Break Stats -- Turning Stone XXIII 9-Ball, Jan. 2015

[AtLarge]

Here are some aggregate break statistics from the 23 9-Ball matches streamed by AZBtv from the Turning Stone Classic XXIII in Verona, New York.

The conditions for this event included: Diamond 9-foot table with pro-cut pockets, Tournament Blue Simonis 860 cloth, Aramith TV balls with the measles cue ball, Diamond wooden rack, winner breaks from the box (2 diamonds wide), loser racks (unless both players agree to rack-your-own), cue-ball fouls only except during the act of shooting, no jump cues allowed, and all slop counts.

The 23 matches (326 games) were as follows. [Note: These stats exclude 4 games when the stream was down, a commercial interfered, or I just missed it.]

Thurs., Jan. 8 -- M. Immonen def. C Matta 9-5, J. Barretta d. R. Hart 9-8, J. Archer d. K. Guimond 9-7, and E. Hjorleifson d. M. Dechaine 9-5.​

​

Fri., Jan. 9 -- S. Auigbelle d. R. Connors 9-6, C. Deuel d. B. Bryant 9-2, S. Moore d. E. Herring 9-8, J. Shaw d. T. Hohmann 9-5, H. Chin d. P. Dryden 9-1, R. Morris d. J. Ignacio 9-7, and M. Daigle d. J. Sinicropi 9-5.​

​

Sat., Jan 10 -- G. Antonakos d. K. Guimond 9-7, D. Hewitt d. M. Krah 9-3, J. Morra d. K. Corr 9-7, T. Hohmann d. S. Morgan 9-5, R. Saez d. J. Ignacio 9-8, J. Shaw d. J. Archer 9-3, and R. Morris d. M. Dechaine 9-3.​

​

Sun., Jan 11 -- J. Morra d. J. Shaw 9-8, J. Sossei d. R. Cosanzio 9-3, J. Morra d. M. Immonen 9-1, J. Shaw d. M. Immonen 9-1, and J. Shaw d. J. Morra 13-11.​

Overall results -- The breaker made at least one ball (and did not foul) 61% of the time (199 of 326), won 52% of the games (169 of 326), and broke and ran 21% of the games (70 of 326).

Here's a little more detailed breakdown of the 326 games.

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:​

Breaker won the game: 125 (38% of the 326 games)​

Breaker lost the game: 74 (23%)​

​

Breaker fouled on the break:​

Breaker won the game: 4 (1%)​

Breaker lost the game: 24 (7%)​

​

Breaker broke dry (without fouling):​

Breaker won the game: 40 (12%)​

Breaker lost the game: 59 (18%)​

​

Therefore, whereas the breaker won 52% (169 of 326) of all games,​

He won 63% (125 of 199) of the games in which he made at least one ball on the break and did not foul.​

He won 14% (4 of 28) of the games in which he fouled on the break.​

He won 40% (40 of 99) of the games in which he broke dry but did not foul.​

He won 35% (44 of 127) of the games in which he either fouled on the break or broke dry without fouling.​

Break-and-run games: The 70 break-and-run games represented 21% of all 326 games, 41% of the 169 games won by the breaker, and 35% of the 199 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul). The 70 break-and-run games (including 9's on the break) consisted of three 3-packs (two by Morra and one by Shaw), eight 2-packs, and 45 singles.

9-balls on the break:
The 70 break-and-run games included 6 9-balls on the break (1.8% of the 326 breaks). One additional 9-ball was made on the break when the breaker scratched, so it was spotted.

[Note -- When these matches are available on YouTube, I'll try to adjust these results for the missing 4 games, but that will not make any significant differences.]

 

[Poolmanis]

Nice stats as always AtLarge..

So no matter what you do.. DON´T SCRATCH from break. 1 to 9 chances after that.
Dry break you are only little underdog..

 

[AtLarge]

Nice stats as always AtLarge..

So no matter what you do.. DON´T SCRATCH from break. 1 to 9 chances after that.
Dry break you are only little underdog..

Thanks. And, right, don't scratch. It was actually not as bad as 1 to 9 -- 4 wins and 24 losses, or about a 14% win percentage on the breaking fouls. But it varies a lot from event to event (small numbers). For the matches I watched in the last 6 Turning Stone events combined, the breaker won about 22% of the games in which he scratched on the break.

 

[iusedtoberich]

From these stats, it seems to me there is no advantage to breaking. 52% win ratio does not seem very significant to me. Plus, the players that were on the stream were the best of the best in this tournament.

For us mere mortals, I would expect the break has absolutely no bearing on the winner of the game, in the long run.

 

[pt109]

Seems a little weak for the breaker this year...won only 52% of the time.
AtLarge...can you recall last Stone tourney?...I think it was much higher.

 

[King T]

Whats your take on this??

Here are some aggregate break statistics

Therefore, whereas the breaker won 52% (169 of 326) of all games.


Just want to get your opinion on the significance of the break. Theres a number of people that think that 9 Ball has come down to the break (I'm not one of them) and every week they complain about the wing ball going in and making 9 Ball to easy to play.

But your stats seem to say something different.? When back and looked at your post, the breaker seems to win about 60% at best?

Whats your take on this?

 

[AtLarge]

From these stats, it seems to me there is no advantage to breaking. 52% win ratio does not seem very significant to me. Plus, the players that were on the stream were the best of the best in this tournament.

For us mere mortals, I would expect the break has absolutely no bearing on the winner of the game, in the long run.

Seems a little weak for the breaker this year...won only 52% of the time.
AtLarge...can you recall last Stone tourney?...I think it was much higher.

The percentage of games won by the breaker in the matches I watched for the last 6 Turning Stone events (TS XXIII through TS XVIII) were: 52%, 60%, 56%, 51%, 53%, and 53%. For these 6 events combined, it was 54%.

Just for comparison -- for the matches I watched in the last 4 U. S. Open 9-Ball events combined, the breaker won 55% of the games.

Just want to get your opinion on the significance of the break. Theres a number of people that think that 9 Ball has come down to the break (I'm not one of them) and every week they complain about the wing ball going in and making 9 Ball to easy to play.

But your stats seem to say something different.? When back and looked at your post, the breaker seems to win about 60% at best?

Whats your take on this?

The percentage of games won by the breaker in pro events is generally in the range of 45% - 65%. 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.

Racking templates can also affect this number. If, for example in 9-Ball, the wing ball goes in on the break regularly, the stay-at-table percentage after the break is so high that the breaker has many more opportunities for a B&R game, and that raises the overall winning percentage for the breaker.

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.

 

[Weber]

It looks like if the breaker did not break and run, they won 31% of the time.

 

[AtLarge]

Miscellany from the data for the Turning Stone Classic XXIII 9-Ball Open
[Reminder -- this relates only to the 23 streamed matches, not to all matches in the event.]

• Although the 9-ball was made on the break for a win only 6 times in 326 games, 2 of them were in the same match (Moore d. Herring, one by each player).

• In tournament winner Shaw's five streamed matches, he broke and ran at a 36% rate (17 of 47). In tournament runner-up Morra's four streamed matches, he broke and ran at a 33% rate (12 of 36). Both did much better in this regard than the overall rate of 21%. Excluding Shaw and Morra, the overall B&R rate was 17% (41 of 243).

• The most balls made on a single break was four, by Antonakos; he won that game, but not by B&R. Three balls were made on the break 10 times; the breaker won 6 of those 10 games (5 by B&R).

• The average number of balls made on the break was 1.0 (this includes dry and fouled breaks). Excluding dry breaks, the average was 1.4.

• Following the 28 breaking fouls, the incoming player ran out the game 19 times (68%).

• 48% of the games ended in one inning -- 21% won by the breaker (B&R) and 26% won by the non-breaker..

• For the 22 races to 9 (i.e., excluding the finals race to 13), the loser won an average of 4.9 games. The loser won 3 or fewer games in 8 of those 22 matches.

• For the 22 races to 9, the average elapsed time for the matches was 74 minutes, or 5.3 minutes per game. The elapsed time was measured from the lag until the winning ball was made (or conceded), so it includes time for racking and breaks (time-outs).

• The Antonakos d. Guimond match was both longest in elapsed time (120 min.) and highest in average minutes per game (7.5).

• The Shaw d. Immonen match was both shortest in elapsed time (23 min.) and lowest in average minutes per game (2.3). [Note -- The stream was down for me at the start of the first game of this match. So I added one minute to the elapsed time of 22 minutes that I measured while the stream was up. So whether it was 22, 23, or even 24 minutes, it was remarkable.]

 

[Cardigan Kid]

• The Shaw d. Immonen match was both shortest in elapsed time (23 min.) and lowest in average minutes per game (2.3). [Note -- The stream was down for me at the start of the first game of this match. So I added one minute to the elapsed time of 22 minutes that I measured while the stream was up. So whether it was 22, 23, or even 24 minutes, it was remarkable.]

This needs to be stated again and digested. Does the WPA keep such stats, and was this the quickest win during a WPA points tournament?

It was remarkable to watch.

Thank you At Large for the great stats as always.

 

[AtLarge]

• The Shaw d. Immonen match was both shortest in elapsed time (23 min.) and lowest in average minutes per game (2.3). [Note -- The stream was down for me at the start of the first game of this match. So I added one minute to the elapsed time of 22 minutes that I measured while the stream was up. So whether it was 22, 23, or even 24 minutes, it was remarkable.]

This needs to be stated again and digested. Does the WPA keep such stats, and was this the quickest win during a WPA points tournament?

It was remarkable to watch.

Thank you At Large for the great stats as always.

I doubt that the WPA has any such stats.

But in researching the answer to a question you asked in another thread, I found this statement regarding the semifinal match at the Turning Stone IX event: "... Corteza ripped through Orcollo 9-2 in twenty two minutes."

Now, I wouldn't bet on the accuracy of that statement, but it does indicate that an earlier T.S. match may have been just as quick, or quicker (one more game), than the Shaw/Immonen match.

 

[jburkm002]

I know if both players agreed, they could rack their own. Were there any rack your own matches. If so that would be an interesting comparison.

 

[Floppage]

I know if both players agreed, they could rack their own. Were there any rack your own matches. If so that would be an interesting comparison.

I'm trying to figure out why they weren't almost all rack your own. Other than loose racking your opponent, why wouldn't you want to rack your own. The opponent could still spot check it, right?

Is it possible some of the players didn't know that was an option?

 

[AtLarge]

I know if both players agreed, they could rack their own. Were there any rack your own matches. If so that would be an interesting comparison.

It was an option in recent years. This year, I am not sure, because a commentator specifically said it was not an option this year, yet at least one of the matches was being played that way, That match was not streamed, but it was in the background of a streamed match and drew comments from the commentators. I forget who was playing.

 

[iusedtoberich]

It was an option in recent years. This year, I am not sure, because a commentator specifically said it was not an option this year, yet at least one of the matches was being played that way, That match was not streamed, but it was in the background of a streamed match and drew comments from the commentators. I forget who was playing.

Zuglen explicitly stated on the streamed players meeting you MUST rack for your opponent. Even if both agree otherwise. He said the players ruined that privilege in years past by making up their own rules. Thus, this year there was no option. He made a big deal about it too.

 

[AtLarge]

Zuglen explicitly stated on the streamed players meeting you MUST rack for your opponent. Even if both agree otherwise. He said the players ruined that privilege in years past by making up their own rules. Thus, this year there was no option. He made a big deal about it too.

Well, that's consistent with what the commentators said. Perhaps the two guys playing rack your own missed the players' meeting (as did I, on stream).

 

[Jaden]

I had a friend...

From these stats, it seems to me there is no advantage to breaking. 52% win ratio does not seem very significant to me. Plus, the players that were on the stream were the best of the best in this tournament.

For us mere mortals, I would expect the break has absolutely no bearing on the winner of the game, in the long run.

A friend of mine who was an accomplished player (Chip Klein) had done an analysis of ALL matches in several tournaments and found that only 42% of the breaks in the tournaments were won by the breaker, so it was actually a disadvantage to be the breaker.

Like you said, this was of the best players in the tournament, so it's not that far off from Chip's findings.

Jaden

I wouldn't say that this should inspire you to give up the break though, I think it should inspire people to practice the break like Shane. My guess is that the breakers like Shane win a greater percentage of the games they break.

 

[iusedtoberich]

A friend of mine who was an accomplished player (Chip Klein) had done an analysis of ALL matches in several tournaments and found that only 42% of the breaks in the tournaments were won by the breaker, so it was actually a disadvantage to be the breaker.

Like you said, this was of the best players in the tournament, so it's not that far off from Chip's findings.

Jaden

I wouldn't say that this should inspire you to give up the break though, I think it should inspire people to practice the break like Shane. My guess is that the breakers like Shane win a greater percentage of the games they break.

What it shows to me is everyone whines non-stop about the break, for no reason. Players today say: "I lost because 9 ball is broken" rather than what they should say of: "I lost because I missed that shot/position". Its a way to remove the blame from the person.

 

[AtLarge]

A friend of mine who was an accomplished player (Chip Klein) had done an analysis of ALL matches in several tournaments and found that only 42% of the breaks in the tournaments were won by the breaker, so it was actually a disadvantage to be the breaker. ...

Jaden -- Can you give me some more info on what tournaments these were, what level of players, what game(s) they were playing, what the breaking conditions were, what year(s) they were played?

42% is below anything I have seen for the pro events and pro+high-amateur events streamed within the past few years. The closest was 44% for the 2013 Mosconi Cup (including all games played), where they used a narrow break box and the 9-ball on the foot spot, with a resulting stay-at-table percentage of just 33%.

Now, granted, the streamers try to put good players on the stream (they don't always), whereas you said Chip's stat was for all matches in several tournaments. Is it your hypothesis that lower-level players will produce lower breaker-wins percentages? They would certainly have lower B&R percentages, which would be a factor in lower overall breaker-wins percentages. But if both players are of a lower skill level, mightn't each game be something of a coin flip, resulting in breaker-wins percentages still somewhere around 50%? Maybe I need to watch some lousy players.