... continued from Part II
BPI over 10 runs
Cold-start
I won't post data looking at 'which ball ended the run', or the distribution of completed racks per run, since they may not add anything.
When watching Ruslan, it seemed to me that everything was much easier for him than it had been for Shane who played shortly before. Shots were easier for Ruslan, position was simpler, and there were a lot less 'hero-shots' required. Similarly for Schmidt versus Shaw.
I started to look at shot difficulty, using a method originally developed by Bob Jewett, by computing the difficulty of each shot in the run, and getting a 'run-difficulty'. It gets complicated, and the uncertainty in pinning down the ball positions can sometimes be significant. Maybe I'll get time to finish that and post the results.
Similarly, looking at the last five shots in each rack shows notable differences in how the straight-pool players set up their patterns compared to the rotation players. I've given that database to a friend who's offered to analyze that and hopefully we'll add that soon.
BPI over 10 runs
- Ruslan made only 10 runs and performed very well. Trying to figure out a fair comparison, I computed the running average BPI over 10 consecutive runs for all players, to find the highest 10-consecutive-run-average.
- Schmidt outperformed Ruslan on his third day, when he averaged 160 BPI over 10 consecutive runs. That’s phenomenal!
- Interesting though, that Shane, Shaw1, and Shaw2 are all at similar levels.
- Again, Shaw2 outperforms Shaw1 slightly.
- Looking at this another way, I calculated the proportion of time each player was able to maintain a running average over 100.
- Schmidt had a 10Run-BPI over 100, 37% of the time he was playing, more than twice as high as anyone else.
- Shaw2 was identical with Shaw1.
- Ruslan had 10% but that's because he only had a 10-run average after completing his 10th and final run, so only one sample point.
Cold-start
- Perhaps the fairest comparison between these players is to just look at their first 10 runs. Ruslan started cold and had an average of 126.7 balls over 10 runs.
- Interesting that Shaw1 was much ‘hotter’ than Shaw2 in his first 10 runs.
- Shane was #2 behind Ruslan with a 241, and Shaw1 was #3 with a 234.
- This might be a good competition.
- Make 10 attempts at a high run on any Gold Crown with pockets < 5 1/8”
- Win a prize for highest run.
- Win a prize for the highest average.
I won't post data looking at 'which ball ended the run', or the distribution of completed racks per run, since they may not add anything.
When watching Ruslan, it seemed to me that everything was much easier for him than it had been for Shane who played shortly before. Shots were easier for Ruslan, position was simpler, and there were a lot less 'hero-shots' required. Similarly for Schmidt versus Shaw.
I started to look at shot difficulty, using a method originally developed by Bob Jewett, by computing the difficulty of each shot in the run, and getting a 'run-difficulty'. It gets complicated, and the uncertainty in pinning down the ball positions can sometimes be significant. Maybe I'll get time to finish that and post the results.
Similarly, looking at the last five shots in each rack shows notable differences in how the straight-pool players set up their patterns compared to the rotation players. I've given that database to a friend who's offered to analyze that and hopefully we'll add that soon.
Last edited: