AZ gets it wrong - Player of Year

[wayne]

According to AZ in their story on player of the year. " Shane Van Boening, had a great year. He won more money than Orcullo by playing in more events."

This is not true. In events that Orcullo and Shane played in common Shane won about $97,000 and Orcullo around $60,000

According to AZ "The two men played in ten events in common in 2012. In seven of those ten instances Orcullo came out ahead in the standings."

This is also incorrect. They played something like 14 events in common and money wise Shane came out ahead 7-6 with one event Ten Ball Challenge neither seemed to cash but AZ counted this for Orcullo.

It is fine if they name Orcullo player of the year but they should do a little better job of presenting the facts and not falsely report on the events they had in common.

 

[PaulieB]

This is also incorrect. They played something like 14 events in common and money wise Shane came out ahead 7-6 with one event Ten Ball Challenge neither seemed to cash but AZ counted this for Orcullo.

I'm confused. You are refuting facts that are presented by using the phrase "they played something like 14 events in common". That's not a very strong argument.

You could be absolutely correct but in trying to make your point you don't come across as accurate or decisive.

 

[vapoolplayer]

I agree. I also have a big problem when they state something along the lines of "a pro player could play in a lot of tournaments with lesser skill opposition and make 100k+ a year." Or something to that effect.

If that were true, there would be professionals out there doing just that. Of course some are in the game to be the best of the best, but there are others who are in it to pay bills as well and if they could just "play in many tournaments with lesser skill opponents" then the money lists each year would be much different.

I wholeheartedly agree that article was very poorly thought out.

 

[CreeDo]

They say in the article that
A. Deciding this will require judgment calls and sort of "apples-to-oranges" comparisons
B. It's not strictly about who has the highest earnings at the end of the year

They decide which events could be called majors and which ones ought to be ranked a bit lower. In other words, if shane wins the US Open but places 2nd in three small tour stops, does that put him below someone who placed 2nd in the US Open and first in three tour stops? You get the idea.

If you know for sure they have factual errors, just post the exact figures and where you got your info from... none of those "about" and "around" and "something like" stuff.

Personally I dunno where you'd find out info that contradicts AZ's because AZB is about the only place that reliably tracks who's-won-what and their yearly earnings. If there's another source with more complete and accurate info I'd definitely like to know the link.

 

[peteypooldude]

They say in the article that
A. Deciding this will require judgment calls and sort of "apples-to-oranges" comparisons
B. It's not strictly about who has the highest earnings at the end of the year

They decide which events could be called majors and which ones ought to be ranked a bit lower. In other words, if shane wins the US Open but places 2nd in three small tour stops, does that put him below someone who placed 2nd in the US Open and first in three tour stops? You get the idea.

If you know for sure they have factual errors, just post the exact figures and where you got your info from... none of those "about" and "around" and "something like" stuff.

Personally I dunno where you'd find out info that contradicts AZ's because AZB is about the only place that reliably tracks who's-won-what and their yearly earnings. If there's another source with more complete and accurate info I'd definitely like to know the link.

^^^^^^^^
What he said

 

[wayne]

They say in the article that

If you know for sure they have factual errors, just post the exact figures and where you got your info from... none of those "about" and "around" and "something like" stuff.

Personally I dunno where you'd find out info that contradicts AZ's because AZB is about the only place that reliably tracks who's-won-what and their yearly earnings. If there's another source with more complete and accurate info I'd definitely like to know the link.

Look at what AZ posted. 90 percent of the facts are in the earnings of the 2 players.

What AZ wrote stated Orcollo did much better in common events. This is not true.

Orcollo played in the 3 events at Derby City and Shane finished ahead of him in all 3 and won two of the events. Pretty major since Shane won $53,000.

Shane won US Open 9 ball = $25,000 beat Orcollo in final.

Overall, in common events, Shane won $97,000 Orcollo about $60,000.

The FACT is Shane did much better in common events and Orcollo did not finish ahead of him in 7 out of 10. Shane finished ahead of Orcollo in all 3 Derby City events, the US Open and lesser events Southern Classic one pocket and 9 ball and World Cup of Pool. That is 7 events Shane finished ahead of Orcullo.

Also AZ counted an ahead for Orcollo for the diamond 10 ball Championship which neither finished in the money which should not count for either one as a victory.

So that leaves it 7 to 6 in favor of Shane in common events with Shane dominating $ wise in these events (if you count the Diamond 10 ball for Dennis even though they were both out of the money it would be 7 to 7 .

If you look closely you will see that it was very shoddy reporting on the part of AZ and they got most of the facts wrong.

Additionally:
Shane won the Players Championship = $20,000 which is major ( I believe Dennis did not play)

Shane won the US Open 1 pocket against a stellar field (I believe Dennis did not play)

Orcollo won the China Open = $40,000 (Shane did not play)

They won roughly the same amount in events the other did not play in and both had major wins.