Clutch Shooting Percentage (CSP): A New Cue Sports Stat (sabermetric)

[Cron]

It's open. It's about as simple as you can get and still do the job. If you had the same data you could calculate the same odds and get the same result.

The really hard part is getting the data. They are going on 12 million games recorded.

Where are the formulas? I've read this page but don't see much https://www.fargorate.com/#faq

I like this clutch system better than Accu-Stats. There isn't anything wrong with Accu-Stats itself, but it's not applied correctly to billiards.

 

[PoolStats]

It's open. It's about as simple as you can get and still do the job. If you had the same data you could calculate the same odds and get the same result.

The really hard part is getting the data. They are going on 12 million games recorded.

Yeah Fargo is definitely a good system and we use it in our databases. The only limitations to Fargo and the other ones out there is they don't have records on individual shots like we do and will have more of. We are analyzing every aspects of a game down to each shot, like each pitch in a baseball game.

We are staying away from an overall ranking system for now and instead focusing on different attributes and aspects of a player's game and match.

 

[PoolStats]

A much better detailed pool stats system already exists and has for about 40 years.

And if you simply want to know match odds between two players, it's hard to do better than FargoRate.

Perhaps you haven't seen our other stats? We are focusing on advanced metrics or sabermetrics. We are the first to do it in pool.

DSR (Defensive Success Rate)
http://poolst.at/dsr

Shot Aptitude
http://poolst.at/sa

Plus / Minus
http://poolst.at/pm

Avg. Consecutive made shots per game (last 30 days of recorded matches)
http://poolst.at/b

We have plenty more not yet made public.

 

[PoolStats]

No. Of made shots vs Avg. Time to shoot
http://poolst.at/a

 

[AtLarge]

Where are the formulas? ...

from Mr. FargoRate about 4½ years ago:

... (3) Why don't we give the "formula."

There is not a formula to give. It is a mathematical optimization process. You can think of all the ratings of every player in the world as variables. And you can think of specific game/match results among those players as outcomes that are either likely or unlikely depending upon on the values of the ratings. Then you can imagine there is a set of ratings for which every match in the system coming out the way it did is most likely. This is a technique in statistical inference called maximum liklihood. The results are well defined. We just can't point to a simple formula. ...

 

[PoolStats]

from Mr. FargoRate about 4½ years ago:

There are different maximum likelihood estimators based on the type of distribution i.e. normal, Poisson, Bernoulli. So it would help if they said what distribution they were using. But, we think Fargo is a good system anyhow and are not too concerned about it

 

[maha]

pool stats
it will be interesting to see your results. your relevance will depend on your subjective inputs. if you can get them right it makes sense.

for instance you give 100 to someone that runs out after a player runs all his balls in 8 ball and misses the 8. well that is a time a run out is the easiest as the table is open. even a mediocre player will usually get out no pressure.

and in many pool matches the player may not care if he wins or not for various reasons.

the work you put in will have no reward except for gratification. but thats okay,

the work i did from finding ways to profit decades ago from books like Inequalities for Stochastic Processes by richard epstein and his other works lead to real fulfilling things.
good luck and dont be blinded by your original assumptions.

 

[PoolStats]

for instance you give 100 to someone that runs out after a player runs all his balls in 8 ball and misses the 8. well that is a time a run out is the easiest as the table is open. even a mediocre player will usually get out no pressure.

Please look at the definition of clutch. NBA considers last five minutes, last minute and last 24 seconds as factoring in Clutch. A player who has no other choice but to make every remaining ball or give their turn up for a high probability of a loss, would be considered most clutch, last 24 seconds, do or die. The second highest clutch is a b&r in 8-ball whilst only making one ball on the break.

 

[PoolStats]

and in many pool matches the player may not care if he wins or not for various reasons..

Then that's their own damn fault, not mine.

 

[Cron]

player who has no other choice but to make every remaining ball or give their turn up for a high probability of a loss, would be considered most clutch, last 24 seconds, do or die.

I can't believe that, the player would have to be considerably inexperienced.

If I dry break in 8-ball, then the absolute easiest way for me to win is if the incoming player makes all their balls but the 8 ball, this is the dream layout honestly. Now when you're the one that misses the 8, you expect to lose every time, and as expected you almost always do.

Also it's not do or die, in fact it's incredibly easy to play safe when 7/8 of the balls are yours, so much so that it's kind of a dick move to do it and simultaneously a disclosure of skill (unless the balls are really tied up funky).

I don't know, maybe this effects players differently, but if I dry break and will be returning to the table, I hope that my opponent has cleared as many of his balls as possible.

 

[PoolStats]

I can't believe that, the player would have to be considerably inexperienced.

If I dry break in 8-ball, then the absolute easiest way for me to win is if the incoming player makes all their balls but the 8 ball, this is the dream layout honestly. Now when you're the one that misses the 8, you expect to lose every time, and as expected you almost always do.

Also it's not do or die, in fact it's incredibly easy to play safe when 7/8 of the balls are yours, so much so that it's kind of a dick move to do it and simultaneously a disclosure of skill (unless the balls are really tied up funky).

I don't know, maybe this effects players differently, but if I dry break in will be returning to the table, I hope that my opponent has cleared as many of his balls as possible.

I get what you are saying, but that's not how clutch shooting is defined. Many times in the last 24 seconds of an NBA game the team with the ball will run a play catching their opponents off guard and possibly have an open shot. Easy or difficult it's clutch because they have to make the basket to win and the more difficult those last shots are the more clutch they are. Same thing here.

If you play safe in this scenario, your CSP will reflect highly as well assuming you get ball in hand from an opponent foul or your turn back.

Believe it or not is up to you. That's how it is defined.

 

[Cron]

Believe it or not is up to you. That's how it is defined.

There's a lot of human perception in all of this.

I think understanding the definition of critical play isn't pinnacle. It's knowing where and when it's needed the most, and I don't think it's needed the most to freely run out 8 balls in basically any order.

Your correlation between pool and basketball seems a bit mutated, but not mathematically, but in application. In pool if you have to run out 8 balls in this manner you always have the option to play safe and you know it, even when you don't play safe. But in the final 24 seconds of a basketball game, you know you don't have that option of playing safe, so it really is clutch in basketball. Options, it's always about options.

I think correlating sports to the game of pool is both a good and bad idea. The good is kind of obvious, but the bad comes from the mutation of human perception. For example, take Accu-Stats and playing safe. If you play safe it doesn't hurt you, EVER! But in baseball, if you play safe (bunt) and wind up with the same bases "on", it hurts your bating average because you made no advancement while gaining an "out". So if you played safe in pool, and the opponent "escapes" successfully, that should hurt your score as you obviously failed the intention. Ultimately someone's perception of playing "safe" in pool mutated the proper outcome as it should be the same as it is in baseball.

Anyways, I appreciate your approach and appreciate even more that you're not leaving anything to mystery. While I don't disagree that Fargo works, I kind of... well... maybe not so much appreciate that Fargo left it in a mysterious state. When the majority find a system to be mysterious, who is to blame for that? Also for Fargo to state there is no formulas being used just adds to the mystery because if no formulas are being used, where the hell does that integer come from... the mothership?

 

[PoolStats]

There's a lot of human perception in all of this.

I think understanding the definition of critical play isn't pinnacle. It's knowing where and when it's needed the most, and I don't think it's needed the most to freely run out 8 balls in basically any order.

Your correlation between pool and basketball seems a bit mutated, but not mathematically, but in application. In pool if you have to run out 8 balls in this manner you always have the option to play safe and you know it, even when you don't play safe. But in the final 24 seconds of a basketball game, you know you don't have that option of playing safe, so it really is clutch in basketball. Options, it's always about options.

I think correlating sports to the game of pool is both a good and bad idea. The good is kind of obvious, but the bad comes from the mutation of human perception. For example, take Accu-Stats and playing safe. If you play safe it doesn't hurt you, EVER! But in baseball, if you play safe (bunt) and wind up with the same bases "on", it hurts your bating average because you made no advancement while gaining an "out". So if you played safe in pool, and the opponent "escapes" successfully, that should hurt your score as you obviously failed the intention. Ultimately someone's perception of playing "safe" in pool mutated the proper outcome as it should be the same as it is in baseball.

Anyways, I appreciate your approach and appreciate even more that you're not leaving anything to mystery. While I don't disagree that Fargo works, I kind of... well... maybe not so much appreciate that Fargo left it in a mysterious state. When the majority find a system to be mysterious, who is to blame for that? Also for Fargo to state there is no formulas being used just adds to the mystery because if no formulas are being used, where the hell does that integer come from... the mothership?

First off, thank you for being respectful. Secondly, You make very real sense. There is a mutated perception in comparing sports, but it is a starting point to getting better results. We did change the definition of clutch for pool to include the whole game with emphasis put on consecutive made shots with more emphasis on the last few shots.

As for playing safe, that's why we have DSR (Defensive Success Rate). It factors in opponent misses after safe, opponent fouls after safe and opponent made shots after safe. Unfortunately, it is impossible to include every variable of a game into one big equation. That's why there are so many different types of stats so we can measure various aspects of the game.

And to say something is mathematical based, such as Fargo said, but also claim there are no formulas, well...I'm with you... Definitely aliens.

::Signing off for the night::

 

[PoolBum]

Akin to resolving the disparity of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

I'm working on it, I'm working on it.

 

[AtLarge]

... take Accu-Stats and playing safe. If you play safe it doesn't hurt you, EVER! ...

Not so. In computing Accu-Stats' Total Performance Average (TPA):

1. If a player plays safe and the opponent pockets a ball on his next turn or misses a shot easier than a spot shot, a safety error is charged. (Exception -- if the opponent kicks the ball in, it is not charged as an error.)

2. If a player is trying to run out the rack, runs one or more balls (excludes balls on the break), plays a safe (i.e., one not preplanned) and loses the rack, a position error is charged.

 

[Cron]

Not so. In computing Accu-Stats' Total Performance Average (TPA):

1. If a player plays safe and the opponent pockets a ball on his next turn or misses a shot easier than a spot shot, a safety error is charged. (Exception -- if the opponent kicks the ball in, it is not charged as an error.)

2. If a player is trying to run out the rack, runs one or more balls (excludes balls on the break), plays a safe (i.e., one not preplanned) and loses the rack, a position error is charged.

Thanks for the correction, but is 1. not an example of human perception? As for 2., I really don't understand the "one not preplanned" part, as this sounds like just a missed shot or miscue. If a safety isn't planned, is it a safety?

x = preplanned safety: If, because of anticipated difficulties in the rack, a player had planned to play safety several balls into his run, then a small ‘x’ would be placed next to that player’s large ‘S’. This indicates that the player never intended to run out the rack, therefore he is not given a position error for ending his run.

I don't really understand how that is determined. By body language? By the perception of the person scoring?

 

[AtLarge]

Thanks for the correction, but is 1. not an example of human perception? As for 2., I really don't understand the "one not preplanned" part, as this sounds like just a missed shot or miscue. If a safety isn't planned, is it a safety?

1. Not sure what you mean. If the player played a safety and the opponent shot the next ball in directly (no kick), or missed an easy shot, a safety error is charged. Whether the shot was easier than a spot shot is a bit subjective.

2. If the rack looks too difficult to run out, the player may choose to pocket a few balls to get to a good safety opportunity, what Accu-Stats calls a preplanned safety. That contrasts with running balls and then playing safe because of failed position play. The former is not charged as a position error.

 

[mikepage]

[...]

And to say something is mathematical based, such as Fargo said, but also claim there are no formulas, well...I'm with you... Definitely aliens.

It's not that there are no formulas; there are plenty of formulas. There just isn't a formula for the changes from the old optimum ratings to the new optimum ratings when new match data is added.

That's where the aliens come in. It's like you are standing on a mountain peak. And aliens create a seismic shift such that when it is over the spot you are on is no longer the peak. How far east and west do you have to go to get to the new peak? You don't know. If you are blindfolded, you might feel around with your foot for the uphill direction and step that way. Then feel around again in case the direction changed. Keep doing that. If you were not too far from the new peak, this oughta work. When you get there, you will KNOW it because when you feel around with your foot there will BE no uphill direction. And there IS a formula for feeling around with your foot.

So there is a formula to take little steps hopefully in the right direction, and there is a formula to know you have the right answer when you get there, just not a formula you can use as a shortcut to get there. But once you are there, who cares how you got there?

So I guess that makes Fargo Ratings like obscenity.

 

[PoolStats]

It's not that there are no formulas; there are plenty of formulas. There just isn't a formula for the changes from the old optimum ratings to the new optimum ratings when new match data is added.

That's where the aliens come in. It's like you are standing on a mountain peak. And aliens create a seismic shift such that when it is over the spot you are on is no longer the peak. How far east and west do you have to go to get to the new peak? You don't know. If you are blindfolded, you might feel around with your foot for the uphill direction and step that way. Then feel around again in case the direction changed. Keep doing that. If you were not too far from the new peak, this oughta work. When you get there, you will KNOW it because when you feel around with your foot there will BE no uphill direction. And there IS a formula for feeling around with your foot.

So there is a formula to take little steps hopefully in the right direction, and there is a formula to know you have the right answer when you get there, just not a formula you can use as a shortcut to get there. But once you are there, who cares how you got there?

So I guess that makes Fargo Ratings like obscenity.

Not really obscenity. Sounds more Bayesian Statistics i.e., Markov Chains and Monte Carlo methods. i.e., the drunkard's walk. Which would make a lot of sense.

Either way, we like FargoRate and have no desire to compete with you. Just putting that out there.

 

[mikepage]

Not really obscenity. Sounds more Bayesian Statistics i.e., Markov Chains and Monte Carlo methods. i.e., the drunkard's walk. Which would make a lot of sense.

Either way, we like FargoRate and have no desire to compete with you. Just putting that out there.

My reference to obscenity was maybe a little obscure.

Here, there are a number of approaches to get to the optimum ratings with none of them simple (i.e., like there is no -- here's the "formula."). But when you get there everything is mathematically sound and there is no ambiguity.

The supreme court in 1964 was grappling with distinguishing art from porn. And I think they found when you actually try to define what it is in the close cases that makes makes the artworthiness win out or not win out, i.e., write down a threshold test for obscenity--that's hard. But Justice Stewart famously said (about obscenity), "I know it when I see it."

So
--determining optimum Fargo Ratings
--defining obscenity
--defining "funny joke"

all hard--but you know them when you see them.

People should think of the FargoRate optimization itself much like they think of the square-root button on their calculator.

I'm pretty sure it's never bothered most people reading this that when you put a big number in the calculator and hit the square root button, there is no formula inside the calculator to get the answer. That's right; there is no formula there either. What happens inside your calculator is something like the blind person taking small uphill steps until the steps are not uphill anymore: then an answer displays. But when you see that answer, you can multiply it by itself and see that it equals the number you typed in. So why would you care what happened inside your calculator?

So square roots are also obscene. Or maybe they're funny.