we think has the most skill in our opinion, but who has done the most to demonstrate it over the decade and demonstrated means results--ALL results, and with those results weighted SOLELY by the quality and depth of the field.

The problem with your logic (among many) is that you only want to consider world championships, which answers the question of "who has the most world championships", but that quite simply isn't the question that is being asked. The question that is being asked is who is the player of the decade. Who has the most world titles will very often have a different answer since it is a totally different question. You have to stick to answering the question being asked of you, not some other random question even if you deem other said random question to be a more important one (and whether that is true or not is another unrelated debate entirely).

Another problem with your logic aside from not really wanting to consider anything outside of world championships, is that to whatever minuscule extent you are willing to consider the US Open and any other events that don't have the word "world" in the title you are not giving them nearly enough weight either because of the location in the world in which they were played, or because they lack the word "world" in the title. First, location and the word in the title should be given zero consideration. None. Zilch. What matters is how strong the field was in each event, and how deep it was. If a world championship has a lessor quality or less deep field than say the US Open then it should carry less weight, and if it had an equal field to the US Open it should carry equal weight, and if it had a very very slightly better quality and depth of field then it should carry very very slightly more weight. The name of the event or where it was played is immaterial.

Your analysis needs to be honest, not biased, and up until now it hasn't been honest at all and you have been letting your bias do some bad analysis.

Your logic is pretty sensible tbh, however doing analysis on that scale requires a lot of data mining!!!

You also ignore the prestige factor, which clearly I place far more weight on than you do.

Also no-one has disputed my claim, so would you dispute this then based on what you have said above:

I state SVB would give back all his US open titles for just 1 World title.

I can't prove that's true, I will never know if that's true...but I bet it is....maybe someone can ask him

I would also state that any player who has won a World Championship will tell you that they don't care if they beat SVB or you/me in the final...they have a trophy that says they were the best player in the world at that point and thats all that matters.

 

[vjmehra]

I think the very clear reality that has been shown over and over is that you are dismissive of anything played in the US--not that the US is dismissive of other events in the world. When you can ignore where a tournament was played, and what words are in the title of the event, and evaluate events solely based on the quality and depths of their fields, then you will finally be able to do an unbiased analysis like most of the US posters have been doing.

That makes no sense at all and frankly your otherwise sensible points so far are a bit devalued when you let emotion take over.

 

[vjmehra]

OK it's time for a Canadian to mend the fences and fix this Brit vs. USA show down. Firstly I'm a huge Darren Appleton fan and even went down to Vegas to watch him and SVB do one of the TAR events. Darren plays great patterns and has the BEST CUE BALL Touch of any player I have ever seen. The reality is that SVB's overall game is better. DA is already in the hall so his legacy is home and dry. Regardless of whether SVB plays again his is entrance is a lock.

Now on to the original topic...Player of the decade. SVB has more hardware than Lowes. Not acknowledging that he owns this decade is simply not looking at the results objectively. Hell even his One Pocket game has improved a bunch and he took down some DCC and Make it Happen events with a killer field. This has kind of become like a bad "Big Bang" episode were the nerds are all sitting around debating Superman vs all the other Superheros...Batman is dark and has cool toys...The Flash is so fast you can't hit hit...Thor has the hammer...blah...blah...blah.

Superman is Superman. SVB is our Superman.

Does that make me Sheldon ;-)

 

[vjmehra]

For those who don't know, "Player of the Decade" is an actual award. That being said, if anyone knows who decides and what criteria is used, it might help the discussion.

I actually didn't know that, I thought it was just an AZ thing, ha!

 

[vjmehra]

He's certainly a contender for the honor (despite his relative slump for the last couple of years).

Yeah, I just want to re-iterate that although I suspect he could be, I'm absolutely not saying as a factual statement that he definitely is, but I agree 100% he should feature in the debate of course.

 

[vjmehra]

Correct and I think the general criteria is always who has demonstrated the greatest skill and accomplishment over the course of the decade. Unlike what some posters seem to think it isn't about who has the most world titles other wise the award would be called "most world titles in the decade".

I never said it was about the most World Titles...

I said if someone hadn't won a World title they couldn't be considered.

There is a difference...if you lose in the final of multiple World Championships you have choked (maybe got unlucky...but if its just luck you'll bounce back and eventually win won).

If you win one and never win one again you were the World Champ and no-one can ever take that away.

I do place huge weight on World titles, as would anyone that follows non-US sports, but again you're twisting what I actually said.

Now before you have a tantrum over my choking comment, I'm not saying SVB is a choker...I'm saying he's lost 2 finals and needs to win 1 at a future point to prove his World Class status. Maybe he will...he has time left and then perhaps this debate will end...but then what would we have left to talk about??

 

[vjmehra]

Of course it isn't intended to just be subjective otherwise the award would be called "our opinion for the highest skilled player". They try to have it be more objective by having it be based on accomplishments over the course of the decade hence "the player of the decade" based on accomplishments in the decade. In their articles where they name the recipient they usually spell out why they chose who they chose and it is always based on accomplishment.

If you have the data to hand (not sure if you do, I got the impression from an earlier post maybe you did, apologies if not), we could simply agree a weighting for each tournament and then see based on that who comes out on top?

I suspect we won't be able to agree the weightings, but it would be pretty interesting to see some scenarios anyway!

 

[Poolplaya9]

Your logic is pretty sensible tbh, however doing analysis on that scale requires a lot of data mining!!!

It is almost always going to be pretty easy to know off hand the five or so people that are heads and shoulders above everyone else and that have any chance whatsoever of even being in the discussion and that need to be further "data mined" to start differentiating between who really has the bigger and more consistent accomplishments for the decade so it isn't like you have to research hundreds of people. It isn't all that hard to look up say the top 4 finishers for all the events in a decade and give more weight for higher finishes and for tougher fields be able to determine which of the five had the biggest and most consistent accomplishments overall.

You also ignore the prestige factor, which clearly I place far more weight on than you do.

This is "player of the decade", not "player with the most prestigious win this decade". Prestige counts for almost zero. All that matters is toughness and depth of the field, and if an event is truly prestigious it will have a tough and deep field anyway.

I would also state that any player who has won a World Championship will tell you that they don't care if they beat SVB or you/me in the final...they have a trophy that says they were the best player in the world at that point and thats all that matters.

This is only true in small part. What they actually have is a trophy that says they triumphed over X field on this day. What makes it prestigious or not is the toughness and depth of the field far more that whether the word "world" was in the title or not. World titles are typically fairly prestigious though but it is only because and only when they have pretty tough and deep fields (which is most typical) and not because of some word or title.

What determines the size of an accomplishment is the quality and depth of the field and how high you placed in it, not "prestige", and so you have to evaluate based on the same things. I would certainly say that the "prestige" of the events would certainly be a great tie breaker if all else was equal though (two players with same amount of wins, over the same amount of time, with the same types of fields, etc) or might otherwise be a very small consideration.

 

[vjmehra]

It is almost always going to be pretty easy to know off hand the five or so people that are heads and shoulders above everyone else and that have any chance whatsoever of even being in the discussion and that need to be further "data mined" to start differentiating between who really has the bigger and more consistent accomplishments for the decade so it isn't like you have to research hundreds of people. It isn't all that hard to look up say the top 4 finishers for all the events in a decade and give more weight for higher finishes and for tougher fields be able to determine which of the five had the biggest and most consistent accomplishments overall.

Probably not...but clearly neither of us can be bothered to do so to back up our respective arguments

This is "player of the decade", not "player with the most prestigious win this decade". Prestige counts for almost zero.

In amongst quite a lot of sensible comments you always seem to throw up something ridiculous like this...either that or again its a US thing.

In professional sport prestige is by far the most important thing, if you see an interview with any athlete...they want Olympic Gold, a Superbowl Ring, a World Cup winners medal and so on.

All that matters is toughness and depth of the field, and if an event is truly prestigious it will have a tough and deep field anyway.

This is only true in small part. What they actually have is a trophy that says they triumphed over X field on this day. What makes it prestigious or not is the toughness and depth of the field far more that whether the word "world" was in the title or not. World titles are typically fairly prestigious though but it is only because and only when they have pretty tough and deep fields (which is most typical) and not because of some word or title.

What determines the size of an accomplishment is the quality and depth of the field and how high you placed in it, not "prestige", and so you have to evaluate based on the same things. I would certainly say that the "prestige" of the events would certainly be a great tie breaker if all else was equal though (two players with same amount of wins, over the same amount of time, with the same types of fields, etc) or might otherwise be a very small consideration.

In 100 years time people can look at a list of World Champions (or even US Open winners if you prefer) and say wow that guy was champ 100 years ago. It means something.

No-one will go...hmm but did you check out the competition that year...it was a bit weak so that's not really a great achievement.

However yes as you say a prestigious event is more likely to have a tougher and deeper field.

Also in 100 years time there will be a World Championship of pool (of sorts, perhaps not any pool game we currently recognise, but something will exist)...can you be sure about the US Open (probable perhaps, but not as likely), hence people will be able to judge former World Champions, whereas the US Open may well be a small footnote in history (maybe not of course...I'm NOT saying that will be the case, merely that a World Championship will always exist as long as that particular sport exists and therefore is always likely to be the pinnacle).

 

[Tin Man]

For me I do look at it as weighted titles, and I think the free market generally does a good job of weighting it. So prize money won is a good indicator, because in general the pros follow the money. I think it is the best reflection of accomplishment. The world championship pays quite a lot, so it matters quite a lot. So does the US Open.

This is the way the World Series of Poker does it. You don't have to win a main event to become player of the year. They look at the entire picture. And some of the best in the world may never win a main event.

In the end it is a moot point. SVB will end up as player of the decade, and he will absolutely go on to win one or more world championships as well unless he actually does retire this year. I would say that I'm open to a significant wager on that if we can escrow funds and stipulate a minimum number of attempts needed before his retirement- but I don't want this to turn into a woofing thread. But the majority will speak on the POTD issue and SVB will speak on the world championship issue and in 100 years his name will be etched into the history books so it will all be put to bed soon enough.

But until he wins his multiple world titles I can live knowing that for those who only see world titles Shane isn't on their radar as the best. That's fine. Everyone gets an opinion. Appleton's a heck of a player, as are Ablin and Peach. Good shooting all.