What if? A hypothetical question

[pooltchr]

What if someone had the computer resources, data entry manpower, and communications network to program the results of every match of every tournament played each week. Then using a formula something like the BCS ratings for college football teams, based on who played who, and the results. Could they develop a reasonably accurate rating system for pool players across the country? More important, would anyone find that data useful or interesting?
Just something to think about...

Steve

 

[AceHigh]

What if someone had the computer resources, data entry manpower, and communications network to program the results of every match of every tournament played each week. Then using a formula something like the BCS ratings for college football teams, based on who played who, and the results. Could they develop a reasonably accurate rating system for pool players across the country? More important, would anyone find that data useful or interesting?
Just something to think about...

Steve

Are you talking about Pro Tournaments or every tournament, because if it's the latter, then i'm gonna go ahead and say it's practically impossible.

 

[pooltchr]

Are you talking about Pro Tournaments or every tournament, because if it's the latter, then i'm gonna go ahead and say it's practically impossible.

I was thinking more of the regional tours like Joss, Fury, Viking and so on. But I didn't want to put too many restrictions on the question.

 

[DaveK]

What if someone had the computer resources, data entry manpower, and communications network to program the results of every match of every tournament played each week. Then using a formula something like the BCS ratings for college football teams, based on who played who, and the results. Could they develop a reasonably accurate rating system for pool players across the country? More important, would anyone find that data useful or interesting?
Just something to think about...

Steve

I've often thought about a system like this. The NUTS folks might be in a reasonable position to coordinate the results entry, I imagine TDs entering the match scores for their events once complete. I don't know much about how the BCS ratings work, but think that asking all sports journalists to vote on who's best is not a good model (but that's still a part of the calculation today, is it not ? ). A better model would be something like the Sony rankings for golfers. These kinds average results over a year or 18 months, so you might have to 'seed' the players initially (or maybe not) and then wait for some time to pass and results to accumulate. In other words you'd have to enter data for a year before the rankings had much meaning.

This is also a great application for our friend, the world wide web ... it wouldn't be a lot of effort to create and maintain as a system, assuming a web-based application. Some effort on the part of the various TDs to do the data entry, but worthwhile imo. And last but not least, the development of the formula would be difficult.

I believe that this kind of ranking would add a great deal to the sport. The general public likes to be told who's #1 and who's #2, who's climbing fast and who's falling off the charts, Calgary players are better than Winnipeg players, etc. It gives everyone a frame of reference for the arguments


Dave

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I've often thought about a system like this. The NUTS folks might be in a reasonable position to coordinate the results entry, I imagine TDs entering the match scores for their events once complete. I don't know much about how the BCS ratings work, but think that asking all sports journalists to vote on who's best is not a good model (but that's still a part of the calculation today, is it not ? ). A better model would be something like the Sony rankings for golfers. These kinds average results over a year or 18 months, so you might have to 'seed' the players initially (or maybe not) and then wait for some time to pass and results to accumulate. In other words you'd have to enter data for a year before the rankings had much meaning.

This is also a great application for our friend, the world wide web ... it wouldn't be a lot of effort to create and maintain as a system, assuming a web-based application. Some effort on the part of the various TDs to do the data entry, but worthwhile imo. And last but not least, the development of the formula would be difficult.

I believe that this kind of ranking would add a great deal to the sport. The general public likes to be told who's #1 and who's #2, who's climbing fast and who's falling off the charts, Calgary players are better than Winnipeg players, etc. It gives everyone a frame of reference for the arguments


Dave

Great, "The Bell Curve" for Pool Players! You do realize that for every match you want statistics on, you'll need a third person to actually tally these statistics. I'm sorry but this fact alone makes it nearly impossible to get a huge data base. I mean, everyone will be willing to do the stats for Johnny Archer v. Efren Reyes but who's going to mull over the hits/misses of Joe Schmo vs. John Doe.

 

[vapoolplayer]

but who's going to mull over the hits/misses of Joe Schmo vs. John Doe.

i will be more than willing to take that position..............i will travel the country and score match after match after match of PREFERABLY C players or below..........i will recored every stroke, error, saftey........everything..........

for the small fee of only 25 cents per shot for A players, 18 cents for B players and 15 cents for C and below..........

i'm actually halfway serious too.........i'd take that job in a heartbeat......LOL


VAP

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

i will be more than willing to take that position..............i will travel the country and score match after match after match of PREFERABLY C players or below..........i will recored every stroke, error, saftey........everything..........

for the small fee of only 25 cents per shot for A players, 18 cents for B players and 15 cents for C and below..........

i'm actually halfway serious too.........i'd take that job in a heartbeat......LOL


VAP

Dude, do you know how wealthy some players would have to be to hire you? DO YOU KNOW HOW WEALTHY I'D HAVE TO BE TO HIRE TO! OMG, you should have seen my league match from last week! Bad enough that I'd have to sit there and stew in my own juices after a loss, even worse to know EXACTLY how many misses and THEN have to pay for those misses!

Actually, that'd be one hell of an incentive to get better!

"I'm not playing hard because I want to win. I'm playing hard because I literally can't afford to miss!"

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Regional and Monthly tournaments would be a good start.

The format for the data base would be difficult, but worth the effort.

Player name (would 'road names' be allowed?)
Table 9, 8, 7 foot
Game 8-ball, 9-ball, 1Pkt,
Format Single or Double Elimination, Round Robin
Entry Fees (minus green fees)
Size of field (number of players)
Event length (one day, two day, three day, more)
Opponents for the event, w-l record/match
Finish (1st, 2nd, 3rd---"two and out")
Region (West, Mid-West, South, East... .Canada)
Strength of Field? are there any pros playing? what about known shortstops?

Voluntary data entry form at each event, players could fill out the info and TD would verify and submit.

What if someone had the computer resources, data entry manpower, and communications network to program the results of every match of every tournament played each week. Then using a formula something like the BCS ratings for college football teams, based on who played who, and the results. Could they develop a reasonably accurate rating system for pool players across the country? More important, would anyone find that data useful or interesting?
Just something to think about...

Steve

 

[drivermaker]

I think this sounds like one of those big time threads in mental masturbation exercises coming up which will get nowhere. For this kind of heavy duty brain wave usage, I think I'll use it for the real thing which won't necessarily make it on the mental side.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Regional and Monthly tournaments would be a good start.

The format for the data base would be difficult, but worth the effort.

Player name (would 'road names' be allowed?)
Table 9, 8, 7 foot
Game 8-ball, 9-ball, 1Pkt,
Format Single or Double Elimination, Round Robin
Entry Fees (minus green fees)
Size of field (number of players)
Event length (one day, two day, three day, more)
Opponents for the event, w-l record/match
Finish (1st, 2nd, 3rd---"two and out")
Region (West, Mid-West, South, East... .Canada)
Strength of Field? are there any pros playing? what about known shortstops?

Voluntary data entry form at each event, players could fill out the info and TD would verify and submit.

Well, I think we should return to the "useful and/or interesting" portion of all this? The moment you begin to enter shortstops, I really have to question the usefulness of this data. I'd LOVE to see how I'd rank among everyone else in the entire world but aside from my personal amusement, what purpose would it serve?

It's one thing to see who the world champion really is. It's another thing to see how far away a typical A-Player is from being the world champion.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Jude,
Useful? Beneficial? not immediately that's for sure.
Good question.

It would be nice, but not necessary, for some type of ranking for the players or even the tournament.

Well, I think we should return to the "useful and/or interesting" portion of all this? The moment you begin to enter shortstops, I really have to question the usefulness of this data. I'd LOVE to see how I'd rank among everyone else in the entire world but aside from my personal amusement, what purpose would it serve?

It's one thing to see who the world champion really is. It's another thing to see how far away a typical A-Player is from being the world champion.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Jude,
Useful? Beneficial? not immediately that's for sure.
Good question.

It would be nice, but not necessary, for some type of ranking for the players or even the tournament.

Honestly, this is probably how the very first handicap discussion went and I HATE HANDICAPS. I think its the demise of pool. To create a ranking system that has nothing to do with one's merits within a tour but with accu-stats & shot-performance, it leads people to suddenly rely on it as the determinant in who wins and who loses and what's needed to balance things out.

In New York City, we have the Tri-State Tour and I can't make a game without somebody asking me what my Tri-State ranking is and suddenly, without either of us ever seeing either person play, this guy is asking for weight. I can't tell you how much I hate that.

 

[DaveK]

Great, "The Bell Curve" for Pool Players! You do realize that for every match you want statistics on, you'll need a third person to actually tally these statistics. I'm sorry but this fact alone makes it nearly impossible to get a huge data base. I mean, everyone will be willing to do the stats for Johnny Archer v. Efren Reyes but who's going to mull over the hits/misses of Joe Schmo vs. John Doe.

Um, I was thinking that the results to be entered for a match between, say, Johnny Archer and Efren Reyes would be something like "11" and "8". That's not so tough, very few keystrokes using easily available data (one hopes). Perhaps you were thinking I was suggesting a player 'rating' (like the Accustat pool player rating, or a chess rating), I was not. I was suggesting a player 'ranking' (like the Sony Rankings in golf). How is it done in Snooker, they have a ranking system ?

Dave

 

[DaveK]

I think this sounds like one of those big time threads in mental masturbation exercises coming up which will get nowhere. For this kind of heavy duty brain wave usage, I think I'll use it for the real thing which won't necessarily make it on the mental side.

But seriously, these systems exist in big time sports, why not pool ? Other than gamblers hiding from the exposure...

Dave

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

That's not so tough, very few keystrokes using easily available data (one hopes).

The problem is, what data? The only thing that's consistently recorded in all tournaments are matches won/lost and the score (sometimes).

 

[DaveK]

The problem is, what data? The only thing that's consistently recorded in all tournaments are matches won/lost and the score (sometimes).

Exactly, that's what I just said ! I think one would need the scores.

In other sports, and in pool within tours, ranking are used to seed draws, nothing to do with handicapping, just ensuring that Johnny and Efren don't meet in the first round, a fairer draw to the top players.

As far as lower ranked players using the data to negotiate weight, stop picking on those poor fish

Dave

 

[vapoolplayer]

ok, i've come up with a solution.......seriously.

maybe this could be incorporated into the NUTS

don't start the stat taking until you get to the national qualifier level.

for those of you that don't understand the NUTS fully, that would mean you placed in the top 6 at a regional tour stop, then you placed in the top 50 percent of that tour's quarterly regional tourney.

now you're in the national qualifer touney, which is for a specific region covering multiple tours in the same region.

that is where the stats start kicking in. it shouldn't be but so hard to do this, yes, it would be a challenge, but its easier than doing it at every regional tour stop.


and to be perfectly blunt about it...........if you can't make it to the national qualifying stage........who really gives a damn what your rank is??

VAP

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Exactly, that's what I just said ! I think one would need the scores.

In other sports, and in pool within tours, ranking are used to seed draws, nothing to do with handicapping, just ensuring that Johnny and Efren don't meet in the first round, a fairer draw to the top players.

As far as lower ranked players using the data to negotiate weight, stop picking on those poor fish

Dave

At this point in time, seeding would ruin men's pool. There are just way too many great players that aren't competing and you cannot even look at the current UPA standings as the true totem pole of men's professional pool. Anybody that tells me that Evan Broxmeyer (currently ranked 33) should be given a preferential draw over Nick Varner (currently ranked 54) is on crack! Could you imagine doing that on a national level with every event? No draw can be more fair than a random draw at this point in time.


As for my "fish" story, I will NEVER give weight to a player I've never seen play before. It's really that simple. If I don't know you, I'll be willing to shake hands for $50 a set and I know the risks involved. I don't think it should ever be appropriate to try and make adjustments in a hand-shake set and that's what handicapped tours create.

 

[DaveK]

At this point in time, seeding would ruin men's pool. There are just way too many great players that aren't competing and you cannot even look at the current UPA standings as the true totem pole of men's professional pool. Anybody that tells me that Evan Broxmeyer (currently ranked 33) should be given a preferential draw over Nick Varner (currently ranked 54) is on crack! Could you imagine doing that on a national level with every event? No draw can be more fair than a random draw at this point in time.


As for my "fish" story, I will NEVER give weight to a player I've never seen play before. It's really that simple. If I don't know you, I'll be willing to shake hands for $50 a set and I know the risks involved. I don't think it should ever be appropriate to try and make adjustments in a hand-shake set and that's what handicapped tours create.

You keep adding that work "HANDICAPPED" and it is a total red herring in this discussion. I for one am not talking about handicapping of any kind. As an example, all pro tennis tournaments are SEEDED according to RANKINGS. and they have not yet been ruined. They are not HANDICAPPED tournaments.

Interesting little quirk of these kinds of ranking systems. That Belgian tennis player Kim Clisters (sp?) got hurt a year back and did not play any tournaments for quite a while. She was ranked #1 (?) when she got hurt, but over time she dropped way, way down on the list. Upon her return to tournament play she ended up being put into the draw 'unseeded', and proceeded to win her first two events, as an unseeded player. Of course this 'unseeded' player was still one of the finest tennis players on the planet, and she proved it ! Her ranking would of course rise rapidly under these circumstanced. I have no idea why Nick is ranked 54, but not playing for a while may be one reason.

Of course using one tours ranking (UPA) as opposed to a universal ranking (what this thread is about) is very different. The concept here is a 'tour independant' ranking, like golfs Sony ranking. European players who never get into a PGA event get ranked alongside PGA players who never play in Europe. It is possible.

I was just giving you a hard time about those fish. I think your approach to playing people not known to you is both proper and prudent.

Dave

 

[Eric.]

Anybody that tells me that Evan Broxmeyer (currently ranked 33) should be given a preferential draw over Nick Varner (currently ranked 54) is on crack!

You're right about Evan, but in all fairness, there are a few ranked "UPA Pros" that don't play "pro" speed, not just Evan. With the current state of the UPA, all you need to be ranked 33rd or so is to play in every event, go 2 and out every time and maybe win 1 or 2 matches for the season. If there were any seeding based on UPA rankings, there has to be a cut off/judgement call i.e. only the top 16 get seeded, etc.


Eric