2018 World Championship

[strike101]

In 1982 the WC went to a best of 19 first round with no more byes given to the top seeds. Since then here are the records of the top two seeded players in each round up to the final. (1982-2017)

#1 - 30-6, 23-7, 18-5, 14-4
Percent - 83.3, 76.7, 78.3, 77.8

#2 - 29-7, 24-5, 15-9, 7-8
Percent - 80.6, 82.8, 62.5, 46.7

Total - 59-13, 47-12, 33-14, 21-12
Percent - 81.9, 79.7, 70.2, 63.6

The top seeds have performed very well with little drop off from round to round, while the second seeds have done relatively poorly in the quarter-finals and semi-finals. So I was right and wrong. 90% was too high as I said, but in general my percentages were too low.

0.833*0.806*0.767*0.828*0.783*0.625*0.778*0.467 = 0.076 = 7.6% chance of top two seeds meeting in final

1/0.076 = 13.2 It should happen, on average, every 13 years. The fact that it hasn't happened in 31 years is just one of those statistical anomalies. It'll probably happen a couple of times in the next 5-10 years.

100 - 83.3 = 16.7 and 100 - 80.6 = 19.4. 0.167*0.194 = 0.032 = 3.2% chance of both top seeds losing in the first round. This is once every 31 years and it hasn't happened in 35 years, though we came relatively close this year and very very close in 2012. So I was also wrong about this. The top two seeds losing in the first round is approximately half as likely as the top two seeds meeting in the final.

I think I've found my internet soulmate.......

Top stuff there mate. Do you do Analytics as a profession?

[DeanH]

I think I've found my internet soulmate.......

Top stuff there mate. Do you do Analytics as a profession?

please start your own thread elsewhere (or get a room somewhere :biggrin as you have confused the hell out of at least one TSF member here

[vilkrang]

It is an achievement to win the WC even with a good draw and an imploding ROS, but only scoring one century en route to a WC win as Dott did is rather poor.

I've just had a quick look and the only previous times that has happened in the modern era I believe is Steve Davis in 1987 and 1984. Every other World Champion has scored at least 2 centuries (and considerably more in recent years).

Whilst having a look it really highlighted to me how much higher the standard is these days.

[armstm]

ebdon is an excellent commentator

[JimMalone]

Whilst having a look it really highlighted to me how much higher the standard is these days.

Performances in sports are always improving. Dott may not have scoring many high breaks, but he had other qualities he brought to the table in the 2006 World Championship.

[Stony152]

I think I've found my internet soulmate.......

Top stuff there mate. Do you do Analytics as a profession?

I was going to say the same thing.

No, I'm a semi-retired Math/Physics teacher. I've always been very interested in sports statistics. Growing up in Canada I was a big baseball fan and that sport is great for statistical analysis. I'm big into fantasy sports (baseball, basketball, and hockey) where you use a lot of stats to choose the players for your team.

I've gotten more into snooker in the last 10 years since I moved to Europe. I think it's an endlessly fascinating game. PM me your email address and I can send you a spreadsheet I made which ranks the players all time based on a point system I devised.

[Stony152]

please start your own thread elsewhere (or get a room somewhere :biggrin as you have confused the hell out of at least one TSF member here

Sorry. I got a bit carried away.

[JimMalone]

I've gotten more into snooker in the last 10 years since I moved to Europe. I think it's an endlessly fascinating game. PM me your email address and I can send you a spreadsheet I made which ranks the players all time based on a point system I devised.

I love stats and I love talking about rankings, but I'm sceptical when it comes to using only stats for a ranking. There are many more things to be included.

[Stony152]

I love stats and I love talking about rankings, but I'm sceptical when it comes to using only stats for a ranking. There are many more things to be included.

What do you mean? To me the numbers don't lie. How else would you compare two players other than their results and stats? Do you mean the fact that players played in different eras and faced varying levels of competition?

[JimMalone]

Do you mean the fact that players played in different eras and faced varying levels of competition?

Yes, for example.

[vilkrang]

Performances in sports are always improving. Dott may not have scoring many high breaks, but he had other qualities he brought to the table in the 2006 World Championship.

I meant even before Dott's win. Towards the end of the 90s 50 became about the norm whereas in the 80s it never went above 20. The standard has been steadily improving over the last 20 years but there really was a remarkable jump from the 80s and early 90s to the late 90s and beyond.

[armstm]

ie Hendry started playing

I meant even before Dott's win. Towards the end of the 90s 50 became about the norm whereas in the 80s it never went above 20. The standard has been steadily improving over the last 20 years but there really was a remarkable jump from the 80s and early 90s to the late 90s and beyond.

[strike101]

I was going to say the same thing.

No, I'm a semi-retired Math/Physics teacher. I've always been very interested in sports statistics. Growing up in Canada I was a big baseball fan and that sport is great for statistical analysis. I'm big into fantasy sports (baseball, basketball, and hockey) where you use a lot of stats to choose the players for your team.

I've gotten more into snooker in the last 10 years since I moved to Europe. I think it's an endlessly fascinating game. PM me your email address and I can send you a spreadsheet I made which ranks the players all time based on a point system I devised.

Fascinating mate.

I'm a Data Scientist by trade myself so I am the epitome of the work "Geek". Coupled with my love for Sport you can imagine the endless number crunching i've done in my time! Snooker is a fascinating sport for statistics aswel.

I've pm'd you my email address

[strike101]

I love stats and I love talking about rankings, but I'm sceptical when it comes to using only stats for a ranking. There are many more things to be included.

Across era rankings I agree. Stats don't work unless they are normalised for their era. And even then it's not ideal.

For current world rankings though there's no other way to do it.

[JimMalone]

Across era rankings I agree. Stats don't work unless they are normalised for their era. And even then it's not ideal.

For current world rankings though there's no other way to do it.

Yeah, therefore you have the world rankings and this works quite fine in Snooker I think.