Data on types of position methods

dquarasr

dquarasr

Registered
Some of the recent discussions on shape, plus some recently viewed videos on shot lines got me thinking.

I have been watching a number of "pro" videos (Billiard TV, available in my area via Xumo is mildly addicting! 24x7 POOL!), and I've been gathering some data.

While watching, I noticed these five techniques to obtaining shape:

Stun/Soft: the CB needs to move very little. I categorize these as stun-runs, stop shots, very short draw shots, or even very slow-rolled shots. These shots all have in common that the CB moves very little, usually around 6" or less (but there are some examples where this may mean up to a whole diamond of movement).

Speed Control: Most of these shots required the CB to stop in a very, very small window, typically when crossing the shot line or having the next shot go between obstacle balls creating small windows.

Line: The classic shot affording the biggest "zone", where the CB can land many diamonds' worth along the shot line for the next ball, and still afford an easy next shot.

Safe: The CB is hidden. I think this category can have attributes of all the other shots, such as the CB being hidden along a line, or requiring pin-point accuracy to nestle it up against another OB. Given more time, I will probably be able to eliminate this category altogether and classify all shots as one of the other categories. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think this category should be folded into the others.

OB Contact: The CB's progress is purposely arrested by contact with another OB.

Here are (very) preliminary results:

Stun/Soft: 25%
Speed: 29%
Line: 34%
Safe: 10%
OB Contact: 3%

My categorizations are 100% subjective; I viewed the shot and using what I know about pool (which can fit into the proverbial thimble) determined into which category the shot fell. My sample size isn't quite large enough yet; I intend to continue to gather stats over the coming weeks. So far I've watched Pro Women's 10, Pro Men's 10, English 8, and Pro Women's 9.

Some observations so far:
  • Higher ranked players use line and stun more than lower ranked players (think "SVB"s of the pool world as opposed to players with low name recognition). (This comment is highly subjective on my part.)
  • English 8 uses much higher stun than other games; I assume it's the nature of the small tables English 8 is played on and kinda makes sense.
  • Some shots can be classified in more than one category; I selected the one that seemed "most" appropriate to the category's definition as described above.
  • As expected, 9-ball seemed to have more Speed and Line shots than other games, because the CB typically needs to move farther for next shot in rotation. Similarly as expected, 8-ball has more instances of Stun/Slow because of more OBs to select from and more obstacles.
I think a better analysis would be to also include the game being played. I will add that to my future viewings as I gather stats.

This is a much more fun and instructive way to watch pool videos. It really keeps me engaged, and hopefully the results can be instructive.

Feel free to help me: post your results, too. For it to be a worthwhile database, I'd need the shot counts in each category, and the game being played (please be specific if you participate: Men/Women, game (English 8, "regular" 8, 9, 10, 14.1) Because this analysis is individual shot-specific, stats don't need to be acquired for entire matches; just a few racks still work, and even missing a few shots during a match is OK, too.

As posts are added here I will aggregate leveraging Excel tools and pivot tables, and I will post new aggregate numbers periodically.

Of course this could be totally off-the-wall. Please let me know and I'll STFU. LOL.
 
It is simple: categorize the shots, tell me the game played and by whom. I can present the results as detailed or as high-level as people want. Excel pivot tables are quite powerful.
 
dquarasr said:
Didn’t say it would.

Isn’t anyone here curious?
Click to expand...

I like the info, it's a topic I've been giving more focus lately based on the discussions, recent Dr. Dave video, etc. and trying watch matches with this topic in mind lately.

Been so fortunate to have so many free streamed matches coming out of Vegas the last couple weeks it's been really nice. It's an area of my game I'd really like to improve too, I too often take the "speed" shot over the "line" shot because of comfort in just making the shot, but I then suffer on the next one. My goal this weekend is to work through some racks and drills really focusing on finding the "line" shot and getting a better feel for identifying them more quickly in a game situation
 
Not gonna lie, this seems like a waste of time. There are wonderful free vids on YT on position fundamentals and common paths taken by pros around the table.... Dr. Dave, Tor Lowry, Niels Feijen, all have great vids on this.

If you want to analyze games, analyze your own and see how often you are in line with those position fundamentals and where you strayed from the advice in terms of your choices. Then, looking at performance.... How do you tend to miss shape? Do certain positional shots force more misses?

The truth is that pros try to play as high percentage shots as they can and the positional fundamentals outlined in those YT vids will help you also choose higher percentage routes around the table by applying the same general principles of position play. No need for diving into raw data on your own. As far as the shots needed... stop/stun are the foundation of a good positional game. Being able to stop the ball at various speeds over various distances is a skill every player needs to develop in order to play high percentage, predictable, paths around the table. Working on those is 1000% better use of ur time. And if you gotta be at the screen, those positional vids don't hurt. Then maybe, for your own interest you can play along and predict pro choices when you watch matches to see how well you apply those concepts.
 
  • Love
Reactions: bbb
WobblyStroke said:
Not gonna lie, this seems like a waste of time. There are wonderful free vids on YT on position fundamentals and common paths taken by pros around the table.... Dr. Dave, Tor Lowry, Niels Feijen, all have great vids on this.

If you want to analyze games, analyze your own and see how often you are in line with those position fundamentals and where you strayed from the advice in terms of your choices. Then, looking at performance.... How do you tend to miss shape? Do certain positional shots force more misses?

The truth is that pros try to play as high percentage shots as they can and the positional fundamentals outlined in those YT vids will help you also choose higher percentage routes around the table by applying the same general principles of position play. No need for diving into raw data on your own. As far as the shots needed... stop/stun are the foundation of a good positional game. Being able to stop the ball at various speeds over various distances is a skill every player needs to develop in order to play high percentage, predictable, paths around the table. Working on those is 1000% better use of ur time. And if you gotta be at the screen, those positional vids don't hurt. Then maybe, for your own interest you can play along and predict pro choices when you watch matches to see how well you apply those concepts.
Click to expand...
Got it.

For me it’s not time wasted. It’s usually during those overnight hours when the insomniac in me visits, which is almost every night, and I can’t be at the table making clickety-clack noises of pool ball impacts (I already annoy the Spousal Unit enough during the day, of which she is sometimes tolerant but sometimes not), and I would probably be entertaining myself watching matches anyway. It’s not as though I carve out time to do explicitly this….

But points taken. I will likely continue to collect data until it no longer pleases me. My expectations are set accordingly.
 
I think this info is interesting. What would be really nice is if someone had a program that could analyze shots directly from video so many matches could be compiled.

Many years ago I recorded shot difficulty from live matches. For every shot I estimated the difficulty where a short straight in would be a 1 and a spot shot is about 12. What I found is that Irving Crane averaged shots that were about 3 while most other players averaged shots that were 4 our higher. (Yes, it was that long ago.)
 
Bob Jewett said:
I think this info is interesting. What would be really nice is if someone had a program that could analyze shots directly from video so many matches could be compiled.

Many years ago I recorded shot difficulty from live matches. For every shot I estimated the difficulty where a short straight in would be a 1 and a spot shot is about 12. What I found is that Irving Crane averaged shots that were about 3 while most other players averaged shots that were 4 our higher. (Yes, it was that long ago.)
Click to expand...
I wonder what Mosconi’s would be.
 
dquarasr said:
Some of the recent discussions on shape, plus some recently viewed videos on shot lines got me thinking.

I have been watching a number of "pro" videos (Billiard TV, available in my area via Xumo is mildly addicting! 24x7 POOL!), and I've been gathering some data.

While watching, I noticed these five techniques to obtaining shape:

Stun/Soft: the CB needs to move very little. I categorize these as stun-runs, stop shots, very short draw shots, or even very slow-rolled shots. These shots all have in common that the CB moves very little, usually around 6" or less (but there are some examples where this may mean up to a whole diamond of movement).

Speed Control: Most of these shots required the CB to stop in a very, very small window, typically when crossing the shot line or having the next shot go between obstacle balls creating small windows.

Line: The classic shot affording the biggest "zone", where the CB can land many diamonds' worth along the shot line for the next ball, and still afford an easy next shot.

Safe: The CB is hidden. I think this category can have attributes of all the other shots, such as the CB being hidden along a line, or requiring pin-point accuracy to nestle it up against another OB. Given more time, I will probably be able to eliminate this category altogether and classify all shots as one of the other categories. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think this category should be folded into the others.

OB Contact: The CB's progress is purposely arrested by contact with another OB.

Here are (very) preliminary results:

Stun/Soft: 25%
Speed: 29%
Line: 34%
Safe: 10%
OB Contact: 3%

My categorizations are 100% subjective; I viewed the shot and using what I know about pool (which can fit into the proverbial thimble) determined into which category the shot fell. My sample size isn't quite large enough yet; I intend to continue to gather stats over the coming weeks. So far I've watched Pro Women's 10, Pro Men's 10, English 8, and Pro Women's 9.

Some observations so far:
  • Higher ranked players use line and stun more than lower ranked players (think "SVB"s of the pool world as opposed to players with low name recognition). (This comment is highly subjective on my part.)
  • English 8 uses much higher stun than other games; I assume it's the nature of the small tables English 8 is played on and kinda makes sense.
  • Some shots can be classified in more than one category; I selected the one that seemed "most" appropriate to the category's definition as described above.
  • As expected, 9-ball seemed to have more Speed and Line shots than other games, because the CB typically needs to move farther for next shot in rotation. Similarly as expected, 8-ball has more instances of Stun/Slow because of more OBs to select from and more obstacles.
I think a better analysis would be to also include the game being played. I will add that to my future viewings as I gather stats.

This is a much more fun and instructive way to watch pool videos. It really keeps me engaged, and hopefully the results can be instructive.

Feel free to help me: post your results, too. For it to be a worthwhile database, I'd need the shot counts in each category, and the game being played (please be specific if you participate: Men/Women, game (English 8, "regular" 8, 9, 10, 14.1) Because this analysis is individual shot-specific, stats don't need to be acquired for entire matches; just a few racks still work, and even missing a few shots during a match is OK, too.

As posts are added here I will aggregate leveraging Excel tools and pivot tables, and I will post new aggregate numbers periodically.

Of course this could be totally off-the-wall. Please let me know and I'll STFU. LOL.
Click to expand...
Of course this information is helpful, relevant. My first thought is a clinic looking at stun/soft, then speed, then line shots. Why not?
 
This is really interesting and l look forward to seeing more refined results once the sample size drastically increases. The optimal position route is not always obvious and these statistics might make it a little easier to decide on the tough ones.
 
dquarasr said:
I wonder what Mosconi’s would be.
Click to expand...
Willie was proud that he reduced Greenleaf's standard of easy shots by a factor of two. Unfortunately, we have no useful videos/films of him running hundreds.
 
dquarasr said:
Got it.

For me it’s not time wasted. It’s usually during those overnight hours when the insomniac in me visits, which is almost every night, and I can’t be at the table making clickety-clack noises of pool ball impacts (I already annoy the Spousal Unit enough during the day, of which she is sometimes tolerant but sometimes not), and I would probably be entertaining myself watching matches anyway. It’s not as though I carve out time to do explicitly this….

But points taken. I will likely continue to collect data until it no longer pleases me. My expectations are set accordingly.
Click to expand...
For several years, I largely analyzed data for a living. I solved some fairly significant problems in front of my computer using Minitab (statistical software). I recall one time my manager stopped by when I was deeply immersed in some data. He asked what I was solving or improving. I responded "I don't know, maybe nothing. I won't know until I get through looking".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top