With the advent of the use of Sabermetrics in baseball, statistical analysis has ballooned in sports. Joan Vickers started the trend years ago with her recognition that success in targeting skills were related to visual behaviors she called "quiet eyes". While Sabermetics was more about big data comparisons of players and putting a dollar value on how often players got on base, quiet eyes measured timing variables.
A company, DeCervo, has been bringing new neuroscience findings into baseball. By analyzing batter decisions they’ve found that a key difference between good at bats and poorer at bats is related to swinging or not swinging. They’ve used their findings to help train batters to start to swing earlier on pitches in the strike zone and to lay off pitches outside the zone. Their initial findings were that better batters were better at laying off bad pitches. It was the decision to not swing that intrigued me.
Other research scientists in neuroscience made a different but related finding. They found out that in players who were successful in executing a skill, the part of the brain related to prediction, lit up prior to and during execution. This finding was true of hits and misses by the same player or compared to other players.
The question that emerged was since pool is more self paced and not reactive, like baseball, if a decision making matrix could be developed that allowed players to use the science. If a player doesn’t have a definitive sense of success when down, don’t both findings, the ability to not pull the trigger and the need for a sense of a positive outcome, seem relevant?
If so, when during the time at the table, should it occur? In fact, was there more than one relevant decision point to pass through?
Descriptions by pros suggest at least three decision points. First is the away from the table, deciding on the shot moment. That decision should be made from a horizon sighting position and needs to be decisive. I’ve seen Efren at this stage get down to "try on" a shot then get up and start over. In fact, I’ve seen him do it multiple times on the same shot. The point is to pick a shot, then commit. Don’t stay down if you haven’t picked and committed (don’t step up to the plate/ask for time).
Next comes the alignment and aim decision. The player decides where to bridge and how. Maybe an extension or rest is needed. Once again, success certainty and commitment are key. Without them, "take the pitch", get up or don’t get down.
Finally, the execution phase needs time to assess the delivery through the ball. That assessment must include a certainty of success prediction component, if we are using the neuroscience to guide us. Once that is felt, the eyes need to re-find the target and focus in on the exact impact needed, to control both balls. If all elements are in place, the sensed stroke is allowed to happen. Without certainty, don’t pull the trigger.
Is this not the old trio of ready, set, go - reinvented?
It’s more than making three commitments or transitional mindsets. The commitments emerge from the certainty level reaching a tipping point for the decisions. That predictive nature is based on level of certainty. Unless it is high enough it is time to re-assess.
Being willing to stop and start over or re-group, to me, is the equivalent of the baseball hitter being able to be keyed up to hit but then disciplined enough to take a pitch. Not swinging when it’s not right is as important as swinging when it is.
Aren’t we all guilty of pulling the trigger on some shots when in fact we should get up and start over? Discipline of this sort is recognized in baseball. Isn’t it just as important in pool? We need to recognize it as part of an arsenal of skills necessary in development of an expert game.
A company, DeCervo, has been bringing new neuroscience findings into baseball. By analyzing batter decisions they’ve found that a key difference between good at bats and poorer at bats is related to swinging or not swinging. They’ve used their findings to help train batters to start to swing earlier on pitches in the strike zone and to lay off pitches outside the zone. Their initial findings were that better batters were better at laying off bad pitches. It was the decision to not swing that intrigued me.
Other research scientists in neuroscience made a different but related finding. They found out that in players who were successful in executing a skill, the part of the brain related to prediction, lit up prior to and during execution. This finding was true of hits and misses by the same player or compared to other players.
The question that emerged was since pool is more self paced and not reactive, like baseball, if a decision making matrix could be developed that allowed players to use the science. If a player doesn’t have a definitive sense of success when down, don’t both findings, the ability to not pull the trigger and the need for a sense of a positive outcome, seem relevant?
If so, when during the time at the table, should it occur? In fact, was there more than one relevant decision point to pass through?
Descriptions by pros suggest at least three decision points. First is the away from the table, deciding on the shot moment. That decision should be made from a horizon sighting position and needs to be decisive. I’ve seen Efren at this stage get down to "try on" a shot then get up and start over. In fact, I’ve seen him do it multiple times on the same shot. The point is to pick a shot, then commit. Don’t stay down if you haven’t picked and committed (don’t step up to the plate/ask for time).
Next comes the alignment and aim decision. The player decides where to bridge and how. Maybe an extension or rest is needed. Once again, success certainty and commitment are key. Without them, "take the pitch", get up or don’t get down.
Finally, the execution phase needs time to assess the delivery through the ball. That assessment must include a certainty of success prediction component, if we are using the neuroscience to guide us. Once that is felt, the eyes need to re-find the target and focus in on the exact impact needed, to control both balls. If all elements are in place, the sensed stroke is allowed to happen. Without certainty, don’t pull the trigger.
Is this not the old trio of ready, set, go - reinvented?
It’s more than making three commitments or transitional mindsets. The commitments emerge from the certainty level reaching a tipping point for the decisions. That predictive nature is based on level of certainty. Unless it is high enough it is time to re-assess.
Being willing to stop and start over or re-group, to me, is the equivalent of the baseball hitter being able to be keyed up to hit but then disciplined enough to take a pitch. Not swinging when it’s not right is as important as swinging when it is.
Aren’t we all guilty of pulling the trigger on some shots when in fact we should get up and start over? Discipline of this sort is recognized in baseball. Isn’t it just as important in pool? We need to recognize it as part of an arsenal of skills necessary in development of an expert game.
Last edited: