14.1 Stats -- 2016 World Tournament, Double- and Single-Elim. Matches, Sept. 2016

Here's a comparison of 2016 vs. 2015 for these aggregate stats for the streamed double- and single-elimination matches (4 games both years to 150 points, 7 matches this year and 8 last year to 200 points, and the finals to 300 points both years). The first number for each item is for 2016, the second for 2015.


For the 4 games played to 150 Points:

• Points per Inning
  • For match winners: 16.7, 30.0
  • For match losers: 4.7, 20.0
  • For both: 10.8, 25.3
  
  Points per Attempted Scoring Inning
  • For match winners: 30.0, 35.3
  • For match losers: 9.9, 25.7
  • For both: 21.1, 31.0
  
  Points per Miss or Unintentional Foul
  • For match winners: 46.2, 54.5
  • For match losers: 10.6, 25.7
  • For both: 27.1, 38.4
  
  Average (mean) High Run
  • For match winners: 76, 78
  • For match losers: 19, 67
  • For both: 47, 73
  
  Average (median) High Run
  • For match winners: 71.5, 68.5
  • For match losers: 18.5, 62.5
  • For both: 35.5, 68.5
  
  Average number of innings per match
  • Total innings: 9.0, 5.0 for match winners, 8.5, 4.5 for match losers
  • Attempted scoring innings: 5.0, 4.3 for match winners, 4.0, 3.5 for match losers
  
  Average (mean) match score: 150 - 40, 150 - 90
  Average (mean) match length: 106 min., 102 min.
  Average (mean) points per minute: 1.8, 2.4

For the 7 (8 in 2015) games played to 200 Points:

• Points per Inning
  • For match winners: 13.3, 29.1
  • For match losers: 8.4, 11.9
  • For both: 10.9, 20.8
  
  Points per Attempted Scoring Inning
  • For match winners: 24.6, 44.4
  • For match losers: 15.8, 21.0
  • For both: 20.3, 34.0
  
  Points per Miss or Unintentional Foul
  • For match winners: 31.8, 66.7
  • For match losers: 17.1, 24.3
  • For both: 24.1, 45.1
  
  Average (mean) High Run
  • For match winners: 78, 108
  • For match losers: 49, 42
  • For both: 64, 75
  
  Average (median) High Run
  • For match winners: 70, 110.5
  • For match losers: 31, 47.5
  • For both: 69.5, 62.5
  
  Average number of innings per match
  • Total innings: 15.0, 6.9 for match winners, 14.3, 6.4 for match losers
  • Attempted scoring innings: 8.1, 4.5 for match winners, 7.6, 3.6 for match losers
  
  Average (mean) match score: 200 - 120, 200 - 76
  Average (mean) match length: 162 min., 138 min.
  Average (mean) points per minute: 2.0, 2.0

For all 12 (13 in 2015) double- and single-elimination games, i.e., without regard to whether the game was to 150 points, or 200 points, or 300 points (the finals):

• Points per Inning
  • For match winners: 13.5, 29.1
  • For match losers: 7.8, 15.2
  • For both: 10.7, 22.4
  
  Points per Attempted Scoring Inning
  • For match winners: 24.7, 39.7
  • For match losers: 15.3, 23.3
  • For both: 20.3, 32.3
  
  Points per Miss or Unintentional Foul
  • For match winners: 33.8, 58.1
  • For match losers: 16.2, 26.3
  • For both: 24.4, 41.7
  
  Average (mean) High Run
  • For match winners: 75, 100
  • For match losers: 40, 51
  • For both: 58, 75
  
  Average (median) High Run
  • For match winners: 71.5, 101
  • For match losers: 25.5, 50
  • For both: 56.5, 65
  
  Average (mean) points per minute: 1.9, 2.0

spartan said:

Thanks , AtLarge
Looking at your latest stats on 2015 v 2016, I have a say this year performances were way way better than last year
Maybe the field this year is much stronger than last year

Click to expand...

It was the other way around, spartan -- many of the stats were better last year (2016 is the first number for each item). I don't really think it was a difference in field strength, it was just a difference in how some of the matches went. The Immonen/Zvi match this year was quite a horror show, going 46 innings with 22 missed shots and 30 fouls (22 intentional). And when you are basing numbers on only about a dozen matches, including an outlier or two, results can change significantly from one year to the next.

Conventional wisdom -- It is a disadvantage to have to play the opening safety break shot in 14.1 against a good player on a 9-foot table. But what do the stats show for this event?

The opening breaker won the game 20 times and lost 9 times. [Note: My stream was frozen during the non-breaker's response to the opening break in one match, so that match is excluded from the following stats in this post.]

But more immediate than the overall game result is how successful the incoming player's response was to the opening break.

• The non-breaker played safe 4 times, scratched on a safe once, and played an intentional foul once. The breaker responded to those 6 shots with 2 safes, 1 intentional foul, 1 miss, and runs of 16 and 66.

• The non-breaker shot and made at least one ball 10 times. The total number of balls pocketed on the non-breaker's first inning was 307 (including two big runs of 93 and 113).

• The non-breaker shot and missed or fouled unintentionally 12 times. The breaker responded with 1 safe and 11 attempted scoring innings for a total of 255 balls pocketed.

So these results would not seem to support the conventional wisdom. The non-breaker had control of the table after his first shot in a decided minority of the games.

But these are small numbers, so let's look at several years combined.

For the 110 streamed matches I watched in this event (and saw the start of the match) for the 4 years 2013-2016 combined, the opening breaker won 57 matches and lost 53 (52% winning percentage). Two of those years it was 50/50, one year the non-breaker won far more than the breaker, and this year the breaker won far more than the non-breaker.

So I'm not really seeing any consistent support for the conventional wisdom.

In 25 of the 29 matches on the main streaming table, the opening break was from the breaker's right side of the table.


:wink:

pt109 said:

I don't think I've EVER broke from the left side.....gonna have to think about that.

....I favor my right eye....???

Click to expand...

I'd guess most right-handers tend to break from the right side. But that also means opponents get used to responding from the left head corner. Shouldn't we be mixing up the breaking side to throw off the non-breaker?

[weak theory]