US Open Shotmaking Percentages

[Patrick Johnson]

In this AzB article about the US Open finals match between Appleton and Deuel, I read this:

"Deuel ended up sinking 133 of the 218 balls he shot at, giving him a higher shot percentage (60%) than Appleton, who’d sunk 91 of the 154 balls he’d shot at and ended up with 59%."

These pocketing percentages are surprisingly low to me. Does anybody know how typical they are or how they relate to an Accu-Stats score?

pj
chgo

 

[Nostroke]

In this AzB article about the US Open finals match between Appleton and Deuel, I read this:

"Deuel ended up sinking 133 of the 218 balls he shot at, giving him a higher shot percentage (60%) than Appleton, who’d sunk 91 of the 154 balls he’d shot at and ended up with 59%."

These pocketing percentages are surprisingly low to me. Does anybody know how typical they are or how they relate to an Accu-Stats score?

pj
chgo

There is no way that either of them missed that many shots they were trying to pocket. Safes gotta be in there imho.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

In this AzB article about the US Open finals match between Appleton and Deuel, I read this:

"Deuel ended up sinking 133 of the 218 balls he shot at, giving him a higher shot percentage (60%) than Appleton, who’d sunk 91 of the 154 balls he’d shot at and ended up with 59%."

These pocketing percentages are surprisingly low to me. Does anybody know how typical they are or how they relate to an Accu-Stats score?

pj
chgo

I don't know what to make of that statement.
That is for all intensive purposes saying that Corey missed, missed and played safe, or played safe 85 times in the match.

Doesn't seem right.

They need to break it down further.

 

[greyghost]

In this AzB article about the US Open finals match between Appleton and Deuel, I read this:

"Deuel ended up sinking 133 of the 218 balls he shot at, giving him a higher shot percentage (60%) than Appleton, who’d sunk 91 of the 154 balls he’d shot at and ended up with 59%."

These pocketing percentages are surprisingly low to me. Does anybody know how typical they are or how they relate to an Accu-Stats score?

pj
chgo

doesn't sound right to me either PJ.......sounds like they maybe included safeties as attempted pots, that would make more sense......but still sounds awfully low even using the safety logic......

 

[Neil]

...............

 

[cheapcues.com]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics....

I think it's pretty safe to say this was their calculation:

Deuel "shot" 218 times, including breaks, safeties, kicks, rollouts- every time he made a stroke with his cue, and he made 133 balls, whether intentionally or not (does not include the CB, btw)

I did a sanity check on the made ball numbers and it makes sense.

They played 28 games, made a total of 224 balls. That works out to exactly 8 balls per game, which seems right.

Bottom line is it's a meaningless statistic, very misleading the way they said it, and they should know better, IMHO.

-Mike

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It's clearly not their Accu Stats "Total Performance Average", which equals (approximately) the percentage of balls made out of makeable shots attempted. As an example, here's a list of TPAs from a 1987 tournament:



pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think it's pretty safe to say this was their calculation:

Deuel "shot" 218 times, including breaks, safeties, kicks, rollouts- every time he made a stroke with his cue, and he made 133 balls, whether intentionally or not (does not include the CB, btw)

I did a sanity check on the made ball numbers and it makes sense.

They played 28 games, made a total of 224 balls. That works out to exactly 8 balls per game, which seems right.

Bottom line is it's a meaningless statistic, very misleading the way they said it, and they should know better, IMHO.

-Mike

This sounds about right, and I agree they should know better. It's not a big deal compared to world hunger or missing a bus, but it's worse than meaningless - it's misleading, as you say.

pj
chgo

 

[stljohnny]

I think the problem is the wording "... that he shot at".

i watched the match, in it's entirety, and he (Corey) didn't miss that many balls that he *actually* shot at; when he had a makeable shot. if i had to guess from memory (including jumps), i'd say he might have missed *maybe* 10 shots?

does that sound about right to anyone else? there were a lot of safeties and kick-safes, etc... but that stat sounds like he missed as many times as he made a ball; and we all know that's not the case; with either player.

 

[Eric.]

Accu Stats were the only ones (that I know of) keeping track of stats like that. For a lot of years, they would post the ratings of both players on a board. The only stats they kept, were from the TV table matches. For some reason, they stopped doing that this year.

From memory, the winners always seemed to play around .900, +/- .050. Unfortunately, the rating doesn't tell you specifically how many balls wer made/missed due to other stats that make up the Accu Stat rating.

On anther note, the highest rating match this year, was Immonen vs. Klatt. Immonen shot close to a 1.000. Actually, it might have been a 1.000 (he missed 1 shot at best). Klatt did shoot a 1.000...and lost 11-4.

*edit- Klatt's only mistakes were- he lost the lag and he broke dry, once. Jason, Jason...


Eric

 

[Aaron_S]

In this AzB article about the US Open finals match between Appleton and Deuel, I read this:

"Deuel ended up sinking 133 of the 218 balls he shot at, giving him a higher shot percentage (60%) than Appleton, who’d sunk 91 of the 154 balls he’d shot at and ended up with 59%."

These pocketing percentages are surprisingly low to me. Does anybody know how typical they are or how they relate to an Accu-Stats score?

pj
chgo

LOL. That would be, what, 148 misses? In 28 racks? Averaging over 5 misses per rack? Even with safeties included, I don't see how that could be accurate. And it also seems unlikely that Deuel pocketed 42 more balls than Appleton - not impossible, of course, but unlikely given the final score.

Aaron

 

[Eric.]

It's clearly not their Accu Stats "Total Performance Average", which equals (approximately) the percentage of balls made out of makeable shots attempted. As an example, here's a list of TPAs from a 1987 tournament:

View attachment 158110

pj
chgo

Those stats are interesting. If they are representative of a typical tourney, then, the players today may play better. Nowadays, it's not unusual to see a group of guys shooting .900+.


Eric

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Probably a new guy, breaking into the pool scene with first hand reporting from the US Open 9 Ball event.

Or watching the Stream.

Surely the staff reporter thought he was providing valid data.

 

[beetle]

Here's another thread that noted some discrepancies:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=206800

In this AzB article about the US Open finals match between Appleton and Deuel, I read this:

"Deuel ended up sinking 133 of the 218 balls he shot at, giving him a higher shot percentage (60%) than Appleton, who’d sunk 91 of the 154 balls he’d shot at and ended up with 59%."

These pocketing percentages are surprisingly low to me. Does anybody know how typical they are or how they relate to an Accu-Stats score?

pj
chgo

 

[Joe T]

Accu Stats were the only ones (that I know of) keeping track of stats like that. For a lot of years, they would post the ratings of both players on a board. The only stats they kept, were from the TV table matches. For some reason, they stopped doing that this year.

From memory, the winners always seemed to play around .900, +/- .050. Unfortunately, the rating doesn't tell you specifically how many balls wer made/missed due to other stats that make up the Accu Stat rating.

On anther note, the highest rating match this year, was Immonen vs. Klatt. Immonen shot close to a 1.000. Actually, it might have been a 1.000 (he missed 1 shot at best). Klatt did shoot a 1.000...and lost 11-4.

*edit- Klatt's only mistakes were- he lost the lag and he broke dry, once. Jason, Jason...


Eric

Definitely don't want to take anything away from Jasons GREAT performance at this yrs open BUT, I do believe I saw 1 shot where he was running out, got out of line and had to play safe and I think, think, under accu stat guidelines that would count as a position error
Great job Jason

 

[Eric.]

Definitely don't want to take anything away from Jasons GREAT performance at this yrs open BUT, I do believe I saw 1 shot where he was running out, got out of line and had to play safe and I think, think, under accu stat guidelines that would count as a position error
Great job Jason

Sure, Joe, rain on Klatt's parade :grin:

You might be right. I rememebr that there was only 1 rack where there was any kind of back and forth exchange. Basically, Mika won the lag, opened with a 6 pack. Broke dry in the 7th, Klatt ran that out, then B&R 3 more, then broke dry. Maybe the 11th rack was the one where they went back and forth once.

From there, Mika won the rack, and ran out the set(4 pack). Brutal.


Eric

 

[Joe T]

Sure, Joe, rain on Klatt's parade :grin:

You might be right. I rememebr that there was only 1 rack where there was any kind of back and forth exchange. Basically, Mika won the lag, opened with a 6 pack. Broke dry in the 7th, Klatt ran that out, then B&R 3 more, then broke dry. Maybe the 11th rack was the one where they went back and forth once.

From there, Mika won the rack, and ran out the set(4 pack). Brutal.


Eric

We can still give the guy a 990, sounds just as good, almost?

 

[Eric.]

We can still give the guy a 990, sounds just as good, almost?

Hey, not so fast, Pat might still give the nod to Klatt because the positional error wasn't blatant and he did play a successful safety? We'll see. If so, (per Pat) that will be the first 1.000 vs. 1.000 match ever recorded. Even still, it is the highest rated match (both players combined) ever.

Off topic- Joe, you've been saying that 10 ball is coming, for years...you were so right.


Eric

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... he was running out, got out of line and had to play safe and I think, think, under accu stat guidelines that would count as a position error
Great job Jason

Yeah, I think a position error means the next shot is counted as "makeable" whether or not it really is.

pj
chgo

 

[cueman]

They could have been counting how many balls were left on the table each time someone attempted to run out. For example: If they had 7 balls left on the table and ran four and missed it would count as three missed balls. That is the only way I can see those numbers making sense.