Break Stats -- 2013 U.S. Open 9-Ball, Oct. 2013

[ShootingRazbone]

He broke and ran out nearly 50% last year. That is a crazy stat and I am quite frankly speechless about that.

 

[victhestick]

If you exclude the 5 players whose results were shown in post #8, the other 47 players who played in the 34 streamed matches I watched still won 52% of the games in which they were the breaker. I would not really agree with the word "significant" in your last sentence quoted above.

The percentage of games won by the breaker in pro events is generally in the range of 45% - 60%. It can get much higher than that for the top players near the end of an event when they are dialed in on the break and running out a lot. It can also be influenced by matches involving a strong player and a weak player. A very lopsided match in a winner-breaks format obviously leads to a very high "breaker-won-game" percentage.

Despite the fact that the stats sometimes seem to indicate that it is no great advantage to be breaking, I doubt that many top players would want to give the break to an opponent coming down the stretch in a big event.

I stand corrected. Perhaps being the better player is a lot more significant than having the break would be a better expression. I wonder what percentage of games broke and won by the winning player compares to the percentage of games broke and won by the losing player.

 

[CreeDo]

Something that might be neat to track, but maybe also too tedious, is cut vs. hard breaks.
Sometimes a player's hard break can turn into a cut break by accident.

But basically, I saw shane use a direct hard break (several times vs. Melling)
and then switch to a cut break going to the side rail every time against Lee Van.

It'd be interesting to note which is more effective in terms of average # of balls pocketed,
and avoiding dry breaks. I predict the cut break.

 

[CSykes24]

Something that might be neat to track, but maybe also too tedious, is cut vs. hard breaks.
Sometimes a player's hard break can turn into a cut break by accident.

But basically, I saw shane use a direct hard break (several times vs. Melling)
and then switch to a cut break going to the side rail every time against Lee Van.

It'd be interesting to note which is more effective in terms of average # of balls pocketed,
and avoiding dry breaks. I predict the cut break.

As an amateur that played in the event, with no real rack-reading experience, the cut break was definitely the higher percentage move. However, when I played Dechaine, he was direct-breaking and drilling the wing ball every time, so I guess it all matters on if you can read the rack well or not.

 

[dr_dave]

AtLarge,

Thank you for do this. I always look forward to your stats report.

FYI, I've been quoting all of your big-tournament results on my break stats resource page (with links to your posts) so all of the data can be viewed in one place. I plan to continue to do this as long as you continue to do your thing. At some point, it will be interesting to look at how the stats have changed over time and with equipment changes. Please let me know if I have missed any big-tournament results.

Please keep up the good work,
Dave

Here are the aggregate break statistics from 34 of the 36 9-Ball matches streamed by Accu-Stats from the 2013 U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship in Chesapeake, VA. [The two matches I missed were K. Uchigaki d. S. Moore and R. Hundal d. K Bein, both on Day 2.]

The conditions for this event included: Diamond 9-foot table with pro-cut pockets, Simonis 860 cloth, Diamond wooden rack, Aramith Tournament balls, measles cue ball, winner breaks, breaker racks for himself with the 2-ball at the back of the rack, break from the box (a bit narrower than 2 diamonds wide), a 9-ball made on the break spots up if it went in either of the two foot-rail pockets, no soft breaking (at least 3 balls must pass mid-table or be pocketed), cue-ball fouls only, jump cues are allowed, and all slop counts (except as stated for 9-balls on the break). A 40-sec. shot clock (with one extension per rack) was used on most of the full-production matches beginning with the third match on Wednesday.

The 34 matches (585 games) were as follows:

Sun., Oct. 13 -- S. Frost def. M. McNaughton 11-7, D. Mastermaker d. O. Santiago-Roman 11-3, and E. Moore d. D. Bollman 11-7.

Mon., Oct. 14 -- S. Daulton d. K. West 11-7, B. Tatum d. A. Kielar 11-6, B. Parks d. T. McKinney 11-6, and J. Engel d. R. Vanalla 11-8. [Note: the data below exclude results for the first game of the Parks/McKinney match, when Pat Fleming was trying to demonstrate his new TPA app,]

Tues., Oct 15 -- C. Deuel d. M. Yednak 11-2, W. Kiamco d. M. Immonen 11-10, B. Shuff d. F. Hernandez 11-4, T. Hohmann d. R. Carmona 11-2, R. Lim d. M. Ricciardella 11-2, and L. Kjoersvik d. D. Hughes 11-6.

Wed., Oct 16 -- J. Roberts d. H. Alhouri 11-9, M. Morra d. B. Stottlemyer 11-5, C. Williams d. L. Nevel 11-8, S Van Boening d. O. Al Shaheen 11-5, W. Can d. Y. Akagariyama 11-9, and O. Ortmann d. D. Peach 11-9.

Thurs., Oct 17 -- R. Souquet. d. C. Pike 11-7, C. Deuel d. R. Morris 11-8, J. Archer d. J. Klatt 11-5, C. Melling d. K. Boyes 11-5, N. Feijen d. D. Appleton 11-2, and H. Hijikata d. E. Strickland 11-7.

Fri., Oct 18 -- J. Shaw d. J. Archer 11-8, L. Vann Corteza d. H. Hijikata 11-1, K. Boyes d. C. Deuel 11-2, N. Feijen d. N. Ekonomopoulos 11-9, S. Van Boening d. C. Melling 11-6, and N. Feijen d. C. Melling 11-9.

Sat., Oct 19 -- S. Van Boening d. J. Shaw 11-5, L. Vann Corteza d. J. Shaw 12-10, and S. Van Boening d. L. Vann Corteza 13-10.​

Overall results -- The breaker made at least one ball (and did not foul) 63% of the time (370 of 585), won 56% of the games (326 of 585), and broke and ran 21% of the games (124 of 585).

Here's a little more detailed breakdown of the 585 games.

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:

• Breaker won the game: 241 (41% of the 585 games)
• Breaker lost the game: 129 (22%)

Breaker fouled on the break:

• Breaker won the game: 9 (2%)
• Breaker lost the game: 24 (4%)

Breaker broke dry (without fouling):

• Breaker won the game: 76 (13%)
• Breaker lost the game: 106 (18%)

Therefore, whereas the breaker won 56% (326) of all 585 games,

• He won 65% (241 of 370) of the games in which he made at least one ball on the break and did not foul.
• He won 27% (9 of 33) of the games in which he fouled on the break.
• He won 42% (76 of 182) of the games in which he broke dry but did not foul.
• He won 40% (85 of 215) of the games in which he either fouled on the break or broke dry without fouling.

9-balls on the break:
The 124 break-and-run games included just 3 9-balls on the break (0.5% of the 585 breaks). In addition, 18 9-balls (3.1% of the breaks) were made that went in one of the two bottom pockets and had to be spotted rather than counting as wins.

 

[pt109]

Definitely, he's got that break working for him.

What percentage would you think, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, would you say the break is in 9-ball? Just curious.

By these stats, it would appear that the break is definitely a statistical significant factor in winning, but what percent, I wonder.

In the action days, the break and the 8 were considered equal.
I never agreed with that...anyone I played even could have the 8 if I
could keep the break...the possibility of running a 'pack' is just too appealing.

However, discussing the break with new balls and cloth on a great-playing
Diamond rarely reflects the normal conditions in a pool hall with balls
of different ages and sizes and iffy cloth.

So my favorite breakers, Billy Johnson, Earl in the 90s, and Shane,
have one thing in common from my point of view...accuracy...
Normal conditions, you got to hit them hard....and the 'golf swingers'
that cut the 1-ball are losing energy that is passed from the 1-ball
into the other balls ....not to mention whitey flying off the table sometimes.

And accuracy is also VERTICAL....if the cue-ball is not on the cloth when
it hits the 1-ball, you are losing that explosion of the pack.
..and that's what Billy, Earl, and Shane have....a great break, like a
long drive at golf, is a SWEET hit.

This is not answering your % query very well, JAM, but it is too complicated
for simple math.....I have played in conditions where the 8 was far
more valuable than the break.

..be nice to have Keith's take on this.

 

[CreeDo]

As an amateur that played in the event, with no real rack-reading experience,
the cut break was definitely the higher percentage move. However, when I played Dechaine, he was direct-
breaking and drilling the wing ball every time, so I guess it all matters on if you can read the rack well or not.

Hope you got that racking secrets DVD ordered by now. Your game can only go up.

This is where it seems funny to me... you're right, that those guys are direct breaking
based on their read of the rack. And because it's rack your own, they can keep fooling
with the balls until they get a "read" they like. Or to put it plainly, they can leave a gap
that helps the wing ball go.

I hope next year they go to ref. racking to avoid this potentially huge issue
that gets overshadowed by Barry's payment antics.

 

[AtLarge]

What were the numbers for pushes at the 2013 U.S. Open 9-Ball event? Conventional wisdom is that the player who pushes out is at a disadvantage, because it is the other player who then has the choice on whether to shoot.

Out of the 585 games I watched in 34 streamed matches, 66 games (11%) involved a push out, and the results were as follows:

• Breaker pushed and won the game -- 22
• Breaker pushed and lost the game -- 20
• Non-breaker pushed and won the game -- 10
• Non-breaker pushed and lost the game -- 14

So, overall, the person who pushed won 32 of the 66 games (48%) and lost 34 (52%). Breakers who pushed won a couple more games than they lost, and non-breakers lost a few more than they won. But the numbers are small here, so generalizations should not be made from them.

Of the 66 pushes, 24 were returned (passed back to the pusher to shoot), and the pusher won just 7 of those 24 games.

 

[AtLarge]

Aggregating the numbers for pushes in the streamed matches that I watched for the 3 most recent U.S. Open 9-Ball events (2013, 2012, and 2011), we have the following.

Out of 1,883 games in 110 streamed matches, 204 games (10.8%) involved a push out, and the results were as follows:

• Breaker pushed and won the game -- 70
• Breaker pushed and lost the game -- 62
• Non-breaker pushed and won the game -- 27
• Non-breaker pushed and lost the game -- 45

So, overall, the person who pushed won 97 of the 204 games (48%) and lost 107 (52%). Whereas breakers who pushed won a few more games than they lost, non-breakers lost a lot more than they won.

Of the 204 pushes, 73 were returned (passed back to the pusher to shoot), and the pusher won 33 of those 73 games (45%).

 

[CreeDo]

I think this must show something important but hell if I can show what.

Why do non-breakers go on to lose so many more push battles? In theory shouldn't
win/loss be about the same for breaker or non breaker?

So, I'm thinking it's psychological. The non-breaker got to watch you win the previous rack and break,
and feels snakebit when your break fails, and yet leaves them nothing.
That negative mindset must somehow affect the quality of their decision making.

 

[AtLarge]

I think this must show something important but hell if I can show what.

Why do non-breakers go on to lose so many more push battles? In theory shouldn't
win/loss be about the same for breaker or non breaker?

So, I'm thinking it's psychological. The non-breaker got to watch you win the previous rack and break,
and feels snakebit when your break fails, and yet leaves them nothing.
That negative mindset must somehow affect the quality of their decision making.

Your hypothesis that it is psychological sounds reasonable -- until we also throw in the results from Turning Stone. I posted this in another thread.
_______________________________________________

Aggregating the numbers for pushes in the 4 most recent Turning Stone events (XXI, XX, XIX, and XVIII), we have the following.

Out of 930 games in 64 streamed matches, 115 games (12.4%) involved a push out, and the results were as follows:

• Breaker pushed and won the game -- 39
• Breaker pushed and lost the game -- 31
• Non-breaker pushed and won the game -- 30
• Non-breaker pushed and lost the game -- 15

So, overall, the person who pushed won 69 of the 115 games (60%) and lost 46 (40%). Both breakers and non-breakers who pushed won the majority of their pushes. This contradicts conventional wisdom.

Of the 115 pushes, 45 were returned (passed back to the pusher to shoot), and the pusher won 29 of those 45 games (64%).
______________________________________________

So, the Turning Stone data went the other way for the non-breakers who pushed -- a lot more wins than losses. If we combine the U.S. Open data and the Turning Stone data, we have the following for the 7 tournaments:

Out of 2,813 games in 174 streamed matches, 319 games (11.3%) involved a push out, and the results were as follows:

• Breaker pushed and won the game -- 109
• Breaker pushed and lost the game -- 93
• Non-breaker pushed and won the game -- 57
• Non-breaker pushed and lost the game -- 60

So, overall, the person who pushed won 166 of the 319 games (52%) and lost 153 (48%). Breakers who pushed won the majority of their pushes, but non-breakers came out about even.

I guess about all I would conclude so far, based on a little over 300 pushes, is that we are not really seeing any confirmation of the belief that the pusher is at a disadvantage.

 

[30REBORNFAN]

I'd also like to say great work with the statistics - a fascinating read with gold dust sprinkled on top for genuine fans.

With regards to the psychology of the push and how that differs between the breaker and non-breaker, I would venture that the breaker is looking to consolidate after a failure to run out whereas the non-breaker may be choosing a more aggressive push to try and wrestle back momentum asap.