Stats -- Van Boening vs. Shaw 10-Ball Race to 100, August 2019

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are some results from the Shane Van Boening vs. Jayson Shaw 10-Ball match played at the Pockets Restaurant in Euless, TX on August 16-18, 2019. Pay-per-view streaming was provided by Money Match Promotions through Rackem.tv.

This match was a race to 100 game wins. Van Boening won the match, leading at the end of each day (although Shaw made a big comeback in Day 3): 33-21, 66-43, and 100-91.

The commentators (2 at a time) were Jeremy Jones, Skyler Woodward, CJ Wiley, and Billy Incardona.

Conditions -- The conditions for this event included:
- Diamond 9-foot table with pro-cut pockets and new blue cloth;
- Predator Arcos II balls;
- Accu-Rack racking template;
- rack your own, with the 1-ball on the foot spot and the 2-ball and 3-ball on the back corners;
- winner breaks from anywhere behind the head string;
- call shots (but not safes), with the opponent having a choice of shooting or passing it back after a ball is pocketed illegally;
- spot any 10-ball made on the break;
- early combos or caroms on the 10-ball are not game wins, and the 10-ball is spotted;
- foul on all balls, and 3-foul rule in effect;
- jump cues allowed;
- no shot clock; and
- lag for opening break.​

Notes:
• On Day 2, with the score at 56-37 in Van Boening's favor, the score was changed to 55-37 after some discussion. My notes say that the original score was correct, not the revised one. So the official match score was for 191 games (100-91), but the following stats are for all 192 games in my notes (match score 101-91).
• My stream was frozen for most of one game broken by Shaw on Day 2. Indications were that it was a B&R, so that's how I counted it.​

■ Van Boening broke 101 times -- successful 85 times (resulting in 66 game wins and 19 losses), 6 fouls (1 win, 5 losses), and 10 dry (2 wins, 8 losses).

■ Shaw broke 91 times -- successful 74 times (resulting in 54 game wins and 20 losses), 3 fouls (1 win, 2 losses), and 14 dry (4 wins and 10 losses).

Successful breaks (broke legally, made at least one ball, and did not foul):
Van Boening -- 85 of 101 (84%)​
Shaw -- 74 of 91 (81%)​
Total -- 159 of 192 (83%)​

Unsuccessful breaks (fouled or dry):
Van Boening -- 16 of 101 (16%)​
Shaw -- 17 of 91 (19%)​
Total -- 33 of 192 (17%)​

Breaker won game:
Van Boening -- 69 of 101 (68%)​
Shaw -- 59 of 91 (65%)​
Total -- 128 of 192 (67%)​

Break-and-run games -- on all breaks:
Van Boening -- 47 of 101 (47%)​
Shaw -- 44 of 91 (48%)​
Total -- 91 of 192 (47%)​

Break-and-run games -- on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
Van Boening -- 47 of 85 (55%)​
Shaw -- 44 of 74 (59%)​
Total -- 91 of 159 (57%)​

Fouls and foul rates: [Note: "games at the table" means total games less opponent's B&R games.]
Van Boening -- 20 fouls, including 6 on the break, in 148 games at the table (a rate of 1 foul for every 7.4 games at the table)​
Shaw -- 24 fouls, including 3 on the break, in 145 games at the table (a rate of 1 foul for every 6.0 games at the table)​
Total -- 44 fouls in 192 games (1 per 4.4 games)​

Missed shots (est.):
Van Boening -- 34 misses in 148 games at the table (a rate of 1 for every 4.4 games at the table)​
Shaw -- 27 misses in 145 games at the table (a rate of 1 for every 5.4 games at the table)​
Total -- 61 misses in 192 games (1 per 3.1 games)​

Run-outs from first shot after break:
By Van Boening after his own successful break -- 47 of 85 (55%)​
By Van Boening after Shaw's failed break -- 5 of 17 (29%)​
By Van Boening, total -- 52 of 102 (51%)​
By Shaw after his own successful break -- 44 of 74 (59%)​
By Shaw after Van Boening's failed break -- 10 of 16 (63%)​
By Shaw, total -- 54 of 90 (60%)​
Total for Van Boening and Shaw -- 106 of 192 (55%)​

Run-outs from first shot after Van Boening's break:
By Van Boening -- 47 of 85 (55%)​
By Shaw -- 10 of 16 (63%)​
Total -- 57 of 101 (56%)​

Run-outs from first shot after Shaw's break:
By Shaw -- 44 of 74 (59%)​
By Van Boening -- 5 of 17 (29%)​
Total -- 49 of 91 (54%)​

Break-and-run packages
Van Boening's 47 B&R games consisted of 1 6-pack, 3 4-packs, 2 3-packs, 6 2-packs, and 11 singles
Shaw's 44 B&R games consisted of 1 6-pack, 1 5-pack, 2 4-packs, 4 3-packs, 2 2-packs, and 9 singles​

Games with 1 or more safeties (est):
by Van Boening only -- 16​
by Shaw only -- 15​
by both -- 20​
Total games with 1 or more safeties -- 27% (51 of 192)​

Average number of balls made on the break:
Van Boening -- 1.6 on all breaks, 1.8 on successful breaks​
Shaw* -- 1.6 on all breaks, 1.8 on successful breaks​
Total* -- 1.6 on all breaks, 1.8 on successful breaks
*Excludes one game; unlikely to change averages.​

Number of innings -- 66% (126 of 192) of the games ended in one inning. 91 games ended on the breaker's first inning (B&R games), 35 games ended on the non-breaker's first inning, 19 games ended on the breaker's second inning, and 21 games ended on the non-breaker's second inning. 14% (26 of 192) of the games went beyond the non-breaker's second visit to the table, with the longest game ending on the non-breaker's 6th visit.

10-balls on the break -- No 10-balls were made on the break. (They would have been spotted.)

Match length -- Approximately 15 1/3 hours, for an average of 4.8 minutes per game. This includes racking and timeouts, but excludes a bit over 2 hours for 4 intermissions (1 on Day 1, 1 on Day 2, and 2 on Day 3).
 
Last edited:

evergruven

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
hi AL,
I didn't get to watch any, but thanks to your stats
looks like high level attacking pool.
appears that shane still got the break advantage,
while shaw's stats seem to point to an edge for him after the break.
looks close.
heard jay was down a bunch..how did he come back?
did his break improve with time? did shane's cool?
to those that watched, what did the eye test tell you?
thanks again-
 

Tin Man

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I’d really be curious how these stats compared to some of SVBs early TAR matches from around 2010-2012. Anyone have any historic data?

Thank you for doing this!
 

gxman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
When Chang beat Shaw in the race to 50,
was that alt break or winner's break? Thx.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
hi AL,
I didn't get to watch any, but thanks to your stats
looks like high level attacking pool.
appears that shane still got the break advantage,
while shaw's stats seem to point to an edge for him after the break.
looks close.
heard jay was down a bunch..how did he come back?
did his break improve with time? did shane's cool?
to those that watched, what did the eye test tell you?
thanks again-

Here are some day-by-day stats that might be of interest.

Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):

Van Boening​
Day 1 -- 27 of 33 (82%)​
Day 2 -- 29 of 34 (85%)​
Day 3 -- 29 of 34 (85%)​
All 3 days -- 85 of 101 (84%)​
Shaw​
Day 1 -- 16 of 21 (76%)
Day 2 -- 19 of 22 (86%)
Day 3 -- 39 of 48 (81%)
All 3 days -- 74 of 91 (81%)​
Total​
Day 1 -- 43 of 54 (80%)
Day 2 -- 48 of 56 (86%)
Day 3 -- 68 of 82 (83%)
All 3 days -- 159 of 192 (83%)​

Breaker won game:

Van Boening​
Day 1 -- 24 of 33 (73%)
Day 2 -- 26 of 34 (76%)
Day 3 -- 19 of 34 (56%)
All 3 days -- 69 of 101 (68%)​
Shaw​
Day 1 -- 12 of 21 (57%)
Day 2 -- 14 of 22 (64%)
Day 3 -- 33 of 48 (69%)
All 3 days -- 59 of 91 (65%)​
Total​
Day 1 -- 36 of 54 (67%)
Day 2 -- 40 of 56 (71%)
Day 3 -- 52 of 82 (63%)
All 3 days -- 128 of 192 (67%)​

Break-and-run games -- on all breaks:

Van Boening​
Day 1 -- 16 of 33 (48%)
Day 2 -- 21 of 34 (62%)
Day 3 -- 10 of 34 (29%)
All 3 days -- 47 of 101 (47%)​
Shaw​
Day 1 -- 7 of 21 (33%)
Day 2 -- 12 of 22 (55%)
Day 3 -- 25 of 48 (52%)
All 3 days -- 44 of 91 (48%)​
Total​
Day 1 -- 23 of 54 (43%)
Day 2 -- 33 of 56 (59%)
Day 3 -- 35 of 82 (43%)
All 3 days -- 91 of 192 (47%)​

Break-and-run games -- on successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):

Van Boening​
Day 1 -- 16 of 27 (59%)
Day 2 -- 21 of 29 (72%)
Day 3 -- 10 of 29 (34%)
All 3 days -- 47 of 85 (55%)​
Shaw​
Day 1 -- 7 of 16 (44%)
Day 2 -- 12 of 19 (63%)
Day 3 -- 25 of 39 (64%)
All 3 days -- 44 of 74 (59%)​
Total​
Day 1 -- 23 of 43 (53%)
Day 2 -- 33 of 48 (69%)
Day 3 -- 35 of 68 (51%)
All 3 days -- 91 of 159 (57%)​

In the first 66 games of Day 3, Jayson closed the gap from 23 games at the start (using the "official" game scores) to just 3 games (24 to 4 by my count). He did this on the strength of winning 8 games in a row twice (around B&R packages of 6 and 5) and 12 games in a row around two 4-packs. Over that stretch of 66 games, Shaw had 24 B&R games to Van Boening's 9.

Similarly, from the intermission on Day 1 through the end of Day 2, an 81-game stretch, Van Boening had 32 B&R games (on 51 breaks) to Shaw's 16 (on 30 breaks).

A monster was on the loose during each of those stretches. The first stretch gave Van Boening the big lead and the second almost eliminated it.
 
Last edited:

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
These break stats are awesome....
...don’t see them getting invited into too many ring games...:eek:
 

FeelDaShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
These stats are very interesting. Based on the stats alone, it looks like Shaw actually played better than SVB and still lost. See below:

Successful Breaks.............................SVB 3% Better
Committed Fouls...............................SVB 3% Better

BnR Games – All Breaks..................Shaw 1% Better
BnR Games – Successful Breaks.....Shaw 4% Better
Missed Shots.....................................Shaw 14% Better
Runouts After Break..........................Shaw 9% Better
 
Last edited:

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
These stats are very interesting. Based on the stats alone, it looks like Shaw actually played better than SVB and still lost. See below:

Successful Breaks.............................SVB 3% Better
Committed Fouls...............................SVB 3% Better

BnR Games – All Breaks..................Shaw 1% Better
BnR Games – Successful Breaks.....Shaw 4% Better
Missed Shots.....................................Shaw 14% Better
Runouts After Break..........................Shaw 9% Better

Seems SVB gets down in the mud better...fighting for a shot on safety exchanges.
...Shane is a top one-pocket player
 
Last edited:

FeelDaShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Seems SVB gets down in the mud better...fighting for a shot on safety exchanges.
...Shane is a top one-pocket player

It could be that. It could also be luck/rolls. It could be killer instinct to step up at the right time. It could be SVB under-performing once he had a huge lead. It could have been a number of things...
 

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks for the stats, AtLarge

Run-outs from first shot after break:
By Van Boening after his own successful break -- 47 of 85 (55%)
By Van Boening after Shaw's failed break -- 5 of 17 (29%)
By Van Boening, total -- 52 of 102 (51%)

By Shaw after his own successful break -- 44 of 74 (59%)
By Shaw after Van Boening's failed break -- 10 of 16 (63%)
By Shaw, total -- 54 of 90 (60%)

Yes, Shaw surprisingly performed slightly better than Shane after the break. Shane had better break in terms of layout - open layout with shot on lowest number. That is why Shaw stole 10 of Shane’s failed breaks while Shane only stole 5 of Shaw’s failed breaks. It is evident of the racks that I watched that layout after Shane’s break had easier runouts while Shaw’s break had clusters and tougher runouts.
I think the key difference is the 4 fouls by Shaw (which basically means loss of 4 racks) and some bad rolls.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... Yes, Shaw surprisingly performed slightly better than Shane after the break. Shane had better break in terms of layout - open layout with shot on lowest number. That is why Shaw stole 10 of Shane’s failed breaks while Shane only stole 5 of Shaw’s failed breaks. It is evident of the racks that I watched that layout after Shane’s break had easier runouts while Shaw’s break had clusters and tougher runouts.
I think the key difference is the 4 fouls by Shaw (which basically means loss of 4 racks) and some bad rolls.

Yet Shane pushed or played safe immediately after successful breaks 13 times whereas Jayson did so 10 times.

Shane ran out directly after 18 of Jayson's 24 fouls; Jayson ran out after 15 of Shane's 20 fouls.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
At least one ball was made on 168 of these 192 breaks -- the 159 successful breaks plus all 9 fouled breaks That's 88%. And 55% of the games were run out by the player at the table after the break. For skilled breakers using a template, 10-Ball now suffers from the same problems that plagued 9-Ball -- "dead" balls on the break, repetitious layouts after the break, and limited interplay among the players.

A few years ago I suggested trying 10-Ball with the 10-ball on the spot. The Renfro experimented with it a bit and thought it might have some value for addressing those issues, but the subject seemed to get dropped. I'd like to see it tried in some pro event, perhaps a challenge match between good 10-Ball breakers (rather than in a big tournament), to see how it would fly.

Another possibility is to leave the 1-ball on the spot, but use a break box that moves the cue ball away from the center area of the table. Some of Appleton's 8-Ball events did that, and Van Boening played a 10-Ball challenge match with Chinakhov 4 years ago using side-rail break boxes.
 

FeelDaShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
At least one ball was made on 168 of these 192 breaks -- the 159 successful breaks plus all 9 fouled breaks That's 88%. And 55% of the games were run out by the player at the table after the break. For skilled breakers using a template, 10-Ball now suffers from the same problems that plagued 9-Ball -- "dead" balls on the break, repetitious layouts after the break, and limited interplay among the players.

A few years ago I suggested trying 10-Ball with the 10-ball on the spot. The Renfro experimented with it a bit and thought it might have some value for addressing those issues, but the subject seemed to get dropped. I'd like to see it tried in some pro event, perhaps a challenge match between good 10-Ball breakers (rather than in a big tournament), to see how it would fly.

Another possibility is to leave the 1-ball on the spot, but use a break box that moves the cue ball away from the center area of the table. Some of Appleton's 8-Ball events did that, and Van Boening played a 10-Ball challenge match with Chinakhov 4 years ago using side-rail break boxes.

You certainly make a good point. Although, I attribute the high stats more to the skill of the players than to a problem with the format. How do the stats compare to other 10-ball matches/tournaments with the same format?

There are actually dead balls in any rack. In some games they are just much easier to execute than others. In regular 9-ball with a template, the wingball is hard to miss. With 9 on the spot, even a lot of pros struggle to consistently make the 1 in the side. The same goes for 10-ball. With 8-ball or straight pool the corner ball is dead and banks straight back if you hit it perfect. Technically, you can rack the balls anywhere and someone will eventually find a way to make a ball in a pocket.

As long as it takes a lot of skill to make a ball then there is no problem. The matches should be decided based upon as much skill as possible. Any pro can consistently run out an open table but how many can consistently make balls on the break, play shape, and avoid clusters? That's what separates the men from the boys.

If the break was 100% random then luck would be the deciding factor in a lot of matches. Is that really what we want?
 

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
At least one ball was made on 168 of these 192 breaks -- the 159 successful breaks plus all 9 fouled breaks That's 88%. And 55% of the games were run out by the player at the table after the break. For skilled breakers using a template, 10-Ball now suffers from the same problems that plagued 9-Ball -- "dead" balls on the break, repetitious layouts after the break, and limited interplay among the players.

A few years ago I suggested trying 10-Ball with the 10-ball on the spot. The Renfro experimented with it a bit and thought it might have some value for addressing those issues, but the subject seemed to get dropped. I'd like to see it tried in some pro event, perhaps a challenge match between good 10-Ball breakers (rather than in a big tournament), to see how it would fly.

Another possibility is to leave the 1-ball on the spot, but use a break box that moves the cue ball away from the center area of the table. Some of Appleton's 8-Ball events did that, and Van Boening played a 10-Ball challenge match with Chinakhov 4 years ago using side-rail break boxes.

Great analysis, AtLarge. You should provide analysis together with your stats.
I think 10 on spot sounds good.
Would also add neutral racker, wooden rack and alternate break. Yes it will take longer :grin:


If the break was 100% random then luck would be the deciding factor in a lot of matches. Is that really what we want?
Not really, it won’t be all luck on the break -just makes it tougher to figure out and consistently get nice break and runout
 
Top