I only got to watch two nights play, and neither of them were complete nights, and I am not even sure if I watched the 2nd night. But what I saw when I watched was that both of them ran balls really really well considering by all accounts the table was tight-pocket. Off the top of my head if someone asked me I would say one or the other of them ran 8 or more and out about half of the games the whole match -- that's pretty stellar! The difference in the match in my opinion was that Scott made a handful more mistakes (unforced) than Alex did -- whether that was when they were on offense (maybe where Scott made a few more of his mistakes as I saw it), or on defense.
I saw on Facebook some chatter that some people thought Alex was supposed to roll over Scott much easier, and since he did not, that the match was fixed or Alex was easing up or something (honest-to-God, that is the kind of thing people said). I guess they expect Alex to be perfect in his shot selections and perfect in his execution every time he is at the table. And he only was 98.9% of the time, whereas Scott only was 98.3%.
I think that is part of the beauty of One Pocket -- it is a lot more like Chambers Bay than your local putt-putt joint in terms of the hazards that you have to deal with. And unlike golf, it is not so much the course that is the problem, it is the situations that your opponent is leaving you -- along with the pressure from the opponent who is lurking at the edge of the table ready to seize upon the slightest weakness in your execution as you try to navigate the table.
I know I was very impressed at the number of do-or-die shots to the pocket during runouts that Scott buried over and over, despite the acknowledged top shooter in the world lurking ready to take over in the event of a miss. Scott shot very well under that kind of pressure I thought.