Post a reply

Some pointless statistics about the Masters

Postby Skullman

So, in the lead up to the Masters I’m going to post some random statistics I’ve accrued when I’m bored. I doubt many of them will lead to anything but they might be interesting for the statistically minded.

So here’s the first, showing how well the reigning UK Champion does in the Masters historically. Now with graphs! The one for the last fifteen years shows a more recent trend and also excludes Hendry era, because he tended to skew the graph more towards the winner’s end.

Image

Note: N/A refers to UK champions who either didn’t play in Masters that year, e.g. Doug Mountjoy in 1989 and Ding in 2006, or lost in the wildcard round that year e.g. ROS in 1994.

Re: Some pointless statistics about the Masters

Postby Andre147

You did those graphs Skull? rofl You must be really bored I imagine.

Nevertheless, some interesting stats there, particularly to note that many UK Champs tend to lose in the opening round of Last 16, and even before you put this here I thought that Robbo had the worst possible draw and that being UK Champ may actually work against him in this year's Masters. It didn't for Selby last year, in fact he won the tournament, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Robbo go out at the first hurdle.

So, I guess... keep it going Skull. <ok>

Re: Some pointless statistics about the Masters

Postby Odrl

Yes, I've always found these UK/Masters statistics interesting as well. Every year after the UK we look ahead to the Masters, expecting some good rematches, but it quite often happens that completely different players reach the business end of the Masters.

I think that's been particularly noticeable since the 2005/2006 season, when the two tournaments have been put together in the calendar. In the first six years 10 out of 12 finalists of the UK either lost in the 1st round of the Masters, or lost in the qualifying tournament or the wildcard round. One of the exceptions was in 2008 when O'Sullivan and Maguire actually played each other, so one of them had to go through, the other exception was Hendry in 2007.

In the last two seasons UK finalists mostly played well in the Masters, Trump and Murphy reaching the semi-finals, and Selby of course winning both events back to back. Is it easier to play two good ones in a row in this part of the season now, when the rest of the calender is so busy as well? Probably just a coincidence... ;-)

Re: Some pointless statistics about the Masters

Postby Wildey

The Masters used to be played early to mid February with possibly 2 Ranking events between the UK and The Masters.

in the 80s and early 90s you had the Mercantile Credit Classic starting as soon as the New year started sometimes on new years day.

Re: Some pointless statistics about the Masters

Postby Skullman

Thanks for the input. Didn't know there used to be tournaments between the UK and Masters (there was a EPTC last year, but I mean big rankers) and didn't think to chart UK finalists.

Anyway, today's pointless statistic is the distribution of scorelines in the Masters. Included every best of 11 since the beginning.

Image

And here's a pie chart

Image

As you can see, around half the matches in Masters have been 6-4 or closer, with almost 3/4 being 6-3 or closer. Could say that is expected, with it being the top 16 and many players being close to each other in standard.

Re: Some pointless statistics about the Masters

Postby Andre147

It is noticeable that the most common scoreline in the Masters best of 11s matches right after 6-4 is 6-5, with 6-3 close to it. The Masters has probably been one of the tournaments with the most frequency of deciders.

Re: Some pointless statistics about the Masters

Postby Skullman

You may be disappointed/relieved this is the last graph based statistic I'm putting up, but rest assured that I'm not done yet.

Image

Today, I have a graph of the performance of CL group winners and finalists in the Masters. Only one person (Mark Selby in 2010) has reached a CL group finalist and gone on to win the event, and around half of them go out in the last 16. Not good news for Judd, Walden or Perry. Maybe Robbo and Smurph played it smart today ;-)

Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting that players have intentionally lost in group semi finals to do better in the Masters. They probably intentionally lost for the breakfasts and money.
Last edited by Skullman on 09 Jan 2014, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Some pointless statistics about the Masters

Postby Andre147

simplysnooker wrote:Pointless Statistic: Rory McLeod has never won a match at the Masters.


How many times has he played there though? Once? twice?

Re: Some pointless statistics about the Masters

Postby Skullman

Forgot add some stats yesterday (doubt anyone minded though).Anyway, here are the stats that were meant for Friday, the decider records of all 16 competitors next week:

Mark Selby 9/9 100%
Marco Fu 1/1 100%
Judd Trump 1/1 100%
Neil Robertson 2/3 67%
Ronnie O'Sullivan 9/15 60%
Stephen Maguire 3/5 60%
Shaun Murphy 2/4 50%
John Higgins 1/4 25%
Mark Davis 0/1 0%
Barry Hawkins 0/1 0%
Joe Perry 0/1 0%
Ricky Walden 0/1 0%
Stuart Bingham 0/2 0%
Ding Junhui 0/2 0%
Mark Allen 0/3 0%
Robert Milkins 0/0 (Debut this week)

As you can see not many players have been in a lot of Masters deciders, with the exception of Selby and ROS. Selby clearly has the best record having not lost any deciders since he first started playing here (he's also the best out of all the Masters competitors ever).

Few other things stand out. Higgins has a bad history with Masters deciders, the only one he's won being that 2006 final, especially for someone who usually did so well in deciders in other events. Ding has a poor record as well, as does Mark Allen, who has the worst decider record here and is second to only Stevens (0/6 rofl )out of all the Masters competitors ever.

And speaking of deciders, I just want to add these little facts:

Maximum number of deciders in the Masters is seven, achieved on four occasions, 1986, 2002, 2008 and 2013.
The minimum is zero, achieved once in 2012.
The mean number of deciders is roughly 3.5.