14.1 Stats -- 2019 Am. Straight Pool Championship (Single-Elim. Portion), Oct. 2019

A

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are some stats from the single-elimination portion of the 2019 American Straight Pool Championship played October 22-26 at Q-Master Billiards in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Free streaming was provided by the Billiard Sports Network on their YouTube channel.

The stats are for the 6 matches streamed for this portion of the event, and they represented 26% of the total of 23 matches played in this portion of the event. The first 3 matches were played on Friday, Oct. 25 and the last 3 on Saturday, October 26. The Finals match was to 175 points, the others were all to 150 points.

This portion of the event was preceded by a group stage (6 groups of 7 players), with round-robin play in each group. Twenty-four players -- the top 4 from each group -- advanced to the single-elimination stage. The top player from each group plus the 2 players with the next-best records received a bye in the first single-elimination round.

For similar information on the streamed matches in the round-robin portion of the event, see this thread: https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=501456

The conditions for this event included:
- Diamond 9-foot table with blue Simonis cloth;​
- Aramith Tournament balls with a measles cue ball;​
- triangle rack;​
- racker determined by the players (most racked their own);​
- foul on all balls;​
- lag for opening break.​

Attempted Scoring Innings means the player's total number of innings for the game minus the number of innings that he played only a safety or an intentional foul (no attempt to score a point).

PPI is Points per Inning based on the total number of innings in the game for that player. [Note: I call this measure Points per Inning rather than Balls per Inning to be a bit more precise in the definition, since the number of points a player is credited with in a game can be quite different from the number of balls he pocketed.]

PPASI is Points per Attempted Scoring Inning, i.e., points per inning based on the number of Attempted Scoring Innings in the game for that player.

All information is given first for the match winner and then for the match loser (separated by a comma).

Match #1 -- Darren Appleton defeated Shaun Wilkie 150- 21
3 Highest Runs: (62 • 30 • 19&out), (21 • 1 • 1)
Total Innings: 12, 12
PPI (Points per Inning): 12.5, 1.8
Attempted Scoring Innings: 7, 6
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 21.4, 3.5
Safeties: 7, 6
Fouls, intentional: 1, 0
Fouls, unintentional: 0, 2
Missed shots: 3, 4
Match Length: 114 min.
Points per Minute: 1.5

Match #2 -- Ruslan Chinakhov d. John Schmidt 150 - 141
3 Highest Runs: (61 • 39&out • 37), (68 • 50 • 24)
Total Innings: 6, 5
PPI (Points per Inning): 25.0, 28.2
Attempted Scoring Innings: 4, 3
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 37.5, 47.0
Safeties: 2, 2
Fouls, intentional: 0, 0
Fouls, unintentional: 1, 0
Missed shots: 2, 3
Match Length: 135 min.
Points per Minute: 2.2

Match #3 (QUARTERFINAL) -- Alex Pagulayan d. Jani Siekkinen 150 - 14
3 Highest Runs: (83&out • 55 • 12), (9 • 7 • 2)
Total Innings: 14, 13
PPI (Points per Inning): 10.7, 1.1
Attempted Scoring Innings: 4, 5
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 37.5, 2.8
Safeties: 8, 6
Fouls, intentional: 1, 1
Fouls, unintentional: 1, 2
Missed shots: 3, 4
Match Length: 117 min.
Points per Minute: 1.4

Match #4 (SEMIFINAL) -- Ruslan Chinakhov d. Albin Ouschan 150 - 17
3 Highest Runs: (141 • 9&out • -), (17 • - • -)
Total Innings: 4, 3
PPI (Points per Inning): 37.5, 5.7
Attempted Scoring Innings: 2, 2
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 75.0, 8.5
Safeties: 2, 1
Fouls, intentional: 0, 0
Fouls, unintentional: 0, 0
Missed shots: 1, 2
Match Length: 72 min.
Points per Minute: 2.3

Match #5 (SEMIFINAL) -- Alex Pagulayan d. Marco Teurscher 150 - 127
3 Highest Runs: (86 • 30 • 14), (79 • 24 • 13)
Total Innings: 10, 10
PPI (Points per Inning): 15.0, 12.7
Attempted Scoring Innings: 7, 6
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 21.4, 21.2
Safeties: 5, 4
Fouls, intentional: 1, 1
Fouls, unintentional: 1, 0
Missed shots: 2, 5
Match Length: 182 min.
Points per Minute: 1.5

Match #6 (FINAL) -- Ruslan Chinakhov d. Alex Pagulayan 175 - (-2)
3 Highest Runs: (99 • 76 • -), (no runs)
Total Innings: 4, 4
PPI (Points per Inning): 43.8, (-0.5)
Attempted Scoring Innings: 2, 1
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 87.5, (-2.0)
Safeties: 3, 2
Fouls, intentional: 0, 1
Fouls, unintentional: 0, 1
Missed shots: 0, 1
Match Length: 77 min.
Points per Minute: 2.2

[Note: These stats are based on the "official" score for each match, which differed from my scoring in some cases.]
 
Last edited:
Here are some aggregate stats for the 6 streamed matches from single-elimination play (5 games to 150 points and 1 game to 175 points):


Points per Inning
• For match winners: 18.5
• For match losers: 6.8
• For both: 12.8

Points per Attempted Scoring Inning
• For match winners: 35.6
• For match losers: 13.8
• For both: 25.4

Points per Miss or Unintentional Foul
• For match winners: 66.1
• For match losers: 13.3
• For both: 32.7

Average (mean) High Run
• For match winners: 89
• For match losers: 32
• For both: 61

Average (median) High Run
• For match winners: 84.5
• For match losers: 19
• For both: 65

Average number of innings per match for the 5 matches to 150 points
• Total innings: 9.2 for match winners, 8.6 for match losers
• Attempted scoring innings: 4.8 for match winners, 4.4 for match losers

Average (mean) match score for the 5 matches to 150 points: 150 - 64 (losers' scores ranged from 14 to 141)

Average (mean) match length for the 5 matches to 150 points: 124 min. (range 72 min. - 182 min.)

Average (mean) points per minute for all 6 matches: 1.8 (range 1.4 - 2.3)​
 
Last edited:
Ruslan Chinakhov defeated Alex Pagulayan 175 - (-2) today in the final match of the 2019 American 14.1 Straight Pool Championship. Here is how the game went, inning by inning.

Scores in brackets are for Pagulayan (P) first (since he shot the opening break), then Chinakhov (C). References to "left" and "right" sides of the table are as the player looks from the head of the table to the foot.

P1 (Pagulayan inning #1) -- opening safety break from right side was a foul (pocket scratch) into the left head pocket but not a breaking foul. By the rules, this should have given Chinakhov ball in hand behind the line with no option for a re-break. Instead, they played it as a mandatory re-break by Pagulayan. He played a safe from the right side, leaving a ball out on the left side. [(-1) - 0]
C1 -- ran 99, then played safe. [(-1) - 99]

P2 -- safe
C2 -- safe

P3 -- intentional foul into the rack. [(-2) - 99]
C3 -- safe to the foot rail.

P4 -- missed a long shot on the 3-ball to the right head pocket.
C4 -- ran 76 and out. [(-2) - 175]. This run started with an attempt to break open the rack shooting the 3-ball, but the cue ball missed the pile. He followed that with a long, real thin cut on the 10-ball to the left foot pocket, opening the rack. Two racks later he left the cue ball nearly against the 7-ball with nothing else to shoot. He made a paper-thin power cut shot on the 7-ball to the left side pocket and then ran out.

________________________________________

Summary data -- for winner Chinakhov first, then Pagulayan (separated by a comma):

Points Scored -- 175, (-2),
3 Highest Runs -- (99 • 76 • -), (no runs)
Total Innings -- 4, 4
Points per Inning -- 43.8, (-0.5)
Attempted Scoring Innings -- 2, 1
Points per Attempted Scoring Inning -- 87.5, (-2.0)
Safeties -- 3, 2
Fouls, Intentional -- 0, 1
Fouls, Unintentional -- 0, 1
Missed Shots -- 0, 1
Match Length -- 77 min.
Points per Minute -- 2.2
 
Last edited:
AtLarge said:
Ruslan Chinakhov defeated Alex Pagulayan 175 - (-2) today in the final match of the 2019 American 14.1 Straight Pool Championship. Here is how the game went, inning by inning.

Scores in brackets are for Pagulayan (P) first (since he shot the opening break), then Chinakhov (C). References to "left" and "right" sides of the table are as the player looks from the head of the table to the foot.

P1 (Pagulayan inning #1) -- opening safety break from right side was a foul (pocket scratch) into the left head pocket but not a breaking foul. By the rules, this should have given Chinakhov ball in hand behind the line with no option for a re-break. Instead, they played it as a mandatory re-break by Pagulayan. He played a safe from the right side, leaving a ball out on the left side. [(-1) - 0]
C1 -- ran 99, then played safe. [(-1) - 99]

P2 -- safe
C2 -- safe

P3 -- intentional foul into the rack. [(-2) - 99]
C3 -- safe to the foot rail.

P4 -- missed a long shot on the 3-ball to the right head pocket.
C4 -- ran 76 and out. [(-2) - 175]. This run started with an attempt to break open the rack shooting the 3-ball, but the cue ball missed the pile. He followed that with a long, real thin cut on the 10-ball to the left foot pocket, opening the rack. Two racks later he left the cue ball nearly against the 7-ball with nothing else to shoot. He made a paper-thin power cut shot on the 7-ball to the left side pocket and then ran out.

________________________________________

Summary data -- for winner Chinakhov first, then Pagulayan (separated by a comma):

Points Scored -- 175, (-2),
3 Highest Runs -- (99 • 76 • -), (no runs)
Total Innings -- 4, 4
Points per Inning -- 43.8, (-0.5)
Attempted Scoring Innings -- 2, 1
Points per Attempted Scoring Inning -- 87.5, (-2.0)
Safeties -- 3, 2
Fouls, Intentional -- 0, 1
Fouls, Unintentional -- 0, 1
Missed Shots -- 0, 1
Match Length -- 77 min.
Points per Minute -- 2.2
Click to expand...

In the old days i think 15 balls per inning won tournaments
 
Last edited:
I’m assuming the pockets were 4.5?
...it was a marvellous tournament..the runs would’ve been impressive on 5 inch pockets.

And kudos to Mr Burrows and friends
 
pt109 said:
I’m assuming the pockets were 4.5?
...it was a marvellous tournament..the runs would’ve been impressive on 5 inch pockets.

And kudos to Mr Burrows and friends
Click to expand...

Indeed. Kind of puts the kibosh to claims that Diamonds with pro cut pockets are no good for 14.1, because you need larger pockets to be able to cheat them for position play, etc.
 
AtLarge said:
Indeed. Kind of puts the kibosh to claims that Diamonds with pro cut pockets are no good for 14.1, because you need larger pockets to be able to cheat them for position play, etc.
Click to expand...
I think that Ruslan was the first to break the 200 barrier at the Derby City 14.1 challenge. The first five years of the event I thought that no one would break 200 and in the last several years 210 was not sufficient to win the event. This year Filler had a 285 on 4.5-inch pockets and Orcullo had a 260 on 4.25-inch pockets. (Through an oversight two of the four tables this year were 4.25.)
 
AtLarge...it kinda sunk in this thread the value of your BPI stats...
...Ruslan had four innings....PPI 43.8
...but the true story is the Attempted Scoring Innings...87.5...
...which makes clear just how good Ruslan played.

Thanx, as always
 
AtLarge said:
Indeed. Kind of puts the kibosh to claims that Diamonds with pro cut pockets are no good for 14.1, because you need larger pockets to be able to cheat them for position play, etc.
Click to expand...

LOL A Diamond table with "pro-cut" pockets at 4.5" with NEW cloth, you can cheat the pocket for DAYS. Especially at certain angles. I think certain shots from the Mosconi Cup demonstrate that.
 
Here's a 4-year comparison for the streamed matches in the single-elimination portion of the American 14.1 event. The 4 numbers for each item are for, in order, 2019, 2018, 2017, and 2016.

Note that the length of the matches on which these stats are based was not quite the same each year:
2019 -- 5 games to 150 and 1 game to 175
2018 -- 6 games to 150 and 1 game to 200
2017 -- 2 games to 125 and 4 games to 150
2016 -- 6 games to 150.​

The streaming table in 2018 was a Brunswick Gold Crown with generous pockets, said to be a bit larger than 4½". The streaming tables in the other 3 years were Diamonds, apparently all with pro-cut pockets (4½").

Points per Inning
• For match winners: 18.5, 26.8, 13.3, 13.4
• For match losers: 6.8, 22.8, 11.5, 9.5
• For both: 12.8, 24.9, 12.4, 11.5

Points per Attempted Scoring Inning
• For match winners: 35.6, 35.5, 23.0, 23.7
• For match losers: 13.8, 29.3, 25.4, 17.6
• For both: 25.4, 32.5, 24.0, 20.8

Points per Miss or Unintentional Foul
• For match winners: 66.1, 45.8, 35.4, 31.0
• For match losers: 13.3, 30.3, 26.3, 18.7
• For both: 32.7, 37.6, 30.6, 24.6

Average (mean) High Run
• For match winners: 89, 88, 73, 77
• For match losers: 32, 70, 74, 50
• For both: 61, 79, 73, 64
 
Last edited:
I have compared your number for the final with the number given by the fourteen-one engine:
http://www.metaobjects.ca/foe/exports/RuslanChinahov_AlexPagulayan_2019-10-26.txt

Code: 
[FONT="Courier New"]
=== STATS ===
Start time                  10/27/2019 6:05:31 AM
End time                    10/27/2019 7:26:36 AM
Match duration              01h 21m 04s
Completed racks             12

                            Player ONE                  Player TWO                  
                            Ruslan Chinahov             Alex Pagulayan              

Going to                    175                         175                         
Score                       175                         -2                          
  Heap score                175                         -2                          
  Rack score                0                           0                           

Live fouls                  0                           0                           

Current run                 76                                                      
High run                    99                          0                           
Runs (10 balls min)         99, 76+                                                 

OPI                         0.992 [172]                 0.000 [1]                   
BPI                         43.8 [4]                    0.0 [4]                     
PPI                         43.8 [4]                    -0.5 [4]                    
BPASI                       87.5 [2]                    0.0 [1]                     
PPASI                       87.5 [2]                    0.0 [1]                     

Misses                      0                           1                           
Lucky on miss               0                           0                           
Smooth end-of-run           1/1   100.0 %               0/0   -                     

Safety success              3/3   100.0 %               1/2   50.0 %                

Total shot time             00:49:21 [175]              00:04:39 [4]                
  Offensive shot time       00:46:20 [172]              00:01:50 [1]                
  Defensive shot time       00:03:00 [3]                00:02:48 [3]                

Average shot time           16.9 sec [175]              69.9 sec [4]                
  Avg offensive shot time   16.2 sec [172]              110.7 sec [1]               
  Avg defensive shot time   60.0 sec [3]                56.3 sec [3]                

Fouls                       0                           2                           
  Pocketing fouls           0                           0                           
  Safety fouls              0                           1                           
  Intentional fouls         0                           1                           
    Give backs              0                           0                           
    Defensives              0                           1                           

Breaking foul penalties     0                           0                           
3 fouls rerack penalties    0                           0                           
[/FONT]

Everything is the same except for the PPASI of Alex Pagulayan. You have -2.0, I have 0.0. I think Alex has only one attempted scoring inning, 1 shot that he missed. That would be 0 point in 1 attempted scoring inning so PPASI should be 0.0.

The stats in the link are from the scoring of the match I did myself the next day when I watched it. The stats you see in the stream are a little off because the BSN guys had a lot to do during the stream and there was a few errors.
 
Last edited:
AtLarge said:
The streaming table in 2018 was a Brunswick Gold Crown with generous pockets, said to be a bit larger than 4½". The streaming tables in the other 3 years were Diamonds, apparently all with pro-cut pockets (4½").
Click to expand...

I went to the event in 2018. While there, I asked Peter B. about the pocket size. Here’s what he said (I’m quoting from an AZB post that I made shortly after my trip to NYC):

“Peter Burrows told me that he made the room shim all tables so as to make the pocket size uniform from table to table. He even provided a template. Corner opening size is 4 5/8, he said. This was selected because after the tournament ends, the tables will be used by the room’s regular customers, and the pockets can’t be overly tight. There are significant budget limitations with this event, and they are doing their best to balance the needs with the wants and with reality.”

Note that during the stream of this year’s final match, Mika Immonen was asked by Danny Barouty what he thought about the equipment used in this year’s play. Barouty said that he thought “it was really nice.” Immonen replied, “I think it was perfect, really. The pockets are not crazy tight, they’re fair. The speed of the cloth is nice.” That’s from a couple of guys who played in the event and know just a little bit about straight pool and equipment.

BTW, Barouty and Immonen did a great job commentating on the match. Just the right blend of technical, non-technical, humor, little side notes, and quietness. And Josh Lawson - third man in the booth - was very good throughout the streamed matches.
 
2/5MR2 said:
I have compared your number for the final with the number given by the fourteen-one engine:
http://www.metaobjects.ca/foe/exports/RuslanChinahov_AlexPagulayan_2019-10-27.txt

Everything is the same except for the PPASI of Alex Pagulayan. You have -2.0, I have 0.0. I think Alex has only one attempted scoring inning, 1 shot that he missed. That would be 0 point in 1 shot so PPASI should be 0.0.

The stats in the link are from the scoring of the match I did myself the next day when I watched it. The stats you see in the stream are a little off because the BSN guys had a lot to do during the stream and there was a few errors.
Click to expand...

Hi, Pascal. Congratulations on having your software used in this prestigious event. I think it is a significant enhancement to what we've seen in the past. Unfortunately, some of the stats shown on many of the matches were incorrect, and the attempt to update them with every shot often lagged quite a bit behind the play. From what you say above about BSN, I guess they were the ones doing the input, not you. It seemed like they corrected the overall match score many times between racks, so perhaps they were then trying to match the system score to the players' own scoring posted elsewhere in the room? I imagine the accuracy of what is shown on screen will improve as users gain more experience with using the software.

As for PPASI, I compute it simply as the final game score divided by the number of attempted scoring innings. I.e., I just relate the same total game points to two measures -- total innings for PPI and attempted scoring innings for PPASI. That's why Alex's result is -2.0 in my stats. It sounds like your stat looks at scoring from just those offensive innings. Your way is probably a little better if you want to think of the stat as something like average run.

I see you played in the event as well. You certainly faced some tough customers!
 
AtLarge said:
Hi, Pascal. Congratulations on having your software used in this prestigious event. I think it is a significant enhancement to what we've seen in the past. Unfortunately, some of the stats shown on many of the matches were incorrect, and the attempt to update them with every shot often lagged quite a bit behind the play. From what you say above about BSN, I guess they were the ones doing the input, not you. It seemed like they corrected the overall match score many times between racks, so perhaps they were then trying to match the system score to the players' own scoring posted elsewhere in the room? I imagine the accuracy of what is shown on screen will improve as users gain more experience with using the software.
Click to expand...

Yes it is exactly as you say Mr Capelle. The BSN guys were doing the scoring themselves. Actually for the first 2 days it was Jake Lawson alone. He was doing many things at the same time, switching cameras, commentating, preparing replays, running trivia question lottery, inserting ads, scoring errors were inevitable. They were routinely using the 'Adjust' function to make the score match with the player's score.

You get a lot from my software but it does require a lot of attention if you want everything to be accurate. I am looking into having it communicate with an IPAD connected to the network and the scoring would be done by someone else in the room.

AtLarge said:
As for PPASI, I compute it simply as the final game score divided by the number of attempted scoring innings. I.e., I just relate the same total game points to two measures -- total innings for PPI and attempted scoring innings for PPASI. That's why Alex's result is -2.0 in my stats. It sounds like your stat looks at scoring from just those offensive innings. Your way is probably a little better if you want to think of the stat as something like average run.
Click to expand...

Ok I understand the difference now. Before, I thought we were calculating it the same way.

AtLarge said:
I see you played in the event as well. You certainly faced some tough customers!
Click to expand...

Yes tough customers but I had multiple opportunities at the table in all matches I just failed to bring a decent game. It might be the 8 hour drive that zapped my brain. Not sure. But I don't think I would have made the cut even on my best days. I would have won 1 match probably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top