Just my opinion on the commentary.
- Thread starter RobDeBank
- Start date
Interestingly, sjm said he disagreed with this, that Shane had the best performance this year, and of course, he was there on site.
I had remembered Atlarge did the stats for Mosconi Cup. So when I went to look at them, sjm was correct. Shane had fared better than Earl this year, statistically speaking.
I was not a fan of the commentary either. It was overly dramatic to the point of being absurd. There was not much on offer in the analysis and strategy department either.
Interestingly, sjm said he disagreed with this, that Shane had the best performance this year, and of course, he was there on site.
I had remembered Atlarge did the stats for Mosconi Cup. So when I went to look at them, sjm was correct. Shane had fared better than Earl this year, statistically speaking.
From what I say Shane did not play his best and lost hill hill because he failed to make an easy out 2 rack before that. Historically Shane has a poor record in the Mosconi Cup. That does not mean Shane is not the best American player. That is not even close.
This year was all about old blood. Matchroom can do whatever they please. But, I hope they go back to the points system and let players earn there way on the team. When you earn your way on the team it means much more then being handed a spot.
I can't let you slide on this one Jam. You are the original keyboard warrior, quick to defend the American pool players, yet going after the American commentators who you don't like. Can you spell hypocrite? We also do the best job we can (and not an easy one at that) to give an unbiased opinion on what is transpiring. What I witnessed was an old fashioned ass whipping handed out by Team Europe. I'm not sure what match you watched. I doubt that you were referring to me there, but I will offer support to my co-coms who worked their tail off this week to make a bad show look good.
I didn't hear any commentating. So my viewpoint is limited.
All I can say is commentating a game/match/NFL game/whatever - that is a blow out from jump street - has to be the worst nightmare for commentators (and promoters). Add some unsportsmanship, and you're double screwed. I wouldn't wanted to have been in the booth for this one!
All I can say is commentating a game/match/NFL game/whatever - that is a blow out from jump street - has to be the worst nightmare for commentators (and promoters). Add some unsportsmanship, and you're double screwed. I wouldn't wanted to have been in the booth for this one!
ETA: Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
Last edited:
I can't wait for this guy to hit the airwaves!
http://www.povpool.com/5-year-old-entrepreneur-purchases-billiards-streaming-company/
http://www.povpool.com/5-year-old-entrepreneur-purchases-billiards-streaming-company/
Interestingly, sjm said he disagreed with this, that Shane had the best performance this year, and of course, he was there on site.
I had remembered Atlarge did the stats for Mosconi Cup. So when I went to look at them, sjm was correct. Shane had fared better than Earl this year, statistically speaking.
JAM -- I'll again explain the numbers you quoted for Earl and Shane.
First numbers:
0-1, 1-2, 0-1, 1-4.....Strickland
0-1, 2-0, 0-1, 2-2.....Van Boening
This first set of numbers essentially answers the simple question: "In how many winning and losing matches was each player involved?" I showed four win-loss numbers for each player: singles matches, then doubles, then team, and then total.
So, Earl played one singles match and lost; he played three doubles matches, winning one and losing two; he played one team match and lost. So, in total, he played in 5 matches, winning one and losing four. His overall winning percentage, therefore was 20%, winning one match out of five.
Shane lost his only singles match, won both of his doubles matches, and lost his team match. So, in total, he won two and lost two, for a 50% winning percentage.
On this basis, Shane did better -- he won 2 out of 4 matches, whereas Earl won 1 out of 5.
Second Numbers:
Strickland: 0.5 - 2.2
Van Boening: 1.0 - 1.2
With the first set of numbers, a doubles match gives a full win to each player on the winning team. But the match really gives only one point to the winning side, not two. So I just split the point, giving half a point to each of the two winners (and half of the loss to each of the two losers). The team match also counts as just one point toward the Cup scoring. So I gave each of the five members of the winning team one-fifth of a point for winning instead of a full point. So these numbers essentially answer the question: "What numerical contribution did each player make to the overall Mosconi Cup scores?" [Adding up all the numbers this way, you get the actual Cup results of 2-11 for the USA and 11-2 for Europe.]
Earl's only win was in a doubles match, so he got half a point for that. His losses were in a singles match (full point lost), two doubles matches (half a point lost for each), and the team match (one-fifth of a point lost). Therefore, in total, he contributed half a point on the win side and 2.2 points on the losing side. In other words, he won 0.5 points out of a possible 2.7, or a 19% winning percentage.
Shane's only wins were in two doubles matches (plus half a point for each). His losses were in a singles match (a full point lost) and the team match (one-fifth of a point lost). Therefore, in total, he contributed one point on the win side and 1.2 points on the loss side. In other words, he won 1.0 points out of a possible 2.2, or a 45% winning percentage.
On this second basis, as with the first, Shane did better.
Caveat to these numbers:
Neither of these sets of numbers gives a full picture of how Earl and Shane actually played. For example -- in the team match, both players played in just 2 of the 9 games of the 3-6 loss. Earl won both of his games, ran 9 balls and out in both of them, and made no errors -- he was "perfect." Shane lost both of his games, made only 2 of the 18 balls, and made 4 errors -- not good at all. But in the two sets of numbers above, Earl and Shane are treated equally for this team match -- a full loss (1 point) in the first set of numbers or a 0.2 point loss in the second set of numbers.
To really answer the question of who played better, we need to look at something like an Accu-Stats Total Performance Average (TPA), that derives a numerical "batting average" from all of the shots. I haven't done that in detail, but a quick tally indicates that Earl and Shane both made about the same number of balls in total and both committed about the same number of errors, so I'd expect their TPA's to be not greatly different.
But a caveat to the caveat is that TPA's don't correlate perfectly with wins and losses, and it is the latter that is more important to most people.
It must have been hard for the commentators to paint a rosy picture of a massacre.
Gourmet Gruel Dept...
Being the best player on this USA team is a little like being the tallest dwarf; a distinction certainly, but a dubious one.
Being the best player on this USA team is a little like being the tallest dwarf; a distinction certainly, but a dubious one.
Like him or not Earl Strickland did the best and most informative comentary I have ever heard at
The Ocean City he not only called the shots but told you what English and
Why . Very informative , knowledgeable and instructional explaining
Why you should shoot the shot he called
The Ocean City he not only called the shots but told you what English and
Why . Very informative , knowledgeable and instructional explaining
Why you should shoot the shot he called
I enjoyed the commentary. Jay's comments were like sitting on the rail and talking to one of your pool buds. Jim added the ABC Sports flair with his general color comments to put a little drama into our slow game. Lerner commented with a direct approach that reminded me of the Chicago rooms I've played in.
I usually turn the commentary off, but I like Jay's spin on the layouts. Listening to another way of running out is interesting when the situation arises. Just because the shooter plays a different shot doesn't mean Jay had the worst idea.
Best,
Mike
I usually turn the commentary off, but I like Jay's spin on the layouts. Listening to another way of running out is interesting when the situation arises. Just because the shooter plays a different shot doesn't mean Jay had the worst idea.
Best,
Mike
I enjoyed the commentary. Jay's comments were like sitting on the rail and talking to one of your pool buds. Jim added the ABC Sports flair with his general color comments to put a little drama into our slow game. Lerner commented with a direct approach that reminded me of the Chicago rooms I've played in.
I usually turn the commentary off, but I like Jay's spin on the layouts. Listening to another way of running out is interesting when the situation arises. Just because the shooter plays a different shot doesn't mean Jay had the worst idea.
Best,
Mike
Mike, I hope you join me on the rail one day. I probably talk a lot more (and do my best commentary) when I'm just sweatin' a match.
I still love to sweat pool matches and discuss what's going on. That's how I get in stroke, lol.
I heard Earl's commentary as well. This guy has a phenomenal insight and he is able to relay it to the listeners like no other I have ever heard. I learned more in that hour or so listening to Earl than anyone else (with the possible exception of Dannny Deliberto).
A caveat; I'm an Earl fan despite all his flaws. As he says many a time, "I'm a good person". I believe him.
Speedi
where can I hear the earl commentary?