14.1 Stats -- 2018 Am. Straight Pool Championship (Single-Elim. Portion), Oct. 2018

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are some stats from the single-elimination portion of the 2018 American Straight Pool Championship played October 16-19 at Carom Café Billiards in the Flushing neighborhood of the Queens borough of New York City. Free streaming was provided by High Rock Productions on Facebook.

The stats are for the 7 matches streamed for this portion of the event, and they represented 30% of the total of 23 matches played in this portion of the event. The first 4 matches were played on Thursday, Oct. 18 and the last 3 on Friday, October 19. The Finals match was to 200 points, the others were all to 150 points.

This portion of the event was preceded by a group stage (8 groups of 6 players), with round-robin play in each group. Twenty-four players -- the top 3 from each group -- advanced to the single-elimination stage. The top player from each group 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=482470

The conditions for this event included:
- Brunswick Gold Crown 9-foot table with generous pockets and blue Simonis cloth;
- Aramith Tournament balls with a measles cue ball;
- triangle rack;
- rack your own in most cases;
- fouls 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 -- Fedor Gorst defeated Mario He 150 - 88
High Run: 66, 83
Total Innings: 4, 3
PPI (Points per Inning): 37.5, 29.3
Attempted Scoring Innings: 3, 3
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 50.0, 29.3
Missed Shots: 1, 2
Unintentional Fouls: 1, 2
Match Length: 124 min.
Points per Minute: 1.9

Match #2 -- Thorsten Hohmann d. Ruslan Chinahov 150 - 95
High Run: 144, 86
Total Innings: 3, 3
PPI (Points per Inning): 50.0, 31.7
Attempted Scoring Innings: 3, 2
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 50.0, 47.5
Missed Shots: 2, 2
Unintentional Fouls: 0, 0
Match Length: 127 min.
Points per Minute: 1.9

Match #3 (QUARTERFINAL) -- Eklent Kaçi d. Alex Pagulayan 150 - 139
High Run: 81 & out, 50
Total Innings: 5, 4
PPI (Points per Inning): 30.0, 34.8
Attempted Scoring Innings: 4, 4
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 37.5, 34.8
Missed Shots: 1, 3
Unintentional Fouls: 2, 1
Match Length: 149 min.
Points per Minute: 1.9

Match #4 (QUARTERFINAL) -- Thorsten Hohmann d. Dennis Orcollo 150 - 142
High Run: 84, 70
Total Innings: 4, 4
PPI (Points per Inning): 37.5, 35.5
Attempted Scoring Innings: 4, 3
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 37.5, 47.3
Missed Shots: 2, 2
Unintentional Fouls: 1, 1
Match Length: 173 min.
Points per Minute: 1.7

Match #5 (SEMIFINAL) -- Eklent Kaçi d. Marek Kudlik 150 - 113
High Run: 89, 61
Total Innings: 10, 9
PPI (Points per Inning): 15.0, 12.6
Attempted Scoring Innings: 6, 5
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 25.0, 22.6
Missed Shots: 2, 3
Unintentional Fouls: 3, 0
Match Length: 181 min.
Points per Minute: 1.5

Match #6 (SEMIFINAL) -- Thorsten Hohmann d. Konrad Juszczyszyn 150 - 74
High Run: 67, 57
Total Innings: 6, 5
PPI (Points per Inning): 25.0, 14.8
Attempted Scoring Innings: 5, 5
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 30.0, 14.8
Missed Shots: 1, 3
Unintentional Fouls: 3, 2
Match Length: 107 min.
Points per Minute: 2.1

Match #7 (FINAL) -- Eklent Kaçi d. Thorsten Hohmann 200 - 168
High Run: 88, 80
Total Innings: 9, 8
PPI (Points per Inning): 22.2, 21.0
Attempted Scoring Innings: 6, 6
PPASI (Points per Attempted Scoring Inning): 33.3, 28.0
Missed Shots: 3, 5
Unintentional Fouls: 2, 1
Match Length: 203 min.
Points per Minute: 1.8
 
Last edited:

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are some aggregate stats for the 7 streamed matches from single-elimination play (6 games to 150 points and 1 game to 200 points):


  • Points per Inning
    • For match winners: 26.8
    • For match losers: 22.8
    • For both: 24.9

    Points per Attempted Scoring Inning
    • For match winners: 35.5
    • For match losers: 29.3
    • For both: 32.5

    Points per Miss or Unintentional Foul
    • For match winners: 45.8
    • For match losers: 30.3
    • For both: 37.6

    Average (mean) High Run
    • For match winners: 88
    • For match losers: 70
    • For both: 79

    Average (median) High Run
    • For match winners: 84
    • For match losers: 70
    • For both: 80.5

    Average number of innings per match for the 6 matches to 150 points
    • Total innings: 5.3 for match winners, 4.7 for match losers
    • Attempted scoring innings: 4.2 for match winners, 3.7 for match losers

    Average (mean) match score for the 6 matches to 150 points: 150 - 109 (losers' scores ranged from 74 to 142)

    Average (mean) match length for the 6 matches to 150 points: 144 min. (range 107 min. - 181 min.)

    Average (mean) points per minute for all 7 matches: 1.8 (range 1.5 - 2.1)
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Eklent Kaçi defeated Thorsten Hohmann 200-168 today in the final match of the 2018 American 14.1 Straight Pool Championship. Here is how the game went, inning by inning.

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

K1 (Kaçi's inning #1) -- opening safety break from right side was a breaking foul and left the 5-ball out near the left foot pocket. [(-2) - 0]
H1 -- missed the 5-ball.

K2 -- ran 8, then missed a short swerve shot on the 13-ball to the right foot pocket. [6 - 0]
H2 -- ran 31, then missed the 12-ball to the left foot pocket while trying to also separate the 5- and 11-balls. [6 - 31]

K3 -- ran 3, then played safe. [9 - 31]
H3 -- intentional foul into the back of the rack. [9 - 30]

K4 -- safe
H4 -- safe

K5 -- safe
H5 -- started with a long, thin shot on the 2-ball to the right head pocket from behind the rack. Ran 28, then scratched in the left head pocket on a power-draw break shot to the left of the rack. [9 - 57]

K6 -- ran 88, then missed the 4-ball to the right side pocket. [97 - 57]
H6 -- ran 80, then missed the break shot on the 10-ball to the right side of the rack. [97 - 137]

K7 -- ran 31, then missed a real thin shot on the 6-ball to the right side pocket with the cue ball near the head rail. [128 - 137]
H7 -- ran 27, then missed a long shot on the 1-ball to the left head pocket while jacked up over the pile. [128 - 164]

K8 -- ran 65, then scratched in the left side pocket while making a long shot on the 15-ball to the left head pocket. [192 - 164]
H8 -- ran 4, but had bad position after a break shot and missed a long, difficult cut on the 3-ball to the right head pocket. [192 - 168]

K9 -- ran 8 and out. [200 - 168]

________________________________________

Summary data -- for winner Kaçi first, then Hohmann (separated by a comma):

Points Scored -- 200, 168
High Run -- 88, 80
Total Innings -- 9, 8
Points per Inning -- 22.2, 21.0
Attempted Scoring Innings -- 6, 6
Points per Attempted Scoring Inning -- 33.3, 28.0
Safeties -- 3, 1
Intentional Fouls -- 0, 1
Missed Shots -- 3, 5
Unintentional Fouls -- 2, 1
Match Length -- 3 hrs. 23 min.
Points per Minute -- 1.8
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
Seems to me that the points per inning is pretty high for a lot of the matches.
...anybody recall the history of this?...they called it balls per inning back then.

I think the straight pool is better now....high championship is 200 by Appleton...
...that’s a modern happening....when you consider there were a bunch of long matches
way back when ( some to 1,000 points)....I think better pool is being played now...
...on smaller pockets.

Comments were that these pockets were buckets...but they were smaller than the old ones.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... Comments were that these pockets were buckets...but they were smaller than the old ones.

The streaming table initially looked to me like it had real large pockets, because many "poor" shots were dropping. But one poster said he talked to the promoter and the tables all had 4 5/8" corners. That's quite a bit smaller than the corners on most old pool room Brunswicks.

But these pockets were still quite lenient, and many shots dropped in that would not have fallen on, for example, a standard pro-cut Diamond table. I guess short pocket shelves and new, slick cloth caused that.

Many comments from commentators and player-commentators praised the tables and essentially said they were just right for 14.1. I would have rather seen them a bit tighter. It seems to me that a way could be found to condition new Simonis after it is installed for a pro tournament so that balls don't slide down the rail so easily. Couldn't the rails just be rubbed with a ball for a while? Would that work? Any ideas on some other way to reduce the sliding?
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... Many comments from commentators and player-commentators praised the tables and essentially said they were just right for 14.1. I would have rather seen them a bit tighter. It seems to me that a way could be found to condition new Simonis after it is installed for a pro tournament so that balls don't slide down the rail so easily. Couldn't the rails just be rubbed with a ball for a while? Would that work? Any ideas on some other way to reduce the sliding?
At carom there are often qualification matches on the tournament tables prior to the main event. That helps take off some of the slide. I have heard that some cloth has less initial slide.

But overall I think the easier pockets with the newer cloth is just part of the deal.

What pool could really use is tighter control over pocket size and shape. At snooker, the pockets have to match physical templates. At pool, at one time (and maybe now?) the BCA and the WPA pocket specs did not overlap.
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
The streaming table initially looked to me like it had real large pockets, because many "poor" shots were dropping. But one poster said he talked to the promoter and the tables all had 4 5/8" corners. That's quite a bit smaller than the corners on most old pool room Brunswicks.

But these pockets were still quite lenient, and many shots dropped in that would not have fallen on, for example, a standard pro-cut Diamond table. I guess short pocket shelves and new, slick cloth caused that.

Many comments from commentators and player-commentators praised the tables and essentially said they were just right for 14.1. I would have rather seen them a bit tighter. It seems to me that a way could be found to condition new Simonis after it is installed for a pro tournament so that balls don't slide down the rail so easily. Couldn't the rails just be rubbed with a ball for a while? Would that work? Any ideas on some other way to reduce the sliding?
Our old time Canadian Master, George Chenier, told me that if they set up a table for his
exhibition, he liked to go a day early and walk around the table hitting the rails with a rubber
mallet...to loosen the rail cloth and liven the rubber.
‘Course, this was on a snooker table with flat edged rails...not sure how pool rubber would fare.

A 6x12 can play a full length shorter with brand new cloth...and bank really long.
 

maldito

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yrs ago Carom Corner had Brunswicks and other tables with the name "Hollywood" printed on them ( I believe this was a Korean pool table) - and the pockets were like very tight and the side pocket was something else - I don't know if they still have them as I do not live in that area any more.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
The streaming table initially looked to me like it had real large pockets, because many "poor" shots were dropping. But one poster said he talked to the promoter and the tables all had 4 5/8" corners. That's quite a bit smaller than the corners on most old pool room Brunswicks.

But these pockets were still quite lenient, and many shots dropped in that would not have fallen on, for example, a standard pro-cut Diamond table. I guess short pocket shelves and new, slick cloth caused that.

Many comments from commentators and player-commentators praised the tables and essentially said they were just right for 14.1. I would have rather seen them a bit tighter. It seems to me that a way could be found to condition new Simonis after it is installed for a pro tournament so that balls don't slide down the rail so easily. Couldn't the rails just be rubbed with a ball for a while? Would that work? Any ideas on some other way to reduce the sliding?

I'd rate the pockets on the stream table as comparable in tightness to what the old masters competed on in the 1970's and 1980's. I agree with the commentator that such specs are just right for 14.1, but your point is well taken. With pockets a little tighter than this, such as those at the Derby City 14.1 event, these guys can still manage 100 ball runs, although in about ten years of the event, with five days of qualifying runs each year, there have been so few 200 ball runs that, I'm pretty sure, you can count them on the fingers of one hand. The all-time high run at Derby City is 227, despite what I'd speculate to be 5,000 attempts.

Still, as we've discussed many times on this forum, the comparison of tables is almost meaningless, as the old masters played on slow, nappy cloth with deader rails and balls of poorer quality. Position play was more difficult, and if you had to stun a shot with little angle to work with, you had to cream it. You had to hit break shots harder back in the day to spread the balls and that meant more missed break shots back then (even for the top guys) than today. For most, it also meant that there were more occasions on which they got stuck after a break shot and had to play a safety.

Think back to when the Dragon event was played at Comet Billiards (2011?), on tables comparable to those in the just completed event. Oliver Ortmann won three consecutive race to 125 matches by running 125 and out. Give today's top few pockets that aren't tight and Simonis cloth and they run balls like the wind. Mike Sigel once speculated to me that if Mosconi had played (on the nine foot tables of his day) on Simonis cloth, he might have run 2,000. Still, my point here is the difficulty comparisons are near impossible between the tables of yesteryear and those of today.

In both eras of 14.1, the only real measure of a player is in how they fare against their peers. Yes, greatness can only be measured in titles, both then and now.
 
Last edited:

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
In both eras of 14.1, the only real measure of a player is in how they fare against their peers. Yes, greatness can only be measured in titles, both then and now.

I’m quoting this because it’s so quotable.
 

kkdanamatt

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I'd rate the pockets on the stream table as comparable in tightness to what the old masters competed on in the 1970's and 1980's. I agree with the commentator that such specs are just right for 14.1, but your point is well taken. With pockets a little tighter than this, such as those at the Derby City 14.1 event, these guys can still manage 100 ball runs, although in about ten years of the event, with five days of qualifying runs each year, there have been so few 200 ball runs that, I'm pretty sure, you can count them on the fingers of one hand. The all-time high run at Derby City is 227, despite what I'd speculate to be 5,000 attempts.

Still, as we've discussed many times on this forum, the comparison of tables is almost meaningless, as the old masters played on slow, nappy cloth with deader rails and balls of poorer quality. Position play was more difficult, and if you had to stun a shot with little angle to work with, you had to cream it. You had to hit break shots harder back in the day to spread the balls and that meant more missed break shots back then (even for the top guys) than today. For most, it also meant that there were more occasions on which they got stuck after a break shot and had to play a safety.

Think back to when the Dragon event was played at Comet Billiards (2011?), on tables comparable to those in the just completed event. Oliver Ortmann won three consecutive race to 125 matches by running 125 and out. Give today's top few pockets that aren't tight and Simonis cloth and they run balls like the wind. Mike Sigel once speculated to me that if Mosconi had played (on the nine foot tables of his day) on Simonis cloth, he might have run 2,000. Still, my point here is the difficulty comparisons are near impossible between the tables of yesteryear and those of today.

In both eras of 14.1, the only real measure of a player is in how they fare against their peers. Yes, greatness can only be measured in titles, both then and now.
Stu, you are on target. I would rate the pockets at Carom Cafe's tables as comparable to the pockets that were popular on Brunswick tables of the 60's, 70's and 80's. Some shots along the rails would slide in, even if the object ball hit the first diamond.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Seems to me that the points per inning is pretty high for a lot of the matches. ...

And the numbers were up in this event this year. Here's a 3-year comparison for the streamed matches in the single-elimination portion of the American 14.1 event. The 3 numbers for each item are for, in order, 2018, 2017, and 2016.

[Note that the length of the matches on which these stats are based was not quite the same in all years: 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.]

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

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

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

Average (mean) High Run
• For match winners: 88, 73, 77
• For match losers: 70, 74, 50
• For both: 79, 73, 64
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
And the numbers were up in this event this year. Here's a 3-year comparison for the streamed matches in the single-elimination portion of the American 14.1 event. The 3 numbers for each item are for, in order, 2018, 2017, and 2016.

...
In 2017 and 2016 the streamed matches were all from the center of three Diamond tables at Diamond Billiards in Midlothian (Richmond) VA. I think that table had the standard Diamond pocket size of 4.5" -- two balls onto the flat of the jaw but not to the drop.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
In 2017 and 2016 the streamed matches were all from the center of three Diamond tables at Diamond Billiards in Midlothian (Richmond) VA. I think that table had the standard Diamond pocket size of 4.5" -- two balls onto the flat of the jaw but not to the drop.

Yes, I think they were standard Diamonds (I didn't take note of anything different at the time). And you were there in the field in 2016, so you would have noted if they were unusual.

So perhaps the stats I posted, even though based on a fairly small number of matches, are a decent indication of the difference in degree of difficulty between the Brunswick table this year and the Diamonds the previous two years.
 

2/5MR2

amateur
Hi AtLarge, I also have a tool that calculates stats and I used it when I watched the match on fb. I compared my stats with yours, found some differences and I thought it would be interesting to look at them.

You calculated 3 misses for Kaci and 5 misses for Hohmann, I have 4 and 6 misses. After a quick investigation I realized that you do not count the two scratches (1 for Kaci and 1 for Hohmann) as misses even tough the players were trying to pocket a ball. I suggest it would make more sense if they were counted as misses.

Another discrepancy: You have 3 safeties for Kaci, my tool counted have 4. This is because my tool considers the opening break as a safety. it is also included in other safety stats like safety success (aka good safeties).

And one more: You have 2 unintentional fouls for Kaci, I have 1. Again the problem is with the opening break. My tool considers a 2-point breaking foul as a separate kind of fouls and it is put in a separate stat item. 1-point fouls on the break are considered regular fouls and are counted with the rest. Not sure which approach makes more sense.

Summary data -- for winner Kaçi first, then Hohmann (separated by a comma):

Points Scored -- 200, 168
High Run -- 88, 80
Total Innings -- 9, 8
Points per Inning -- 22.2, 21.0
Attempted Scoring Innings -- 6, 6
Points per Attempted Scoring Inning -- 33.3, 28.0
Safeties -- 3, 1
Intentional Fouls -- 0, 1
Missed Shots -- 3, 5
Unintentional Fouls -- 2, 1
Match Length -- 3 hrs. 23 min.
Points per Minute -- 1.8
 
Last edited:

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Hi AtLarge, I also have a tool that calculates stats and I used it when I watched the match on fb. I compared my stats with yours, found some differences and I thought it would be interesting to look at them.

I use paper and pencil (or pen).

You calculated 3 misses for Kaci and 5 misses for Hohmann, I have 4 and 6 misses. After a quick investigation I realized that you do not count the two scratches (1 for Kaci and 1 for Hohmann) as misses even tough the players were trying to pocket a ball. I suggest it would make more sense if they were counted as misses.

Yes for a scratch on a miss, I just categorize it as an unintentional foul, which is the more serious error. Your way is OK.

Another discrepancy: You have 3 safeties for Kaci, my tool counted have 4. This is because my tool considers the opening break as a safety. it is also included in other safety stats like safety success (aka good safeties).

As above, I classified the shot in only one place, the unintentional foul (a 2-pointer in this case).

And one more: You have 2 unintentional fouls for Kaci, I have 1. Again the problem is with the opening break. My tool considers a 2-point breaking foul as a separate kind of fouls and it is put in a separate stat item. 1-point fouls on the break are considered regular fouls and are counted with the rest. Not sure which approach makes more sense.

Your way is OK, I just don't need an extra category.
 
Top