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