mika shoots a .949

Mika played pretty shit safes that cost him otherwise yeah..... He played awesome :lol:
 
I won't count Mika out yet. He is a fighter. He has won this tourney before coming from looser's side.
 
Pat Fleming came up with a scoring system for stats. Look for the accustats website to see how it's scored.
Chuck
 
Wow, that's rough... shoot almost .950 and still lose? What did Kiamco shoot?

Can't count Mika out yet, though. A few years back, he lost is first or second match and fought his way through the loser's side to win the whole thing.
 
Reminds me of the quote I have in my tagline from Grady: "I once shot a .937 and Sigel beat me 11 to 4."
 
The commentators wondered whether Mika's .948 yesterday was the highest TPA ever by the loser of a match scored by Accu-Stats -- and they thought it must be true.

Nope. At the 2010 U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship, Immonen (.990) beat Jason Klatt (.972) 11-4.

But the two matches were quite different. In the 2010 match, Klatt went to the table in only 5 of the 15 games. Immonen had 10 break-and-run games (a 6-pack and a 4-pack) and Klatt had 3 (a 3-pack). Immonen made 94 balls to Klatt's 35. So while Klatt's TPA was very high, it was based on a fairly small number of shots.

In his match yesterday with Kiamco, Immonen went to the table in 17 of the 21 games. Kiamco had 4 B&R's (a 2-pack and 2 singles) and Immonen had 2 (both singles). Immonen made 89 balls to Kiamco's 87.

So the calculation base was a lot larger for Immonen's .948 than it was for Klatt's .972.
 
victorl said:
Wow, that's rough... shoot almost .950 and still lose? What did Kiamco shoot?

Can't count Mika out yet, though. A few years back, he lost is first or second match and fought his way through the loser's side to win the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Warren shot .899. Mika got outplayed - just one of those rare cases where the TPA didn't reflect it.

I didn't get to see the entire match, but from what I did see Mika just didn't have his cueball under control. He will undoubtedly have that fixed in time to BBQ a few people on the B side.

Aaron
 
Aaron_S said:
Warren shot .899. Mika got outplayed - just one of those rare cases where the TPA didn't reflect it.
Click to expand...

This shows the TPA formula has some holes, though I think it's as good as you can reasonably hope for.
If it were perfect then the only way the higher number loses is due to rolls.

It may be that it needs to be updated for the modern game.
It used to be that breaking is just treated as "you broke correctly if you don't scratch/jump off the table".
But these days, failing to make a ball on the break is considered an error... the player
is expected to understand how to make a specific ball, read the rack to ensure the ball is makeable,
and then execute the shot. So the accustats number doesn't reflect when someone got outbroke.

It also calls any kick good if you just make a hit, and for some kicks that's fair... an awkward 2 railer
jacked over another ball let's say. But other kicks the player should be accurate enough to not just
hit the ball, but to hit a specific side of the ball and get safe (or even make it, if it's pretty close to the hole).

The basic idea is to count errors and it's hard to quantify some errors, plus all errors are weighted equally.
 
CreeDo said:
This shows the TPA formula has some holes, though I think it's as good as you can reasonably hope for.
If it were perfect then the only way the higher number loses is due to rolls.

It may be that it needs to be updated for the modern game.
It used to be that breaking is just treated as "you broke correctly if you don't scratch/jump off the table".
But these days, failing to make a ball on the break is considered an error... the player
is expected to understand how to make a specific ball, read the rack to ensure the ball is makeable,
and then execute the shot. So the accustats number doesn't reflect when someone got outbroke.

It also calls any kick good if you just make a hit, and for some kicks that's fair... an awkward 2 railer
jacked over another ball let's say. But other kicks the player should be accurate enough to not just
hit the ball, but to hit a specific side of the ball and get safe (or even make it, if it's pretty close to the hole).

The basic idea is to count errors and it's hard to quantify some errors, plus all errors are weighted equally.
Click to expand...

Very well stated. Not sure that this calls for a modification of Accustats methodology, but it does show that these stats can be misleading. In the end, there's just one stat that matters and that's wins/losses.
 
CreeDo said:
This shows the TPA formula has some holes, though I think it's as good as you can reasonably hope for.
If it were perfect then the only way the higher number loses is due to rolls.

It may be that it needs to be updated for the modern game.
It used to be that breaking is just treated as "you broke correctly if you don't scratch/jump off the table".
But these days, failing to make a ball on the break is considered an error... the player
is expected to understand how to make a specific ball, read the rack to ensure the ball is makeable,
and then execute the shot. So the accustats number doesn't reflect when someone got outbroke.

It also calls any kick good if you just make a hit, and for some kicks that's fair... an awkward 2 railer
jacked over another ball let's say. But other kicks the player should be accurate enough to not just
hit the ball, but to hit a specific side of the ball and get safe (or even make it, if it's pretty close to the hole).

The basic idea is to count errors and it's hard to quantify some errors, plus all errors are weighted equally.
Click to expand...

Good points, and well stated.

I would just add that some things are very hard to factor in. Early in the match, there were several defensive battles where players kicked and got safe - sometimes intentionally and sometimes due to a good roll. I don't really know how all of that is currently scored, but when you don't know what the player's intentions were, how can you make a determination about success/failure?

I know it would slow the game down horribly, but it would still be cool to see a match where everything was called. At this level, the players are trying to do something very specific with each shot - for a pool geek like myself, it would be immensely entertaining and informative to hear them call it out.

Aaron
 
CreeDo said:
... If it were perfect then the only way the higher number loses is due to rolls.
Click to expand...

The TPA is like a batting average in baseball. The team with the higher average doesn't necessarily win the game.

CreeDo said:
The basic idea is to count errors and it's hard to quantify some errors, plus all errors are weighted equally.
Click to expand...

Yes, the TPA is calculated as the number of balls pocketed divided by the sum of balls pocketed and errors. So the crux is in determining the errors.

However, not all errors are weighted equally. A missed shot that is "easier than a spot shot" counts as two errors.
 
Aaron_S said:
Good points, and well stated.

I would just add that some things are very hard to factor in. Early in the match, there were several defensive battles where players kicked and got safe - sometimes intentionally and sometimes due to a good roll. I don't really know how all of that is currently scored, but when you don't know what the player's intentions were, how can you make a determination about success/failure?

I know it would slow the game down horribly, but it would still be cool to see a match where everything was called. At this level, the players are trying to do something very specific with each shot - for a pool geek like myself, it would be immensely entertaining and informative to hear them call it out.

Aaron
Click to expand...

I would love to hear a mic-ed up player inform the audience of his intentions during an actual match.
I think Shawn Putnam did something like this recently?
Not literally calling everything but clear enough what his goals are.

I think the stats could be improved even if you leave out guesses about their intent.

Redefine a good kick as one that pockets the ball and leaves you not-hooked,
or leaves the opponent hooked, or leaves a shot harder than a spot shot.
Redefine a dry break as an error and a scratch on the break as 2 errors.

Well, a LITTLE subjective interpretation would go a long way.

A clear-cut 2-way shot that leaves them hooked if missed should not be an error.
A push that leads to the opponent making the object ball should be an error.
Leaving yourself hooked on your next/only object ball should be an error (even if you recover).
Leaving yourself a shot harder than a spot shot, when a better leave was not risky/difficult...
should that be a position error?
 
CreeDo said:
I would love to hear a mic-ed up player inform the audience of his intentions during an actual match.QUOTE]

That is ONE thing I like about Earl! Earl talks to himself, the audience, and who knows who else on a lot of his shots whether he is wired up with a microphone or not.

While he is mumbling, you can almost see and hear the gears turning in his head figuring out what is his best option. You can also watch his eye movements to see what patterns he is considering.

The difference between Earl and most players is that Earl USUALLY ends up doing EXACTLY what he intended to do. That is what separates the top dogs from the underdogs. He does it MORE CONSISTENTLY.

Some players will try to "mask" or "hide" there intentions trying to disguise what they are trying to do so you don't know if it was skill or a fluke, but I am more afraid of the guy who tells me what is going to do and then DOES IT, over and over.
Click to expand...
 
My take on the match is a little different. Mika came up dry on his breaks early and Kiamko made a ball or two almost every time with a shot. That seemed to keep him just ahead of Mika. Mika went ahead by 10-8 and again came up dry on the break. Then he never got back to the table as Kiamko ran out the rack and then had 2 break and runs to win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top