Stats from 1984 Sigel ruled

[hang-the-9]

In case people were wondering why Sigel is Efren's favorite player (toughest opponent) take a look at these misses and run out stats from 84, Sigel is first in both.

First number is shots, second is misses, last I am guessing is misses per 100 shots.

POINTS MISSED AVG. 1. MIKE SIGEL 2423 112 4.6 2. ALLEN HOPKINS 1608 93 5.8 3. STEVE MIZERAK 1241 82 6.6 4. BOB VANOVER 227 15 6.6 5. BUDDY HALL 2314 155 6.7 6. GARY FLANARY 282 19 6.7 7. DALLAS WEST 998 69 6.9 8. EARL STRICKLAND 3003 216 7.2 9. TOBY SWEET 1139 83 7.3 10. PAT FLEMING 1905 139 7.3

Last # is run out % from an open rack. Not sure exactly that means, if there are no tied up balls, maybe run outs from first trip to the table?

RUN OUT OPPORTUNITIES OPPORTUNITIES OUTS PCT. 1. MIKE SIGEL 432 299 69.2 2. JAY SWANSON 65 44 67.7 3. ALLEN HOPKINS 296 200 67.6 4. BUDDY HALL 431 290 67.3 5. ERNEST DOMINGUEZ 36 24 66.7 6. EARL STRICKLAND 580 366 63.1 7. GARY FLANARY 62 39 62.9 8. STEVE WIGGAM 40 25 62.5 9. TOBY SWEET 238 147 61.8 10. STEVE MIZERAK 245 151 61.6

 

[arnaldo]

In case people were wondering why Sigel is Efren's favorite player (toughest opponent) take a look at these misses and run out stats from 84, Sigel is first in both.

First number is shots, second is misses, last I am guessing is misses per 100 shots.

POINTS MISSED AVG. 1. MIKE SIGEL 2423 112 4.6 2. ALLEN HOPKINS 1608 93 5.8 3. STEVE MIZERAK 1241 82 6.6 4. BOB VANOVER 227 15 6.6 5. BUDDY HALL 2314 155 6.7 6. GARY FLANARY 282 19 6.7 7. DALLAS WEST 998 69 6.9 8. EARL STRICKLAND 3003 216 7.2 9. TOBY SWEET 1139 83 7.3 10. PAT FLEMING 1905 139 7.3

Last # is run out % from an open rack. Not sure exactly that means, if there are no tied up balls, maybe run outs from first trip to the table?

RUN OUT OPPORTUNITIES OPPORTUNITIES OUTS PCT. 1. MIKE SIGEL 432 299 69.2 2. JAY SWANSON 65 44 67.7 3. ALLEN HOPKINS 296 200 67.6 4. BUDDY HALL 431 290 67.3 5. ERNEST DOMINGUEZ 36 24 66.7 6. EARL STRICKLAND 580 366 63.1 7. GARY FLANARY 62 39 62.9 8. STEVE WIGGAM 40 25 62.5 9. TOBY SWEET 238 147 61.8 10. STEVE MIZERAK 245 151 61.6

Not at all meant critically whatsoever, I'll simply respectfully suggest that these quite welcome figures could be presented in a much more appealing-to-read form by someone occupationally-experienced in the making of graphs and spreadsheets. Some AZBer -- one hopes -- will generously perhaps step up and make short work of doing so.

Also citing the source of these figures by the OP (for others to view in-depth) will be a considerate and appreciated gesture.

Thanks for having thoughtfully posted, HT9 -- no matter what transpires. I'm a huge fan of Mike's abilities and accomplishments.

Arnaldo

 

[middleofnowhere]

In case people were wondering why Sigel is Efren's favorite player (toughest opponent) take a look at these misses and run out stats from 84, Sigel is first in both.

First number is shots, second is misses, last I am guessing is misses per 100 shots.

POINTS MISSED AVG. 1. MIKE SIGEL 2423 112 4.6 2. ALLEN HOPKINS 1608 93 5.8 3. STEVE MIZERAK 1241 82 6.6 4. BOB VANOVER 227 15 6.6 5. BUDDY HALL 2314 155 6.7 6. GARY FLANARY 282 19 6.7 7. DALLAS WEST 998 69 6.9 8. EARL STRICKLAND 3003 216 7.2 9. TOBY SWEET 1139 83 7.3 10. PAT FLEMING 1905 139 7.3

Last # is run out % from an open rack. Not sure exactly that means, if there are no tied up balls, maybe run outs from first trip to the table?

RUN OUT OPPORTUNITIES OPPORTUNITIES OUTS PCT. 1. MIKE SIGEL 432 299 69.2 2. JAY SWANSON 65 44 67.7 3. ALLEN HOPKINS 296 200 67.6 4. BUDDY HALL 431 290 67.3 5. ERNEST DOMINGUEZ 36 24 66.7 6. EARL STRICKLAND 580 366 63.1 7. GARY FLANARY 62 39 62.9 8. STEVE WIGGAM 40 25 62.5 9. TOBY SWEET 238 147 61.8 10. STEVE MIZERAK 245 151 61.6

Doing the calculations you seem to be right about what the numbers mean. The numbers probably come from Pat Flemings accu stats. In those days he didn't sell tapes. He would tape matches and score them later. Turned out no one cared about the stats, they wanted to buy the tapes.

 

[hang-the-9]

Not at all meant critically whatsoever, I'll simply respectfully suggest that these quite welcome figures could be presented in a much more appealing-to-read form by someone occupationally-experienced in the making of graphs and spreadsheets. Some AZBer -- one hopes -- will generously perhaps step up and make short work of doing so.

Also citing the source of these figures by the OP (for others to view in-depth) will be a considerate and appreciated gesture.

Thanks for having thoughtfully posted, HT9 -- no matter what transpires. I'm a huge fan of Mike's abilities and accomplishments.

Arnaldo

I just copied and pasted it from the source, thus the formatting. It is from the AccuStats magazine, I think the first one. I ran across a copy of it while sorting through some old hard drive files and found it interesting. For one, there is not a single foreign player in the mix of top 10 players in those tournaments.

While Sigel had the best miss and runout stats, for the year Strickland was top in earnings and also top in tournament wins, despite being 8th in misses and 6th in runouts.

Maybe if Pat reads this and approves I can link the full issue on here.

 

[middleofnowhere]

I just copied and pasted it from the source, thus the formatting. It is from the AccuStats magazine, I think the first one. I ran across a copy of it while sorting through some old hard drive files and found it interesting. For one, there is not a single foreign player in the mix of top 10 players in those tournaments.

While Sigel had the best miss and runout stats, for the year Strickland was top in earnings and also top in tournament wins, despite being 8th in misses and 6th in runouts.

Maybe if Pat reads this and approves I can link the full issue on here.

I used to get that when it first came out I think it came out monthly or whenever he just produced them and sent them out. I have to be honest, the average pool player's eyes would glaze over trying to read through the original magazines. Years ago I don't remember how many I had but I sold the whole stack of them on eBay for something like $100. I guess somebody really wanted them.

 

[AtLarge]

Not at all meant critically whatsoever, I'll simply respectfully suggest that these quite welcome figures could be presented in a much more appealing-to-read form by someone occupationally-experienced in the making of graphs and spreadsheets. ...

They are already in a nice table format on the 9th page of the original Accu-Stats newsletter from 1984. All 22 issues of the Accu-Stats newsletter are available in full, thanks to Bob Jewett (with Pat Fleming's permission), on the San Francisco Billiards Academy website: http://www.sfbilliards.com/accustats/index.html

 

[arnaldo]

They are already in a nice table format on the 9th page of the original Accu-Stats newsletter from 1984. All 22 issues of the Accu-Stats newsletter are available in full, thanks to Bob Jewett (with Pat Fleming's permission), on the San Francisco Billiards Academy website: http://www.sfbilliards.com/accustats/index.html

Here's the image relevant to the OP's intent with regard to Mike's excellence (which I totally agree with):

Arnaldo ~ Great to see again the names of all those 1984 players. Obviously George Orwell knew nada.

 

[sjm]

Great thread. I'll add that, based on a chat I had with Charlie Ursitti in about 1982, Sigel is the only player that came anywhere near Mosconi's ball per Inning number, which is balls/innings, inclusive of safeties which count as zero. Willie had a BPI of about 15 over his career, while Sigel had a BPI of about 13. That's still a big difference, and Mosconi is rightly recognized as having only one peer in the history of the game, namely Greenleaf.

 

[arnaldo]

The numbers probably come from Pat Flemings accu stats. In those days he didn't sell tapes. He would tape matches and score them later. Turned out no one cared about the stats, they wanted to buy the tapes.

Who knew?
This is to me, a quite interesting -- and even amusing -- bit of pool history minutia that I wasn't aware of. Thanks very much for that retrospective info and your insightful deduction about the circumstances, MoN.

Arnaldo

 

[hang-the-9]

Who knew?
This is to me, a quite interesting -- and even amusing -- bit of pool history minutia that I wasn't aware of. Thanks very much for that retrospective info and your insightful deduction about the circumstances, MoN.

Arnaldo

And even when they did the recording, the idea was for the players to use them, not to sell to the public. Turned out well for us that they did though. Buddy Hall has talked about the magazine often on his commentary about how he liked to see his stats to he knew what he had to work on to improve.

 

[JusticeNJ]

Great thread. I'll add that, based on a chat I had with Charlie Ursitti in about 1982, Sigel is the only player that came anywhere near Mosconi's ball per Inning number, which is balls/innings, inclusive of safeties which count as zero. Willie had a BPI of about 15 over his career, while Sigel had a BPI of about 13. That's still a big difference, and Mosconi is rightly recognized as having only one peer in the history of the game, namely Greenleaf.

That is absolutely incredible as an average. Though sad we'd never really see how modern players could stack up given the near absence of competitive 14.1 in today's age. A career average of 15 per inning including safety play is just incredible (as is 13). I wonder how Miz stacked up.

 

[middleofnowhere]

I scored some live matches but Pat was so good at it he could score them from the tapes in fast forward.

 

[sjm]

That is absolutely incredible as an average. Though sad we'd never really see how modern players could stack up given the near absence of competitive 14.1 in today's age. A career average of 15 per inning including safety play is just incredible (as is 13). I wonder how Miz stacked up.

Today's crop, by the standards of yesteryear, are terrible safety players. For that reason, long safety battles in recent times have been a rarity, and the short, thoughtlessly played, safety battles of this era tend to raise BPI in a way that can misrepresent the quality of play.

Some have suggested that BPI is an outdated stat and that a better measure of performance is balls per offensive inning, but the problem there is that it overlooks the quality of one's defensive play. Mosconi would have been ahead of Mizerak, Sigel, and Varner if such a stat had been kept, and only Greenleaf might have measured up to Willie.

By comparison, Irving Crane, whose inclination to play a lot of safeties is well documented, tended to have a BPI of about 8. Looked at in a vacuum, you'd never figure that Crane was good enough to have run 309 on a ten footer, but leaving him off the list of the five greatest ever straight poolers would be a mistake.

Wish I'd asked Charlie what Mizerak's career BPI was.

 

[middleofnowhere]

Today's crop, by the standards of yesteryear, are terrible safety players. For that reason, long safety battles in recent times have been a rarity, and the short, thoughtlessly played, safety battles of this era tend to raise BPI in a way that can misrepresent the quality of play.

Some have suggested that BPI is an outdated stat and that a better measure of performance is balls per offensive inning, but the problem there is that it overlooks the quality of one's defensive play. Mosconi would have been ahead of Mizerak, Sigel, and Varner if such a stat had been kept, and only Greenleaf might have measured up to Willie.

By comparison, Irving Crane, whose inclination to play a lot of safeties is well documented, tended to have a BPI of about 8. Looked at in a vacuum, you'd never figure that Crane was good enough to have run 309 on a ten footer, but leaving him off the list of the five greatest ever straight poolers would be a mistake.

Wish I'd asked Charlie what Mizerak's career BPI was.

You should talk to Sigel or Hubbard about Crane.
I was at Weenie Bernie's and saw Crane win a 9 ball tournament. It may have had a title of The Masters. He was terrific great shot maker or at least that week.

This would have been the early 70s. I don't know how many 9 ball tournaments he played in, but he would have been a threat against anyone from what I saw.

 

[AtLarge]

Today's crop, by the standards of yesteryear, are terrible safety players. For that reason, long safety battles in recent times have been a rarity, and the short, thoughtlessly played, safety battles of this era tend to raise BPI in a way that can misrepresent the quality of play.

Some have suggested that BPI is an outdated stat and that a better measure of performance is balls per offensive inning, but the problem there is that it overlooks the quality of one's defensive play. Mosconi would have been ahead of Mizerak, Sigel, and Varner if such a stat had been kept, and only Greenleaf might have measured up to Willie.

By comparison, Irving Crane, whose inclination to play a lot of safeties is well documented, tended to have a BPI of about 8. Looked at in a vacuum, you'd never figure that Crane was good enough to have run 309 on a ten footer, but leaving him off the list of the five greatest ever straight poolers would be a mistake.

Wish I'd asked Charlie what Mizerak's career BPI was.

I post balls (I call it points) per inning both ways: (1) counting all innings and (2) not counting innings that consist solely of a safety or an intentional foul . Here is a post showing those results for the streamed matches of the single-elimination portion of each of the last 5 Dragon "World" events: https://forums.azbilliards.com/thre...ination-matches-dec-2019.503692/#post-6534645

 

[sjm]

You should talk to Sigel or Hubbard about Crane.
I was at Weenie Bernie's and saw Crane win a 9 ball tournament. It may have had a title of The Masters. He was terrific great shot maker or at least that week.

This would have been the early 70s. I don't know how many 9 ball tournaments he played in, but he would have been a threat against anyone from what I saw.

I knew Irving fairly well myself, although we didn't meet until 1978. In fact, it was Irving that introduced me to Mike Sigel over 40 years ago. I remember Larry Hubbart , too, although I doubt I've seen him in over twenty years. Larry was the guy who toughened Mike by taking him on the road. Larry, one hell of a player himself, ran over 240 balls once upon a time.

I never knew about Crane winning at nine ball at Weenie Beenie's, and it sounds like he did so at about the age of sixty. Thanks for the info. I did see Crane compete every year from 1978-83 in the PPPA World Straight Pool Championships in New Yok City, but wasn't there in 1986 in Philadelphia for Irving's last significant straight pool event.

 

[sjm]

I post balls (I call it points) per inning both ways: (1) counting all innings and (2) not counting innings that consist solely of a safety or an intentional foul . Here is a post showing those results for the streamed matches of the single-elimination portion of each of the last 5 Dragon "World" events: https://forums.azbilliards.com/thre...ination-matches-dec-2019.503692/#post-6534645

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Cornerman]

You should talk to Sigel or Hubbard about Crane.
.

In case you didn't know, Larry passed several years ago.

 

[middleofnowhere]

In case you didn't know, Larry passed several years ago.

Before I made that reference I actually looked for something to see if he was still alive. I could not find anything so assumed he was still alive.
Thank you for correcting that. I just googled it again and sure enough he died in 2013 and it was posted on here.

 

[Matt_24]

Today's crop, by the standards of yesteryear, are terrible safety players. For that reason, long safety battles in recent times have been a rarity, and the short, thoughtlessly played, safety battles of this era tend to raise BPI in a way that can misrepresent the quality of play.

Some have suggested that BPI is an outdated stat and that a better measure of performance is balls per offensive inning, but the problem there is that it overlooks the quality of one's defensive play. Mosconi would have been ahead of Mizerak, Sigel, and Varner if such a stat had been kept, and only Greenleaf might have measured up to Willie.

By comparison, Irving Crane, whose inclination to play a lot of safeties is well documented, tended to have a BPI of about 8. Looked at in a vacuum, you'd never figure that Crane was good enough to have run 309 on a ten footer, but leaving him off the list of the five greatest ever straight poolers would be a mistake.

Wish I'd asked Charlie what Mizerak's career BPI was.

Stu, could one not be justified in placing Irving shoulder to shoulder with Mosconi? Did he not win significant titles over a longer era in tougher competition? Weren't many of Willie's "world titles" essentially a single match against an annual challenger? Not to discount Willie's accomplishments, but it seems Irving really stood the test of time, and was a true pool diehard, competing and exceeding in multiple disciplines. I've heard him described as almost flawless at running out 9 ball in his prime by Danny D. What slowed him down was his break. I'm biased in these thoughts though, simply because I like his style overall, dress and appearance, great cues (two balabushkas), and the dignified way in which he carried himself. a True legend!

Still - if I have to watch someone play straight pool for an extended period of time it would always be Mike Sigel.

Edited to add: I know an old school guy who hung out at Beanie's and is not the type to be very complimentary of anyone, however, he has referenced when Hubbart brought around Sigel way back in the day. He said the routine was, if Sigel couldn't beat them, then Hubbart would beat them (keep in mind, Sigel was a KID and a champion). He said that Hubbart was very a very intimidating gambler. And this guy is not squeamish about that type of thing.