That 83-93 part was very interesting! I love those videos where you take a subject that seems simple at first glance and bring it to another level that people usually don't think about. Thank you!
The other thing that hopefully explains quite clearly why a lower average can win a game: - It only really matters what you average on the legs you win - you can play awful on the legs you lose. Let's take this to the extreme and say someone doesn't score ANYTHING on the legs they lose, but hits a 12 darter on the legs they win. - Let's also say the opponent is going to hit a 15 darter each leg. The opponents average will be around about 100. - Over 11 legs say you won 6-5 and each player held their throw every leg. You have thrown 12 darts in every single leg - 12 dart check-outs on the legs you've won, and 12 darts scoring nothing on those you lost. - You have thrown 132 darts over 11 legs and scored 3006 points - a 3 dart average of *68.32* - You can win 6-5 with THAT average despite your opponent averaging 100. - That takes it to the extreme, but shows that if a player has won with a lower average, all it means is that they played well on the legs they won, and played badly on the legs they lost, whereas the opponent played consistently throughout.
@@VojtechDropa say the same example but u average 60 on the legs you lose and u throw 15 darters every leg on throw, you win 6-5 with an 81 average and say the opponent threw 15 darters on the legs he won and on the legs he lost he scores 400 points, the opponent will lose the match with a 100 average
In cricket was always told averages are for average players. I think people do go on about averages far to much as like you said lots of people loose with higher averages. You may play well on your own throw and hold and throw darts away when against throw. You'll still win 6-5. Wade a master of the lower average wins.
i'm glad this has been brought up as i think averages are poorly understood generally and explained very poorly by TV analysts. theres lots to be said about this but i just wanted to add a couple of things. its surprising how the loser doesn't average more than the winner more often. a simple way to think about it is that the winner of a leg has had to shoot at least one dart at a double and the loser may have (and is more likely to have) only been shooting at trebles. its quite possible the loser has a higher average if this happens a few times. during a fairly short match there are many reasons the averages can get skewed. a player missing a clutch of doubles or hitting a very high out to hold their throw in 15 while their opponent has hit 4 straight tons and is on a finish after 12 etc. a combination of 'weird' legs in a short match can lead to 'weird' average discrepancies. 'Tournament averages' and 'round averages' are also often miscalculated as the averages are simply added up and divided by the number of matches in the round/tourney/whatever. this is wrong because not every match is the same length and the number of darts thrown by every player is likely different. a guy can win 6-0 and throw 90 darts for a 100.2 average and a guy can win 6-5 and throw 198 darts for an 83.5 average. you can't just split the difference. That's also why a 93 average gets stronger in some tournaments as the matches get longer and how a high average over maybe 10 or 11 sets (probably looking at around 40 legs in total) is just an insane standard. anyways i try not to pay too much attention to averages. the pdc obviously use the 100 average nowadays as the standard and anything below that isn't special. thats just crazy in my opinion. as someone who hovers around the 5,6 and 7 turn mark for the majority of my legs i know i'm throwing pretty decent stuff to be doing so. i love watching matches where the players are missing a bit. it's tense out there!
There are many reasons why averages are not determining the winner : 1. As you said, finishing with your 1st or 3rd dart gives you a different average, although it's still "1 leg won" 2. Throwing first also changes the averages : you can win your leg in 18 darts throwing first, with your opponent standing on 16 after 15 darts. Average will be 83,5 vs 97, and you still win. 3. If you win a leg with a 200 point lead, but you lose the next two legs leaving 40 each time, you will be above in averages, but below on the scoreline, because you scored more points in total, but you won fewer legs.
Another stat that is over analyzed is the number of 100+, 140+, and 180s a players hits. A more accurate reflection would be the amount of 90+, 130+, and 170+ scores
100% agreed I Don't get why a 177 shouldn't count as much as a 180, while it's still "3 big trebles" 99s or 97s also deserve as much recognition as 100s, and same for the 136 or 139 or 134 with the 140 because saying "oh Player 1 scored 5 180s and Player 2 scored 2 180s" can be a useless stat if Player 2 often hits 177s or 174s for example.
Agree with a lot of what you're saying but I think people need to consider that the difference between the 83/93 averages is only based on one leg. For example if you're throwing first in a best of 11 match (presuming you maintain a 83.3 average on their throw) you would be very lucky if they didn't break you at least once Granted there are occasions where you can have a significantly lower average than your opponents and still win (especially if you have the advantage of the throw in shorter games ) but the chances of this happening are extremely unlikely
Brilliant post. I find myself watching most games with the volume turned down these days Games are narrated as a battle of averages never a battle of visits to the board.. Well said!
I disagree a bit with your statement about the difference of an 83 to 93 average. It would be true if you consistently play this average, e.g. always need 18 darts. But this is not the case. You will play a range around that. With an average of 83, you will play more legs with more than 18 darts and fewer legs with less than 15 darts, compared to someone with a 93 average. And this can decide a game. But, I also admit that this is not the full story since the average does not tell you when the good legs and when the bad legs will happen. You could play your good scores against the throw and still lose the leg, and throw your bad legs with the throw and again lose.
I think theres been a big increase in the obsession of averages over the last 3/4 years since darts scoring apps have become more common. Recorded a video on it today actually
I always say with doubles something similar....If you have 3 darts in hand, and double with 3rd dart, you are 100% on your doubles. You took it out without yoyur opponent hen being given a chance. Thats all that counts
I have a question though. For example I got to the double and I have 3 throws for it. I bust the first one so I practically return for the next throw. So is the bust with 1 or 2 darts considered three when I calculate the average or it is calculated exactly with the amount of the darts I have thrown.
Actually, it should be: points scored divided by darts USED (like Edgar says). If you bust your score with the first dart, you have only 'thrown' 1 dart that turn but you have 'used' all 3. Note: Sadly, there are some organizations that explicitly use the darts thrown instead, which gives higher averages.
@@nickruitto2669 yes, if you require let's say 12, and you hit the Single 13 with your first dart, it will count as 3 darts scoring 0 each As if you missed your 3 darts at a double, even though you threw one dart only Funnier example, if you have 180 left, and you score 180, your visit will still count as 0 lol
Theoretically yes but realistically no. With the quality around today, your opponent would eventually break your throw if you were consistently needing 6 visits to finish
well you would have to be perfect and always going out in 18 darts. Because the danger with 18 darts is that if you miss one, you give 3 darts to your opponent. and at that level, it would cost you the leg.
In all the years Ive been watching darts,this has never been explained to me. Its funny how this isnt explained to the viewer/fan by all them commentators/pundits. Any of the above reading this,maybe start doing the job you are paid for,instead of talking utter shite!
@@andrewmay1299 well it is extremely unlikely, it means that Taylor was always close to Webster (maybe standing on 16, 20, 12, stuff like that), and that Webster won his 3 legs on throw with a lower average. It can happen, but it definitely requires perfect timing every time, checking out with your 3rd dart, with a lot of pressure.
That 83-93 part was very interesting! I love those videos where you take a subject that seems simple at first glance and bring it to another level that people usually don't think about. Thank you!
The other thing that hopefully explains quite clearly why a lower average can win a game:
-
It only really matters what you average on the legs you win - you can play awful on the legs you lose. Let's take this to the extreme and say someone doesn't score ANYTHING on the legs they lose, but hits a 12 darter on the legs they win.
-
Let's also say the opponent is going to hit a 15 darter each leg. The opponents average will be around about 100.
-
Over 11 legs say you won 6-5 and each player held their throw every leg. You have thrown 12 darts in every single leg - 12 dart check-outs on the legs you've won, and 12 darts scoring nothing on those you lost.
-
You have thrown 132 darts over 11 legs and scored 3006 points - a 3 dart average of *68.32*
-
You can win 6-5 with THAT average despite your opponent averaging 100.
-
That takes it to the extreme, but shows that if a player has won with a lower average, all it means is that they played well on the legs they won, and played badly on the legs they lost, whereas the opponent played consistently throughout.
Not arguing, but I would say, that I have scored more than 3006 points - unless I would have scored 0 in all the five lost legs.
@@VojtechDropa say the same example but u average 60 on the legs you lose and u throw 15 darters every leg on throw, you win 6-5 with an 81 average and say the opponent threw 15 darters on the legs he won and on the legs he lost he scores 400 points, the opponent will lose the match with a 100 average
@@RyanDC123 Sure this makes sense, I was just little bit confused with the scores above :-D
In cricket was always told averages are for average players. I think people do go on about averages far to much as like you said lots of people loose with higher averages. You may play well on your own throw and hold and throw darts away when against throw. You'll still win 6-5. Wade a master of the lower average wins.
Another great informative video!! It really helps understand the game as a whole!
roman in the house... my avg. been sitting round 70 ish lateley.. they were around 80 for a lil while.
i'm glad this has been brought up as i think averages are poorly understood generally and explained very poorly by TV analysts. theres lots to be said about this but i just wanted to add a couple of things. its surprising how the loser doesn't average more than the winner more often. a simple way to think about it is that the winner of a leg has had to shoot at least one dart at a double and the loser may have (and is more likely to have) only been shooting at trebles. its quite possible the loser has a higher average if this happens a few times. during a fairly short match there are many reasons the averages can get skewed. a player missing a clutch of doubles or hitting a very high out to hold their throw in 15 while their opponent has hit 4 straight tons and is on a finish after 12 etc. a combination of 'weird' legs in a short match can lead to 'weird' average discrepancies.
'Tournament averages' and 'round averages' are also often miscalculated as the averages are simply added up and divided by the number of matches in the round/tourney/whatever. this is wrong because not every match is the same length and the number of darts thrown by every player is likely different. a guy can win 6-0 and throw 90 darts for a 100.2 average and a guy can win 6-5 and throw 198 darts for an 83.5 average. you can't just split the difference. That's also why a 93 average gets stronger in some tournaments as the matches get longer and how a high average over maybe 10 or 11 sets (probably looking at around 40 legs in total) is just an insane standard.
anyways i try not to pay too much attention to averages. the pdc obviously use the 100 average nowadays as the standard and anything below that isn't special. thats just crazy in my opinion. as someone who hovers around the 5,6 and 7 turn mark for the majority of my legs i know i'm throwing pretty decent stuff to be doing so. i love watching matches where the players are missing a bit. it's tense out there!
There are many reasons why averages are not determining the winner :
1. As you said, finishing with your 1st or 3rd dart gives you a different average, although it's still "1 leg won"
2. Throwing first also changes the averages : you can win your leg in 18 darts throwing first, with your opponent standing on 16 after 15 darts.
Average will be 83,5 vs 97, and you still win.
3. If you win a leg with a 200 point lead, but you lose the next two legs leaving 40 each time, you will be above in averages, but below on the scoreline, because you scored more points in total, but you won fewer legs.
Another stat that is over analyzed is the number of 100+, 140+, and 180s a players hits. A more accurate reflection would be the amount of 90+, 130+, and 170+ scores
100% agreed
I Don't get why a 177 shouldn't count as much as a 180, while it's still "3 big trebles"
99s or 97s also deserve as much recognition as 100s, and same for the 136 or 139 or 134 with the 140
because saying "oh Player 1 scored 5 180s and Player 2 scored 2 180s" can be a useless stat if Player 2 often hits 177s or 174s for example.
Nice vid EDGAR!!
Agree with a lot of what you're saying but I think people need to consider that the difference between the 83/93 averages is only based on one leg. For example if you're throwing first in a best of 11 match (presuming you maintain a 83.3 average on their throw) you would be very lucky if they didn't break you at least once
Granted there are occasions where you can have a significantly lower average than your opponents and still win (especially if you have the advantage of the throw in shorter games ) but the chances of this happening are extremely unlikely
Brilliant post. I find myself watching most games with the volume turned down these days
Games are narrated as a battle of averages never a battle of visits to the board..
Well said!
You will live next weeks watch along then for the Matchplay
@@Edgartvdarts 100%
Cheers Matt, made me understand to a better extent 👍
We need a video of that 170 to beat Gary on repeat!!!! The Edgar nation goes wild on darts connect!!
good luck in the summer series bro!!!!!
Love this vid Matt! Great stuff😁
Never knew that that’s interesting good vid
Any relation to jack 😁
Been saying that for years...
Go by # of trips to the board, NOT darts
Glad to see I’m not alone
I disagree a bit with your statement about the difference of an 83 to 93 average. It would be true if you consistently play this average, e.g. always need 18 darts. But this is not the case. You will play a range around that. With an average of 83, you will play more legs with more than 18 darts and fewer legs with less than 15 darts, compared to someone with a 93 average. And this can decide a game.
But, I also admit that this is not the full story since the average does not tell you when the good legs and when the bad legs will happen. You could play your good scores against the throw and still lose the leg, and throw your bad legs with the throw and again lose.
Great video
Really interesting the 83 to 93 range
Great Video again :) Thx
I think theres been a big increase in the obsession of averages over the last 3/4 years since darts scoring apps have become more common. Recorded a video on it today actually
Yeah fair shout
Darts, easy game to set up & play, hardest game to be good at?.... the better you get n the pressure builds, self pressure hardest pressure ?
I always say with doubles something similar....If you have 3 darts in hand, and double with 3rd dart, you are 100% on your doubles. You took it out without yoyur opponent hen being given a chance. Thats all that counts
I have a question though. For example I got to the double and I have 3 throws for it. I bust the first one so I practically return for the next throw. So is the bust with 1 or 2 darts considered three when I calculate the average or it is calculated exactly with the amount of the darts I have thrown.
Yes it’s calculated as you had 3 darts
@@Edgartvdarts thanks mate, really appreciated
83.5? That is not what we are used to see from the one and only Edgar
he didn't average 83.5, that's just the average of an 18-dart leg ;) he took it as an example cause it's easy to work with
❤
guys where can I buy a METAL ring with a METAL numbers or just a METAL numbers? tnx
So for a whole game with multiple legs they just add all the points you've gotten so far divided by the darts thrown??
Exactly that
Actually, it should be: points scored divided by darts USED (like Edgar says). If you bust your score with the first dart, you have only 'thrown' 1 dart that turn but you have 'used' all 3.
Note: Sadly, there are some organizations that explicitly use the darts thrown instead, which gives higher averages.
If you lost a leg on Double 16? What was your inspiration there?
Hate double 16 and Scottish dart players in dart matches in July
@@Edgartvdarts Nightmares!
I can u tell me how I chat to you on your live streams please
If you bust on your first dart do you need to average in the 2 darts you didn’t get to throw?
No counts as 3 misses
Matthew Edgar so you would have to count all 3 darts in the total darts thrown even though you only threw one dart?
@@nickruitto2669 yes, if you require let's say 12, and you hit the Single 13 with your first dart, it will count as 3 darts scoring 0 each
As if you missed your 3 darts at a double, even though you threw one dart only
Funnier example, if you have 180 left, and you score 180, your visit will still count as 0 lol
Vincenzo D'Anello I only hit 180’s in practice so I’m sure that will be the case when I finally hit one in a league match. Lol
So could you win a tournament with 80-82 average?
Long as no one breaks the 93 yes if they do then they are a shot ahead
Theoretically yes but realistically no. With the quality around today, your opponent would eventually break your throw if you were consistently needing 6 visits to finish
well you would have to be perfect and always going out in 18 darts. Because the danger with 18 darts is that if you miss one, you give 3 darts to your opponent. and at that level, it would cost you the leg.
What sort out averages should you be hitting at home before considering playing competitively?
Someone please make Matt a new intro. Please. 😜🤜🎯
Was offered and rejected highly sorry your the minority on this one
Say what? Best intro of RUclips!
In all the years Ive been watching darts,this has never been explained to me. Its funny how this isnt explained to the viewer/fan by all them commentators/pundits.
Any of the above reading this,maybe start doing the job you are paid for,instead of talking utter shite!
Phil Taylor even got Whitewashed 0:6 with a better average in 2014 against Darren Webster
@@andrewmay1299 well it is extremely unlikely, it means that Taylor was always close to Webster (maybe standing on 16, 20, 12, stuff like that), and that Webster won his 3 legs on throw with a lower average.
It can happen, but it definitely requires perfect timing every time, checking out with your 3rd dart, with a lot of pressure.
Does this really need an explanation?
To those that don’t understand it yes