1000 Ball Run

[L.S. Dennis]

I completely agree with your point about the luck factor in straight pool runs, but to put Tony Gwynn above Joe Dimaggio as a hitter is a joke, unless you're simply referring to batting average and nothing else. The generally agreed upon overall gauge for batters is the OPS+ metric, which adds On Base Percentage + Slugging Average, and adjusts the resulting number for era. By that measure, Dimaggio's OPS+ was 155, while Gwynn's was 132.

Of course Williams' 191 OPS+ is off the charts, topped only by Babe Ruth's 208.

Absolutely correct, to put Tony Gwynn above DiMaggio as a hitter is a joke. Both 'Joltin' Joe, and Ted Williams seem to be in categories of their own. Just like DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak (Pete Rose came the closest to it with 44 in the 70's) and Wilt's 100 point game are two records that may never be equaled.

 

[mr3cushion]

Had Mosconi played on Diamond pockets, he'd barely be able to run 100 balls. Keep in mind he broke the record on an 8 ft table with 5 inch pockets

YOU have NO facts to boast this claim! Mosconi ran 98% of the balls he made in the side-pockets to the rack.

 

[jsp]

I completely agree with your point about the luck factor in straight pool runs, but to put Tony Gwynn above Joe Dimaggio as a hitter is a joke, unless you're simply referring to batting average and nothing else. The generally agreed upon overall gauge for batters is the OPS+ metric, which adds On Base Percentage + Slugging Average, and adjusts the resulting number for era. By that measure, Dimaggio's OPS+ was 155, while Gwynn's was 132.

Of course Williams' 191 OPS+ is off the charts, topped only by Babe Ruth's 208.

I suppose I needed to clarify that, in the context of a long hitting streak, I meant greatest "pure hitter" instead of just "hitter" (since a pure hitter with a high batting average has a higher probability of an extended hitting streak).

If you use OPS+ as the primary metric to gauge hitters, then I guess you'd have to conclude Mark McGwire (163) was a much better "hitter" than Tony Gwynn (132).

 

[kanzzo]

I really like your take on this. Very interesting stuff. From a strictly statistical perspective, you're 100% right. But I think the statistics overlook a few key elements like getting on a hot streak or being in a unique state of mind on a particular day.

When I was watching John Schmidt's attempts to break his own record, he would have off days where he couldn't run many balls. Then he would start fresh the next day and put up a few 300+ ball runs. Then he would start building momentum and confidence and he cracked 400 a few times soon after. Then that momentum continued to build until he eventually broke the record. So momentum played a huge factor and skewed the stats.

If he were to just have a single attempt every morning, alone in his basement, your statistics would probably be right. But when he is on camera, knowing he only has a certain amount of time to break the record. And continuing to push himself each day, it creates a statistical anomaly.

Also, I don't think it's accurate to assume that the odds of running 600 balls is the same as the odds to complete two consecutive 300 ball runs. For one, once you complete a run of 300 you're going to be in stroke so the odds of doing it again will be more likely. But also, the stress of being on a big run plays a major factor and makes it harder. It's just not as simple as the statistics suggest.

I think streaks are just a statistical occurance.

If you throw a coin 1000 times you expect to have a streak of 10 heads in a row once (obviously no skill or higher power involved here). And watching the high run attempts (and time taking Schmidt to break the record) I am pretty sure the math is pretty spot on.

Sure, John Schmidt had better days and worse days. He has his A game and C game sometimes (days when he hardly could put 100 togeter and days when he puts half a dozen 200+. His chances of running 400 are obviously better, when he is in stroke. But especially analysing the runs from John Schmidts attempts let me beleive that the math is spot on (he had about 4 times as many 200+ as he had 300+ and 400+. like for every 400+ he shot he had 4 300+ and 16 200+ and 64 100+)

Let put it another way: once the rack is open John Schmidt can run the balls as good as anybody. About 90% of his runs ended on a break ball or first (difficult) shot after the breakball.

So say that every pro can handle pressure well and will make all the shots in straight pool anyway, no matter if he is on a run of 300 or 700. The only difference for the high run is: how often will he break in succession without freezing CB safe to a ball without a shot and without scratching from the break (and without freezing to the head rail).

If it's just luck factor of straight pool then my analysis is spot on. If Shaw and Filler will fire the first ball after the break when CB is frozen to the head rail than this explains why their stats to run 100 are better than that of John Schmidt (who will miss this long first ball more often).

And perhaps players will adopt the break ball that Shaw used like 90% of the time manufacturing it in perfect position and using extreme follow with exteme cut to reduce his scratch of the break percentage opening the balls to the maximum.

 

[collins22]

Had Mosconi played on Diamond pockets, he'd barely be able to run 100 balls. Keep in mind he broke the record on an 8 ft table with 5 inch pockets

What ???? Running 526 (or even a 100) is *HARDER* to do on a 8 ft table. I'm 1000% certain the A+ players would agree since a small table gets waaay to crowded compared to a 9 footer. For me, running out in 8 ball seems harder to do on a 8 ft too for the same reason. I love the extra room on a 9 ft to move that cueball around AND have space between balls !!

 

[tim913]

Is there a high run in bumper pool?

 

[westcoast]

What ???? Running 526 (or even a 100) is *HARDER* to do on a 8 ft table. I'm 1000% certain the A+ players would agree since a small table gets waaay to crowded compared to a 9 footer. For me, running out in 8 ball seems harder to do on a 8 ft too for the same reason. I love the extra room on a 9 ft to move that cueball around AND have space between balls !!

I agree with you personally, but I think Schmidt said it is easier to run balls in straight pool on a 8 footer. I wonder how much he has played on 8 footers though

 

[iusedtoberich]

What ???? Running 526 (or even a 100) is *HARDER* to do on a 8 ft table. I'm 1000% certain the A+ players would agree since a small table gets waaay to crowded compared to a 9 footer. For me, running out in 8 ball seems harder to do on a 8 ft too for the same reason. I love the extra room on a 9 ft to move that cueball around AND have space between balls !!

Disagree strongly. I’d bet the house a 7’ is easier than an 8’ is easier than a 9’ is easier than a 10’.

For any game. Straight pool, 8 ball, or 9 ball.

Short and easy shots trump crowded.

 

[AtLarge]

per John Schmidt on AzB about 15 years ago:

" ... for the record i think 14.1 on the bartable is easier than 9ft.​

​

you can reach allbreakballs,combos and shots are a joke etc.​

​

yes its more confined space but with the cueball control ive learned from 14.1 thats the last thing im worried about.​

​

for the record the easiest table to play 14.1 is a 4x8 .ive played on them all and its the easiest no doubt. enough room to play but still easier on shotmaking,reaching,combos than 9ft."​

 

[iusedtoberich]

I'm 75% sure Schmidt revised his statement slightly about 2 months ago on FB that a 7' table was the easiest for straight pool out of all of them. Too hard to find the comment, but that's what I remember.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Wow, I found it with a search! He did not compare the 8' table in this statement, however.

Here is the link if you are on FB and want to read the comments:

John Schmidt

I saw a thread today Debating whether a seven foot table or nine foot table was harder for 8ball. I'm going to make this as clear as I can. All pool games and by all I mean All pool games, Yes,...

www.facebook.com

 

[AtLarge]

Wow, I found it with a search! He did not compare the 8' table in this statement, however. ...

Well, I read the comments, and, yes, it seemed like he was always talking about 7-footer vs. 9-footer. So I wonder whether he still feels that an 8-footer is easier than either of those (all other things equal) for 14.1.

 

[Nyquil]

Been watching John Schmidt run balls and it made me think: I believe there are several players that could run a 1000 balls in straight pool if enough of a financial incentive existed for them to do it. Has there ever been a discussion of sponsors putting up a prize fund where players would pay a fee to break the record and the prize fund would build until it was broken making the fund an even larger incentive as players don’t make it?

Shaw is going to do it just for the glory.

 

[straightline]

Game Of Millimeters
Five Inch Pockets

Hope he gets to 800 at least. Meanwhile there are Asians busy on Chinese tables...

 

[Badpenguin]

Well, I read the comments, and, yes, it seemed like he was always talking about 7-footer vs. 9-footer. So I wonder whether he still feels that an 8-footer is easier than either of those (all other things equal) for 14.1.

I'd like to see him actually try and prove that his average runs would be higher on a bar table than a 9 footer.

 

[Texas Carom Club]

I'd like to see him actually try and prove that his average runs would be higher on a bar table than a 9 footer.

thorsten has said the bar table is very hard for him
he tried playing on a diamond and it took him a week to run 100 on it

 

[Texas Carom Club]

per John Schmidt on AzB about 15 years ago:

" ... for the record i think 14.1 on the bartable is easier than 9ft.​

​

you can reach allbreakballs,combos and shots are a joke etc.​

​

yes its more confined space but with the cueball control ive learned from 14.1 thats the last thing im worried about.​

​

for the record the easiest table to play 14.1 is a 4x8 .ive played on them all and its the easiest no doubt. enough room to play but still easier on shotmaking,reaching,combos than 9ft."​

the real joke is to believe anything that comes from johns mouth

 

[Badpenguin]

thorsten has said the bar table is very hard for him
he tried playing on a diamond and it took him a week to run 100 on it

It took him a "solid two days". Either way, it is evidence that does not agree with Schmidt's assertion.

 

[Texas Carom Club]

It took him a "solid two days". Either way, it is evidence that does not agree with Schmidt's assertion.

and hes not the only one

100 ball run in Straight Pool on a Bar Table

Thorsten the hitman 100 ball run in Straight Pool on a Bar Table! Took me two solid days to get this done. Do you think it’s easier or harder to run balls on a bar box compared to a 9 footer...

forums.azbilliards.com

Bar table is the hardest for 14.1

No doubt a 7ft table would be the hardest size to run balls on for sure. Ive never heard of any one running 200 on a 7ft. In the long run I think top players can run more racks of 9 ball than racks of straight pool on a 7ft. table.
The next hardest would be a 8ft. table. There is so much congestion in this small area. Only ever heard of 1 run over 300 on a 8ft. table which is Mosconis 526 and dont think he ran over 200 often as he would quit almost everytime he ran 100 and go to the next exhibition in another town.
The 9ft. table is most used and for sure the easiest size to run balls on.Where clusters are broke apart the balls almost never get into tough positions after that because the table has so much more room and almost never have to use a bridge.
The 10ft. table is the hardest as its not only bigger but harder to break apart clusters and a bridge is used more often.
Ive never run 100 on a bar table and tryed a few times where on a 9ft. table ive run over 100 balls about 700 times.

 

[Poolmanis]

Bar table is the hardest for 14.1

Nope