EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND OF BD POWER INDEX
by Mike Panozzo
(Note: Be warned! The following explanation of the BD Power Index pro
ranking formula is perhaps the most complex article ever published in
Billiards Digest. We simply felt the need to fully explain the formula at
least once.)
With no organized men's professional tour, and a collection of wildly
disparate tournament formats facing the men pros, rating their overall
performance throughout the year has become as difficult as finding a
corporate sponsor.
One thing, however, is certain. The current ranking system - the Billiard
Congress of America Men's Pro Rankings - is not the answer.
 This became painfully apparent recently when the BCA announced that Jon
Kucharo and Buddy Hall would represent the U.S. at the World Games in
August in Akita, Japan. For an acronym primer, the BCA is the North
American affiliate to the World Pool-Billiard Association (WPA). The WPA,
in turn, is the pocket billiard arm of the International Olympic Committee
(IOC) recognized World Confederation of Billiard Sports (WCBS). Because of
its position in the global hierarchy, the BCA is empowered to select
American players for WPA-sanctioned international competitions. This
includes not only the World Games (an important international sports
festival in which cue sports will be making its maiden appearance), but
also the WPA World 9-Ball Championships. For Akita, the BCA based its
selection on a ranking system it developed in 2000, which rated Kucharo No.
2, behind Finland's Mika Immonen. Hall was No. 3.
No offense to Hall of Famer Hall and the talented young Kucharo, but their
rating as America's top two players in 2000 should be enough to tell you
that the BCA system is flawed. How? The ranking points awarded to a player
for his final placement in a tournament were doled out equally for each of
10 pro events in 2000. (The rationale for which 10 events were selected was
not explained.) Using the same points system for each event means that a
respect-challenged, 56-player, $6,300-top-prize Billiard Channel Challenger
Series event carried the same weight as the 25th annual, 286-player,
$200,000-plus prize purse, $50,000 top prize U.S. Open. Flawed? I think so.
The $250,000, 96-player World 9-Ball Championship wasn't even included in
the ranking, yet the 64-player, mostly invitational, international
player-laden BCA Open was. In the BCA's system, everyone's Player of the
Year, Earl Strickland, was ranked fourth. Johnny Archer, 14th.
In truth, the BCA can choose to send anyone it wants to international
competitions, and other ranking systems may well suggest that Immonen,
Kucharo and Hall were, indeed, the best players in America in 2000.
Regardless, the men pros deserve a more analytical system for awarding
points throughout the year.
So, in an effort to develop a more equitable solution to the men's ranking
dilemma, the staff of Billiards Digest (with the assistance of several
players, statistical geniuses, and writers who cover other professional
sports) has devised the BD Power Index, a copyrighted tournament-rating
formula. Whether any other billiard entity, or even the players themselves,
adopt this Index is immaterial. Until there exists an organized men's tour,
replete with its own tour-recognized ranking system, the BD Power Index
will be the only ranking system used in the pages of Billiards Digest. (The
official Women's Professional Billiard Association rankings will continue
to be used for the ladies pro tour.)
What makes the men pros so much more difficult to rank than the women is
the simple reason that there is no standard tournament format. With the
WPBA Classic Tour, every tournament (except the BCA Open and WPBA
Nationals) features identical fields (both in terms of size and strength),
identical prize funds, identical top prizes and identical tournament
formats. No such standard exists with the men. They play 9-ball, 8-ball,
one-pocket - even straight pool. Fields range from 48 to nearly 300. Some
events are seeded, some not. Some double-elimination, some single. Races
range from seven to 17. And the same top players rarely play in each event
throughout the year, so the strength of the field varies. Prize purses
range from $50,000 to $250,000.
In short, the variances in men's tournaments are far too dramatic to
accurately rate with an overly simplistic points system.
The chore, then, was to devise a system for rating the tournament first,
and then plugging the players' finishes into that particular tournament's
given points structure. It was determined that the way to accomplish that
was to begin with "standards."
Ranking the players is relatively easy. Since the points system used in the
Camel Pro Billiards Series was developed by a panel of tournament
officials, tournament directors, and top pro players, and the events in the
Series were relatively standardized, the BD Power Index adopted the Camel
Series points breakdown. The winner of a tournament that fit the "standard"
range as defined by the BD Power Index will earn 140 points. The
second-place finisher gets 120 points, third earns 100 points, etc. (See
chart)
The problem, then, is rating the tournaments. The BD Power Index uses four
major elements in determining a "Tournament Factor" by which the event
is
judged: Strength of field at the top, overall strength of the field (size),
format and purse. By taking into consideration those four major elements,
each tournament gets a "Tournament Factor." If it is a "standard"
tournament, the Tournament Factor would be 1. We then multiply the
established points system (listed as "Raw Points" in the chart), by
that
factor. Again, in a "standard" tournament, the winner will receive
140
points (140 x 1 = 140). Events that fall short of standard may have a
ranking factor of 0.9. In that event, the winner would only receive 126
points (140 x 0.9 = 126). Conversely, a tournament that exceeds the
definition of "standard" may have a Tournament Factor of 1.25, meaning
the
champion would earn 175 points (140 x 1.25 = 175).
So, just what is "standard?" For starters, the four elements used
to
determine the ranking factor are not equally weighted. In discussions with
tournament officials and players, the strength of the field (at the top,
and relative to its overall size) was overwhelmingly considered the most
important factor. Simplified, they're saying that there is more credibility
in winning a lower payout, 64-player tournament at which each of the top 24
ranked players attend, than a high-payout, 64-player tournament at which
only half of the top 24-ranked pros played. Makes sense. Regardless of the
money, making it through the tougher field is more impressive, and should
receive greater value in a rating system that focuses on performance.
So, in the BD Power Index, will a player get more points for winning a
larger-than-standard top prize? Yes. But not as many extra as a player who
wins against a stronger-than-standard field. In fact, the two elements that
determine the Total Strength of Field (strength of field, and strength of
entire field) comprise 70 percent of the formula that determines the
ranking factor. The format and purse each comprise 15 percent of the
formula.
Total Strength of Field: Made up of the strength of the field relative to
the top 24-ranked players, and the overall strength relative to the size of
the field. How many of the top players participated? Players in the top 24
each have a value of .05. That means that 20 of the top 24 players (a
reasonable number for a top pro tournament) should be present for
"standard," which would make the Top 24 factor 1 (20 x .05 = 1). A
tournament must feature at least 12 of the top 24-ranked players to be
considered. To assess the strength of the rest of the field, the number of
players entered who are ranked 25-64 would earn the tournament 0.03 each,
with the remaining players in the field earning the tournament 0.015 each.
It was determined that 96 players would be the cutoff, with the rationale
being that above 96 players the strength of the field doesn't actually
improve. (A field must be at least 48 players to be considered.)
To account for events that draw top foreign players not ranked in the BD
Power Index Top 24, players ranked in the top 10 of their WPA-recognized
continental ranking system (European Pocket Billiard Federation, Asian
Pocket Billiard Union, etc.) earn an automatic .05.
An example of a standard tournament might be a 64-player event in which 20
of the top 24 players compete. The factor for the top echelon players (20 x
.05) is 1. If half of the remaining 44 spots were taken by players ranked
25-56 (22 x .03 = .66) and the other 22 spots were assigned the minimum
points (22 x .015 = .33), the strength of the rest of the field is also 1.
We add the two strengths, and divide by two to reach our Total Strength of
Field - 1. That's an acceptable standard.
Tournament Format: The tournament formula is based on two factors - the
elimination process, and games required for a win. Since double elimination
(seeded) is the norm in pool tournaments, that is the standard. Single
elimination can also be a standard, provided it is seeded through at least
the top 32 players. Unconventional double-elimination formats, and single
elimination without seeding reduces a tournament's format factor by .20.
To be considered standard, the total number of games required for a win is
also weighed. In 9-ball, total games required to win must be between 9 and
11. Less than 9 pulls the format factor to 0.8. Races exceeding 11 earns
tournaments a bonus factor of .20. Standard for one-pocket is 4-5 games.
Standard for 8-ball is 7-9. Standard for straight pool is 100-150.
Prize Fund: Finally, prize funds. The standard for prize funds ranges from
$70,000 to $125,000, and stipulates that at least 50 percent of the prize
fund be in the form of added money. Prize funds that fall short of the
standard are penalized .10. Prize funds between $126,000 and $199,000 earn
an increase of .10, and prize funds of $200,000 and up earn and extra .20
above the standard.
Based on the weighted averages of the four elements, the Total Strength of
Field is multiplied by .70 (70 percent of the formula), the Format quotient
is multiplied by .15 (15 percent), and the Purse quotient is multiplied by
.15 (15 percent) to yield the total tournament factor. The Tournament
Factor is what is used to determine the points allotted to each finisher.
Like all formulas, the concepts are much easier to understand when applied
to an example. Below are two 2000 tournaments rated against the "standard:"
the BCA Open 9-Ball Championship, and the WPA World Pool Championship. The
rankings list used to determine the strength of field was the final
rankings from the 1999 Camel Pro Billiards Series.
STRICKLAND, IMMONEN WOULD HAVE TAKEN TOP SPOTS IN 2000
From May 2001:
Using criterea such as strength of field, size of prize purse and fairness
of format, the BD Power Index (painstakingly explained in the April 2000
issue) determines a Tournament Factor for each tournament, which in turn
determines the points that will be awarded for a player's finish in that
tournament. In analyzing performance in 2000, the BD Power Index examined
the same 10 events used to calculate the Billiard Congress of America
Rankings in 2000, and added the World Professional 9-Ball Championship.
(The BCA chose not to include the world championship, since it uses its
points list to determine which American players qualify for international
events, including the world championship.)
As could probably be expected, the tournaments that rated the highest in
2000 were (in order) the World Professional 9-Ball Championship, the U.S.
Open 9-Ball Championship, the Camel Pro 8-Ball Championship and the BCA
Open 9-Ball Championship. All four had a Tournament Factor above 1.0 -
considered "standard." By the strictest guidelines set by the BD Power
Index, which among other things requires at least 12 of the top 24-ranked
pros be in the field for a tournament to be considered, only those four
tournaments and the second Challenger Series event would have qualified.
But, in an effort to point out the disparity in strength among the top pro
events of 2000, all 11 tournaments were evaluated.
Given its role as North America's representative to the World Pool-Billiard
Association, the BCA's exclusion of the world championship is
understandable. But no overall yearlong ranking system could be taken
seriously without including the year's richest and most international
competition. For that reason, the BD Power Index is shown here in two
versions. One version offer an apples-to-apples comparison to the BCA
ranking list by including only the 10 events used to comprise the BCA list.
The other includes the world championship, which will be kept as the
official 2000 BD Power Index. The list of the top 64 players, as ranked in
the 2000 Index, will be the measuring stick used to evaluate the strength
of fields in 2001.
It should come as little surprise that Strickland's high finishes in the
year's top two events (winning the U.S. Open and finishing tied for third
at the World Professional 9-Ball Championship), catapulted him to the
overall top spot. Still, Immonen, rated No.1 in the BCA rankings, was a
close second in the BD Power Index, and, in fact, retained his No.1 ranking
when the world championship was taken out of the BD Power Index equation.
The power of the world championship also made its impact on the rankings
with the inclusion of Ismael Paez and Cory Deuel in the top four. Paez's
runner-up finish in Cardiff and solid finishes in the remainder of the pro
events earned him plenty of points, while Deuel's rapid rise should
surprise no one.
Top
|
