How to Read Your Scoring and Finishing Numbers Together

First-nine average measures scoring during the opening three visits of an 01 leg. Checkout percentage measures how often finishing opportunities are converted. Use First 9 to assess opening scoring and a clearly defined checkout percentage to assess finishing; for a broader diagnosis, add overall average, opportunity count, format, and data coverage.

Related: What Is a Good Three-Dart Average?.

The short answer: one measures scoring, the other finishing

Performance question	Primary statistic	Add for context
How strongly am I starting legs?	First-nine average	Overall average
How efficiently am I finishing?	Checkout percentage	Opportunity count and difficulty
What is my broader performance profile?	First 9 and checkout percentage	Overall average, format, and coverage

First 9 covers the first three turns of an 01 leg. Checkout percentage covers a different phase: the opportunities on which a player could finish. DartConnect’s definitions also distinguish checkout-turn percentage from manually tracked checkout-dart percentage, so the type of checkout statistic must be identified before it can be interpreted. See the DartConnect leaderboard definitions.

A high First 9 does not imply a high checkout percentage. The cited sources do not establish a quantified relationship or predictive link between the two, so one figure should not be inferred from the other. A player can open with heavy scoring but struggle to finish; another can start more slowly but convert the chances that arrive.

The statistics are therefore complementary. First 9 describes opening scoring, while checkout percentage describes finish conversion. Overall average connects more of the leg, but it still cannot identify every strength or weakness by itself.

The interpretation problem is reflected in an r/Darts discussion about a player’s first-nine average, where users offered differing opinions about whether checkout and overall-average information was also needed. Those comments illustrate reader confusion, not representative evidence that one metric matters more.

Definitions and formulas for all four useful numbers

A useful performance dashboard contains four related but distinct calculations.

1. First-nine average

First 9 is the three-dart average across the opening three visits of an 01 leg:

First 9 = opening points scored ÷ opening darts thrown × 3

When a player uses all three opening visits, the calculation covers nine darts. For aggregated records, check the platform’s definition rather than assuming every system handles such legs identically.

2. Overall three-dart average

Overall average measures scoring across the complete recorded leg or match:

Overall average = total points scored ÷ total darts thrown × 3

Unlike First 9, it includes the later stages of the leg, including setup play, busts and finishing attempts. The standard three-dart formula and the conventional opening-three-visit definition of First 9 are described in this guide to darts statistics.

3. Checkout-dart percentage

This asks what share of individually recorded checkout darts completed the finish:

Checkout-dart percentage = successful checkout darts ÷ checkout darts attempted × 100

For example, four successful checkout darts from ten attempts produce:

4 ÷ 10 × 100 = 40%

That is an arithmetic illustration, not a benchmark for good or poor performance.

4. Checkout-turn percentage

This measures successful finishing visits rather than individual darts:

Checkout-turn percentage = successful finishing visits ÷ eligible finishing visits × 100

Turn-based and dart-based percentages can therefore differ even when they describe the same legs.

Always name the version being reported. Comparing one player’s checkout-turn percentage with another player’s checkout-dart percentage as if they were the same statistic is misleading.

Worked example: the stronger scorer can still lose the leg

The following is a hypothetical example, not observed match data.

Opening scoring	Checkout opportunities	Result	What the statistics reveal
Player A: 300 points in the first nine darts; First 9 of 100	Reaches a finish first but misses six darts at doubles	Loses	Stronger opening scoring, inefficient conversion in this leg
Player B: 270 points in the first nine darts; First 9 of 90	Reaches a finish later and converts the first dart at a double	Wins	Slower opening scoring, faster conversion when the opportunity arrives

Player A has the higher First 9 and reaches finishing range sooner. That advantage does not complete the leg. Player B wins by converting the required finish before Player A does.

The example does not show that checkout percentage is universally more important. It demonstrates only why opening scoring cannot determine a leg’s result by itself: scoring creates time and finishing opportunities, but the required checkout completes the leg.

In a completed 501 leg, the player must remove a fixed total of 501 points. Every unsuccessful finishing dart increases the number of darts used before completion, so missed checkouts can reduce the completed-leg overall average—a point also raised in a community discussion comparing averages and checkout rates. That discussion is anecdotal, but the underlying effect follows directly from dividing the points scored by a larger number of darts.

First 9 is insulated from most late-leg finishing effects because it is limited to the opening-three-visit window. It should not, however, be defined as a statistic that always excludes checkout play: a sufficiently fast leg can reach and complete its finish within that window.

Why overall average adds context but does not isolate the problem

Overall average captures more of the leg than First 9. It can reflect:

• opening scoring;
• scoring after the opening three visits;

• setup darts used to leave a preferred finish;

• checkout attempts;

• the total darts required to complete the leg.

This is why overall average can be lower than First 9. A player might score heavily at the start, slow down while setting up a finish and then require several attempts at doubles. Those extra darts remain in the overall calculation even when they do not reduce the remaining score.

A large gap between First 9 and overall average is therefore a diagnostic flag for later-leg inefficiency, not proof of poor doubling. Missed doubles are one possible cause, but the gap may also reflect weaker later scoring, awkward setup play, busts, route selection or difficult finishes.

Finish difficulty matters because not all opportunities present the same task. Repeated attempts at a preferred double and attempts following difficult setup situations may be compressed into one percentage. The raw rate records conversion, but it does not fully explain the circumstances behind it.

A small gap does not prove that the player’s game is balanced. Modest opening scoring followed by similarly modest later scoring can produce two close averages without identifying a particular strength.

Two players can also reach similar overall averages through different routes. One may score heavily before using extra darts at doubles; the other may score more moderately but finish more efficiently. First 9 and checkout data reveal profiles that the overall figure alone can hide.

A diagnostic matrix for interpreting your stat combination

“High” and “low” should be judged against the player’s own comparable sample or an agreed competition context, not unsupported universal skill bands.

First 9 and checkout combination	What it may suggest	What overall average adds	What to check
High First 9, high conversion	Strong opening scoring and effective finishing in the recorded sample	Shows whether performance remained strong through setup and later scoring	Opportunity volume, format and playing context
High First 9, low conversion	Opening scoring appears stronger than finishing	A large decline may confirm later-leg inefficiency, but not its cause	Attempt count, finish difficulty, busts and setup routes
Low First 9, high conversion	Efficient finishing may be compensating for slower starts	Shows whether later scoring also supported the result	Whether enough finishing opportunities were recorded
Low First 9, low conversion	Both phases were weaker within the comparison sample	Shows whether later scoring recovered or compounded the slow start	Sample period, format, coverage and opportunity difficulty

The matrix does not prove a cause or predict the next result. It identifies the phase that may deserve closer review.

For example, high First 9 with low conversion may justify more doubles practice, but the underlying attempts should be inspected first. A poor percentage based on a few difficult opportunities means something different from a repeated pattern across varied finishes.

Likewise, low First 9 with high conversion may indicate that finishing is protecting results. However, a perfect percentage from one opportunity is not equivalent to sustained conversion across repeated sessions. Percentages are more informative when their denominators are displayed.

How to compare the numbers fairly

Before comparing players, matches, leagues or scoring apps, check:

• Checkout definition: Is the figure based on individual darts or finishing turns?
• Opportunity count: How many checkout darts or eligible visits produced the percentage?
• Match format: Are the figures drawn from comparable 01 formats and match structures?
• Sample period: Do the records cover similar periods rather than one match versus a season?
• Playing context: Were the legs competitive, against an opponent or solo practice?
• Data coverage: What share of the included matches has checkout attempts recorded?
• Finish difficulty: Were the players facing broadly comparable finishing opportunities?

DartConnect distinguishes checkout-turn percentage from manually tracked checkout-dart percentage and warns that checkout-dart records may cover only some matches. An apparently precise percentage may therefore describe an incomplete subset rather than the player’s complete record. Check the platform’s definitions and coverage warning.

Compare like with like: the same named metric, counting convention, format, coverage standard and broadly comparable period. Do not merge figures from different apps until you understand how each app defines an opportunity, handles busts and treats incomplete attempt tracking.

One match can identify something worth examining, but it should not become a stable judgment of the player. Review repeated sessions or a rolling sample instead. There is no evidence-based need to impose an arbitrary minimum; display the number of legs and finishing opportunities so readers can judge how much information supports the percentage.

A compact dashboard should show:

1. First-nine average
2. Overall three-dart average
3. Named checkout metric—dart-based or turn-based
4. Number of checkout opportunities
5. Format and data coverage

Can a checkout happen within the first nine darts?

Yes. An exceptionally fast leg can reach and complete a checkout during the opening-three-visit window. First 9 can therefore include finishing play rather than always representing scoring before any checkout attempt.

This is why First 9 is best defined by the visits included, not by an assumed boundary between scoring and finishing. In longer legs it primarily reflects opening scoring, but that description should not be turned into a universal rule that doubles are always excluded. The conventional definition and its common pre-checkout generalization are outlined in the darts statistics guide.

Does either statistic predict who will win more reliably?

Neither should be treated as a universally superior predictor without suitable match-level data. First 9 measures how strongly a player begins, while checkout percentage measures how often the recorded finishing opportunities are converted. The supplied sources do not provide a statistical comparison showing that either one is consistently the better predictor.

Choose the statistic that matches the question: First 9 for opening scoring and a clearly defined checkout percentage for finishing conversion. For a broader assessment, read them alongside overall average, opportunity count, format and coverage, and treat a one-match pattern as a reason to continue tracking rather than a verdict.