Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > Main Forum
Reload this Page Break Stats -- World Pool Series, 8-Ball Classic Championship, August 2018
Reply
Page 1 of 2 1 2
 
Share Thread Tools Rate Thread
Break Stats -- World Pool Series, 8-Ball Classic Championship, August 2018
Old
  (#1)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Online
Posts: 10,302
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
Break Stats -- World Pool Series, 8-Ball Classic Championship, August 2018 - 08-10-2018, 01:52 PM

Here are some 8-Ball stats from the seventh event (third of 2018) of Darren Appleton's World Pool Series -- the 2018 8-Ball Classic Championship. It was played August 7-10 at the IDM Club in Bucharest, Romania with free live streaming on the Facebook page of the World Pool Series.

This was a 47-player event, with double elimination down to the final 16 players (races to 11, with a shootout at hill/hill) and then single elimination (races to 13 until the finals, then 17, with a shootout at hill/hill). The winner was Chris Melling, defeating Jayson Shaw in the final match.

The conditions for the streamed matches in this event included:
- Rasson Victory II 9-foot table with 4¼" corner pockets and 4¾" side pockets;
- Simonis 860 Tournament Blue cloth;
- Super Aramith Pro Cup TV balls with the measles cue ball;
- referee racks using the Accu-Rack template;
- alternate breaks from anywhere behind the head string;
- break shot must contact the head ball first;
- break is illegal unless a ball is pocketed or at least 4 object balls contact a rail;
- take the group you make more of on the break (table open if breaker makes same number of each group, or fouls, or breaks dry);
- ball in hand behind the line after a foul on the break;
- making the 8-ball on the break is not a game win;
- mixed-group combinations not allowed with an open table;
- call shots;
- foul on all balls, and 3-foul rule in effect;
- jump shots allowed only with playing cue;
- shot clock (only after 75 minutes for matches that have moved too slowly) -- 60 sec. after the break (no extension) and 45 sec. on other shots with one 10-sec. extension per player per game; and
- lag for opening break.

The stats are for the 16 streamed matches (302 games plus 2 shootouts). These matches represented 19% of the total of 85 matches played in the event. These matches are listed here in the order in which they were played. Fourteen of the games in these matches are not included in the stats -- 13 because a different table was on camera during those games and 1 because the stream was down while they restarted it to improve the video.

Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2018
  • Nick Malaj defeated Arjan Matrizi 11-4 (stats exclude 1 game)
    Albin Ouschan d. Thomas Pöschl 11-3
    Chris Melling d. Konrad Juszczyszyn 10-10 plus a shootout
    Alex Kazakis d. Wiktor Zielinski 11-9 (stats exclude 3 games)
    Klenti Kaçi d. Thomas Charmantzis 11-2

Wednesday, Aug. 8
  • Jayson Shaw d. Thorsten Hohmann 11-5
    Petri Makkonen d. Joshua Filler 11-3
    Ioan Ladanyi d. Ruslan Chinahov 13-6 (stats exclude 6 games)
    Kaçi d. Mario He 13-8 (stats exclude 3 games)

Thursday, Aug. 9 -- All Quarterfinal matches
  • Melling d. Wojciech Szewczyk 13-9
    Ladanyi d. Fedor Gorst 13-11
    Kaçi d. Daniel Maciol 13-4 (stats exclude 1 game)
    Shaw d. Hohmann 12-12 plus a shootout

Friday, Aug. 10
  • Melling d. Ladanyi 13-5 [Semifinal]
    Shaw d. Kaçi 13-3 [Semifinal]
    Melling d. Shaw 17-12 [Finals]

Overall results
  • Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul) -- 65% (94 of 144) for match winners, 51% (73 of 144) for match losers, and 58% (167 of 288) in total

    Breaker won the game -- 65% (93 of 144) for match winners, 34% (49 of 144) for match losers, and 49% (142 of 288) in total

    Break-and-run games -- 43% (62 of 144) for match winners, 18% (26 of 144) for match losers, and 31% (88 of 288) in total

Here's a breakdown of the 288 games (for match winners and losers combined).

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:
  • Breaker won the game: 106 (37% of the 288 games)
  • Breaker lost the game: 61 (21%)

Breaker fouled on the break:
  • Breaker won the game: 2 (1%)
  • Breaker lost the game: 12 (4%)

Breaker broke dry (without fouling):
  • Breaker won the game: 34 (12%)
  • Breaker lost the game: 73 (25%)

Therefore, whereas the breaker won 49% (142 of 288) of all games,
  • He won 63% (106 of 167) of the games in which he made at least one ball on the break and did not foul.
  • He won 14% (2 of 14) of the games in which he fouled on the break.
  • He won 32% (34 of 107) of the games in which he broke dry but did not foul.
  • He won 30% (36 of 121) of the games in which he either fouled on the break or broke dry without fouling.

Break-and-run games: The 88 break-and-run games represented 31% of all 288 games, 62% of the 142 games won by the breaker, and 53% of the 167 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

With alternating breaks, B&R "packages" of the normal type are not possible. But we can still look at the breaks of a given player and see how many he ran on his own successive breaks, and we can call these "alternate-break packages." The 88 break-and-run games consisted of 1 alternate-break 5-pack (by Melling), 5 alternate-break 3-packs (by Kazakis, Shaw, Kaçi, Hohmann, and Melling), 13 alternate-break 2-packs, and 42 singles.

8-balls on the break:
The 8-ball was never made on the break in the streamed matches (it would not have counted as a win).

Last edited by AtLarge; 08-10-2018 at 01:54 PM.
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#2)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Online
Posts: 10,302
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
08-10-2018, 01:53 PM

Miscellany from the data for the 2018 8-Ball Classic Championship -- World Pool Series event #3 of 2018
[This relates only to the 16 streamed matches, not to all the matches in the event.]

• The most balls made on a single break was 4, done three times -- once each by Kazakis (B&R), Charmantzis (scratched on that break and lost the game), and Shaw (B&R).

• The average number of balls made on the break was 0.9 (this includes dry and fouled breaks). On successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul), the average was 1.4.

• 73% (209 of 288) of the games ended in one inning – 31% (88) won by the breaker (B&R) and 42% (121) won by the non-breaker. 19% of the games (55 of 288) ended in the second inning of either the breaker or non-breaker, and just 9% (24 of 288) went beyond the second inning.

• 56% (161 of 288) of the games were run out by the player who was at the table following the break. These run-outs were:
- By the breaker after successful breaks (B&R games) – 53% (88 of 167)
- By the non-breaker after fouls on the break – 79% (11 of 14)
- By the non-breaker after dry breaks – 58% (62 of 107)

• The player who made the first ball after the break:
- Won the game in that same inning 62% of the time (179 of 287)
- Won the game in a later inning 8% of the time (23 of 287)
- Lost the game 30% of the time (85 of 287)
[Note -- total games used here are 287 rather than 288 to eliminate 1 game that was lost before any ball was made legally after the break.]

• The loser won an average of 5.1 games in the races to 11 and 7.3 games in the races to 13. Two of the matches went to hill/hill and a shootout. The largest margin of victory was Shaw d. Kaçi 13-3.

• The average minutes per game for all 16 matches (excluding time for the two shootouts) was 6.5. The elapsed time for each match was measured from the lag until the last ball was made (or conceded), so it includes time for racking and timeouts (but excludes the 13 minute intermission during the final match).

• The race to 11 that was both longest in elapsed time (145 min.) and highest in average minutes per game (7.3 min./game) was Kazakis d. Zielinski 11-9.

• The race to 11 that was both shortest in elapsed time (62 min.) and lowest in average minutes per game (4.7 min./game) was Kaçi d. Charmantzis 11-2.

• The race to 13 that was longest in elapsed time (204 min.) was Ladanyi d. Gorst 13-11. The race to 13 that was highest in average minutes per game (9.1 min./game) was Ladanyi d. Chinahov 13-6.

• The race to 13 that was both shortest in elapsed time (89 min.) and lowest in average minutes per game (5.6 min./game) was Shaw d. Kaçi 13-3.

• Breaking fouls averaged 1 for every 20.6 games, other fouls 1 for every 9.3 games, and missed shots about 1 for every 1.9 games.

• About 11% of the games involved one or more safeties.
  
Reply With Quote
Break Stats -- World Pool Series, 8-Ball Classic Championship, August 2018
Old
  (#3)
MattPoland
AzB Silver Member
MattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 834
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2016
   
Break Stats -- World Pool Series, 8-Ball Classic Championship, August 2018 - 08-10-2018, 01:59 PM

Given the finals, I wonder how successful breaks 58% compares in this tournament to other 8-ball tournaments in similar conditions.


Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
Catalin
AzB Silver Member
Catalin has a reputation beyond reputeCatalin has a reputation beyond reputeCatalin has a reputation beyond reputeCatalin has a reputation beyond reputeCatalin has a reputation beyond reputeCatalin has a reputation beyond reputeCatalin has a reputation beyond reputeCatalin has a reputation beyond reputeCatalin has a reputation beyond reputeCatalin has a reputation beyond reputeCatalin has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 167
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2014
   
08-10-2018, 02:20 PM

I believe players are allowed to use jump cues, but only when the opponent snookers them, not when they snooker themselves.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Online
Posts: 10,302
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
08-10-2018, 02:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattPoland View Post
Given the finals, I wonder how successful breaks 58% compares in this tournament to other 8-ball tournaments in similar conditions. ...
Your "in similar conditions" is the kicker. This was the 5th 8-Ball event in Appleton's WPS, and the rules/conditions have differed to at least some degree in each of them. Here's a stats comparison I posted last year after WPS #4: https://forums.azbilliards.com/showp...99&postcount=3

I may well add to that comparison shortly.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Online
Posts: 10,302
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
08-10-2018, 02:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catalin View Post
I believe players are allowed to use jump cues, but only when the opponent snookers them, not when they snooker themselves.
No, Appleton changed that for this event -- no jump cues allowed, and no use of break cues for jumping.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
MattPoland
AzB Silver Member
MattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond reputeMattPoland has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 834
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2016
   
08-10-2018, 02:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtLarge View Post
Your "in similar conditions" is the kicker. This was the 5th 8-Ball event in Appleton's WPS, and the rules/conditions have differed to at least some degree in each of them. Here's a stats comparison I posted last year after WPS #4: https://forums.azbilliards.com/showp...99&postcount=3



I may well add to that comparison shortly.

That’s still quasi-insightful. Without pretending to be definitive, I could see players expecting 68% - 74% with a template rack. Getting down to 58% sounds more like a good day with a triangle rack.


Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
hang-the-9
AzB Silver Member
hang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond repute
 
hang-the-9's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 10,464
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: MA
   
08-10-2018, 09:26 PM

Always nice to have stats from you

I use them to show people that even pros don't make a ball every rack on the break so when some APA 5 does not, it's not a horror story.


"I'll back you against anyone, as long as you did not know you were playng for money"

Charter member of the D-Bag Club, we stick to the letter of the rules not the spirit, and up yours!
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
hang-the-9
AzB Silver Member
hang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond reputehang-the-9 has a reputation beyond repute
 
hang-the-9's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 10,464
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: MA
   
08-10-2018, 09:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtLarge View Post
No, Appleton changed that for this event -- no jump cues allowed, and no use of break cues for jumping.
While I don't like jump cues, I do think that you should be able to use an alternate cue for jumping other than your playing cue, if only because of the huge number of players using LD shafts which have really bad jumping ability. My "ideal" rules would include no jump cues, but allowing player to jump with their full length (and weight) break cue. If I had any say in the WPA rules, there would be a min and max weight range and a min/max length range for cues. Probably limited to like 56" and 62" and 16 to 24 oz. That would be enough range to allow for tall players and those that use a cue for reach but would likely still have the need to use a bridge for some shots which should be part of the game, skill with using a bridge when needed.


"I'll back you against anyone, as long as you did not know you were playng for money"

Charter member of the D-Bag Club, we stick to the letter of the rules not the spirit, and up yours!
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
BRussell
AzB Silver Member
BRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond repute
 
BRussell's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,431
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2013
   
08-10-2018, 09:34 PM

Shaw was complaining about the racks after the finals.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#11)
pt109
WO double hemlock

pt109 has a reputation beyond reputept109 has a reputation beyond reputept109 has a reputation beyond reputept109 has a reputation beyond reputept109 has a reputation beyond reputept109 has a reputation beyond reputept109 has a reputation beyond reputept109 has a reputation beyond reputept109 has a reputation beyond reputept109 has a reputation beyond reputept109 has a reputation beyond repute
 
pt109's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 25,732
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: out of country but incontinent
   
08-10-2018, 09:58 PM

The speedifying of Klenti
Again he was involved in some of the fastest matches.


Lionize your game.
http://www.alexpagulayan.com/

MAGIC CHALK call Marco Polo 647-287-8131

If pool players had to have knowledge of geometry and physics before talking about geometry and physics, all of the aiming threads would disappear.

Bob Jewett
SF Billiard Academy
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Online
Posts: 10,302
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
08-10-2018, 10:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Shaw was complaining about the racks after the finals.
Hmmm. Same racker for Melling as for Shaw. Melling was successful on 12 of his 15 breaks, Shaw on 6 of his 14.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
HawaiianEye
AzB Silver Member
HawaiianEye has a reputation beyond reputeHawaiianEye has a reputation beyond reputeHawaiianEye has a reputation beyond reputeHawaiianEye has a reputation beyond reputeHawaiianEye has a reputation beyond reputeHawaiianEye has a reputation beyond reputeHawaiianEye has a reputation beyond reputeHawaiianEye has a reputation beyond reputeHawaiianEye has a reputation beyond reputeHawaiianEye has a reputation beyond reputeHawaiianEye has a reputation beyond repute
 
HawaiianEye's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 9,103
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2011
   
08-10-2018, 10:25 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtLarge View Post
No, Appleton changed that for this event -- no jump cues allowed, and no use of break cues for jumping.
Good rule, other than jumping should not be allowed at all, IMHO.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Online
Posts: 10,302
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
08-10-2018, 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by pt109 View Post
The speedifying of Klenti
Again he was involved in some of the fastest matches.
Well, the quick matches I mentioned for him are a little misleading. In the real speedy match at 4.7 min./game, his opponent was hopelessly outplayed and Kaçi could kind of freewheel it. In the other one (5.6 min./game), Kaçi didn't spend much time at the table, and Shaw made about three-quarters of the balls that were pocketed.

One of Kaçi's other matches was a slow one, and the players were put on a shot clock.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Online
Posts: 10,302
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
08-12-2018, 10:17 AM

Here's a further extension of the stats comparisons I have posted after each of the World Pool Series 8-Ball events.

A significant change from most 8-Ball events in the first WPS event was breaking outside a 2-diamonds-wide central box. The second WPS event narrowed the allowable breaking area even more, to about a half-diamond width off of either side rail, and used a table with even tighter pockets for most of the streamed matches. For the third and fourth events, the allowable breaking area was widened to what it was for the first event, and the table was at least as tight as in the second event. For the fifth WPS 8-Ball event, they switched to a template rack and reverted to allowing breaking from anywhere behind the line.

The 10 events compared here are:

• CSI Invitational 8-Ball Championship, July 2014 -- template rack, break from anywhere behind the line, table open after the break
• Accu-Stats MIH 8-Ball Invitational, Nov. 2014 (final 2 days only) -- template rack, break from anywhere behind the line, table open after the break
• Accu-stats MIH 8-Ball Invitational, Nov. 2016 -- template rack, break from anywhere behind the line, take what you make more of
• US Open 8-Ball Championship, July 2017 -- template rack, break from anywhere behind the line, table open after the break
• US Open 8-Ball Championship, July 2018 -- template rack, break from anywhere behind the line, table open after the break
• World Pool Series #1, Molinary Players' Championship, Jan. 2017 -- triangle rack, break from outside a 2-diamonds-wide central box, take what you make more of
• World Pool Series #2, Aramith Masters Championship, April 2017 -- triangle rack, break from outside a 3-diamonds-wide central box, take what you make more of
• World Pool Series #3, RYO Rack Classic Championship, July 2017 -- triangle rack, break from outside a 2-diamonds-wide central box, take what you make more of
• World Pool Series #4, Predator World Series Championship, Nov. 2017 -- triangle rack, break from outside a 2-diamonds-wide central box, take what you make more of
• World Pool Series #7 (5th for 8-Ball), Classic 8-Ball Championship, Aug. 2018 -- template rack, break from anywhere behind the line, take what you make more of

All 10 events were on 9-foot tables. The first 5 events used Diamond tables, the first 3 with standard pro-cut 4½" pockets and the 2 US Opens with 4¼" corners. WPS event #1 used a Brunswick Gold Crown with 4¼" corners. But I doubt that the difficulty factor for this Brunswick was any higher than for the pro-cut Diamonds (shallower shelf depth on the Brunswick, e.g.). Most of the streamed matches for WPS event #2 used a Rasson table with corner pockets just a bit over 4". WPS event #3 used a Rasson table with 4" corner pockets and 4½" side pockets. WPS event #4 used a Rasson table with 4” corner pockets, 4½” side pockets, and hard pocket facings. The fifth WPS 8-Ball event used a Rasson table with 4¼" corner pockets and 4¾" side pockets. The first 4 WPS events used a regular triangle instead of a breaking template, and that may have had an effect on the stats. The WPS events also had several other differences in the rules/conditions, but I doubt that they caused any significant difference in the stats. The field strength for the streamed matches was high for all 10 events.

Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 71% (154 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 73% (85 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 73% (182 of 251)
    2017 US Open -- 68% (157 of 232)
    2018 US Open -- 63% (141 of 224)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 53% (155 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 45% (96 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 47% (92 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 37% (107 of 286)
    2018 WPS #7 -- 58% (167 of 288)

Breaker won the game:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 64% (139 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 61% (71 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 55% (139 of 251)
    2017 US Open -- 56% (130 of 232)
    2018 US Open -- 54% (121 of 224)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 48% (141 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 46% (99 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 54% (105 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 47% (134 of 286)
    2018 WPS #7 -- 49% (142 of 288)

Break-and-run games, on all breaks:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 54% (118 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 50% (59 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 41% (102 of 251)
    2017 US Open -- 41% (96 of 232)
    2018 US Open -- 33% (75 of 224)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 29% (85 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 18% (38 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 23% (46 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 16% (45 of 286)
    2018 WPS #7 -- 31% (88 of 288)

Break-and-run games, on successful breaks:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 77% (118 of 154)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 69% (59 of 85)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 56% (102 of 182)
    2017 US Open -- 61% (96 of 157)
    2018 US Open -- 53% (75 of 141)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 55% (85 of 155)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 40% (38 of 96)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 50% (46 of 92)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 42% (45 of 107)
    2018 WPS #7 -- 53% (88 of 167)

Runouts by the player at the table following the break:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 74% (162 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 68% (80 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 59% (147 of 251)
    2017 US Open -- 62% (144 of 232)
    2018 US Open -- 50% (113 of 224)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 54% (159 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 42% (91 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 47% (93 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 45% (128 of 286)
    2018 WPS #7 -- 56% (161 of 288)

Games won by the player at the table following the break:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 78% (169 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 76% (89 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 69% (172 of 251)
    2017 US Open -- 71% (165 of 232)
    2018 US Open -- 60% (134 of 224)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 66% (193 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 60% (128 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 64% (125 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 64% (183 of 286)
    2018 WPS #7 -- 66% (191 of 288)

Games ending in one inning (by B&R or on non-breaker's first visit):
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 88% (192 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 85% (99 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 78% (195 of 251)
    2017 US Open -- 78% (180 of 232)
    2018 US Open -- 70% (157 of 224)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 69% (201 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 57% (122 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 57% (112 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 52% (150 of 286)
    2018 WPS #7 -- 73% (209 of 288)

Approx. number of games involving safeties:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 4% (8 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 4% (5 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 8% (21 of 251)
    2017 US Open -- 8% (19 of 232)
    2018 US Open -- 11% (24 of 224)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 12% (36 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 19% (41 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 17% (33 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 23% (65 of 286)
    2018 WPS #7 -- 11% (31 of 288)

Average number of balls made on all breaks and on successful breaks:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 1.3, 1.6
    2014 A-S MIH -- 1.3, 1.7
    2016 A-S MIH -- 1.3, 1.6
    2017 US Open -- 1.2, 1.6
    2018 US Open -- 1.1, 1.6
    2017 WPS #1 -- 0.8, 1.4
    2017 WPS #2 -- 0.6, 1.3
    2017 WPS #3 -- 0.6, 1.3
    2017 WPS #4 -- 0.5, 1.2
    2018 WPS #7 -- 0.9, 1.4

Average number of minutes per game:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 6.6 for 218 games (no shot clock)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 5.4 for 117 games (45-sec. shot clock)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 5.5 for 251 games (45-sec. shot clock)
    2017 US Open -- 6.0 for 232 games (no shot clock?)
    2018 US Open -- 7.2 for 224 games (no shot clock)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 7.0 for 293 games (no shot clock)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 7.4 for 215 games (30-sec. shot clock in the majority of the matches)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 7.4 for 197 games (45-sec. shot clock in most matches)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 7.6 for 286 games (45-sec. shot clock in most matches)
    2018 WPS #7 -- 6.5 for 302 games (no shot clock in most matches)

Clearly, the equipment and rules have significant effects on the statistical results. Moving from the first two events to the third, we saw the effect of not having an open table after the break -- a reduction in the rate of run-outs from the break and in the breaker's win percentage. The fourth and fifth events were with tighter pockets, but were back to an open table after the break.

In the first four WPS events, we saw that breaking outside a central box and using a regular triangle instead of a breaking template had a further effect in making the game more difficult -- lower success rates on the break, reductions in B&R's and breaker wins, and more player interaction. The extra-difficult pockets on the streaming table in WPS #4 made it the most difficult table for breaking and pocketing balls in all of these events. Then for the most recent WPS event, they kept the take-what-you-make-more-of rule but widened the pockets a bit, switched to a breaking template, and eliminated the breaking box.

So Darren Appleton's tweaks to the WPA rules certainly made the game more difficult for top pros. But apparently his feedback was that he had gone too far with WPS#4, so he made things easier in this most recent event. But he has indicated that any future WPS events may be 9- or 10-Ball, so we'll have to wait and see whether his experiments with 8-Ball are over.
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.