Is SVB currently a top five "pool" player...worldwide?

[pt109]

Race to 120, all you need is to look at AtLarge BNR stats for Shane.

The stats are only a guide...how a player is playing right now is a big factor.
Shane is playing his game...after all, he got nipped 11-10 and 11-9 in the International.
Dennis did not play well, Aranas beat him 11-1...booze and craps has been a problem.

 

[gxman]

Shane has played a lot of long race 10b and hes at 40%+ BNR rate every time. If I recall right, Shane had a monster 2nd day vs Chang. I think had it been race to 100+, shane would've came back. Chang was 37%, and Shane was well into 40%+.

 

[sjm]

It's certainly reasonable to ask the question, as Shane's 2019 was pretty forgettable, with a bad effort at Derby City, and less than stellar finishes in the four US-based WPA sanctioned events (WPA Players Championship, US Open 9-ball, World 10-ball Championship, and the International). That's looking at it in a narrowly, though, for he was good enough to beat Shaw 100-91 and was then good enough to win bronze at the WPA sanctioned China Open, looking very strong on both occasions.

My opinion is that Shane remains top five in the world, but he isn't performing at his peak level right now.

 

[Sofla]

Nick Varner in 1989.

Thanks for the example. I don't know pool history back that far, but from what I have learned about Nick Varner in general, that's credible.

But then it is more like the exception that proves the rule, right? And the great Varner got just two US Open wins in those prime years (albeit back to back, '89-'90).

 

[Sofla]

The stats are only a guide...how a player is playing right now is a big factor.
Shane is playing his game...after all, he got nipped 11-10 and 11-9 in the International.
Dennis did not play well, Aranas beat him 11-1...booze and craps has been a problem.

Actually, Shane barely lost those matches without his best game, grinding it out anyway.

He was scratching on the break a lot against Mika, and when leading 10-9 vs. Lechner, he not only dry broke that possible case game but failed to make a legal break as well. The cue ball ended up on the spot, which I've never seen from him. I presume he took some steam off, because his biggest risk at that point was scratching, but over-compensated.

I admit I didn't see all his matches, but the write up here mentioned he was struggling some (early) to find his A game.

 

[overlord]

Pete Fleming told me this week that a race to 11 (and even to 13) isn't long enough to determine if the winner is better at these high competition levels. Especially when it goes hill-hill or loser on the mini-hill, a small number of rolls going the other way could easily reverse the outcome. If Shane didn't miscue on the 5 in the 20th game with Lechner, he probably would have beaten the eventual finalist by winning 11 straight games. If Lechner hadn't miscued (also on the 5, iirc) he would have probably tied Shaw late in the match and been favored to win from there (breaking as good as he was).

I doubt anyone can be more than say, picking a number, a 20% odds favorite to win a big event going in, with maybe 5 co-favored at the top, and maybe another 10 close on their heels. Has even a dominant player ever won just half of the big tournaments in a year in their best career year (other than Karen Corr sweeping the WPA tourneys, once)? Efren won just one US Open, for example (along with a few finals losses as well). I think sustained top 10 finishes (including some wins) might be the better gauge than wins per se.

To your point the rolls are brutal in Nine Ball and that's why the smart money plays One Pocket for the cash.

 

[Ken_4fun]

I dont know about worldwide, but he is the best in US. 2nd best isn't even close.

Ken