First Chance Average?

[silentstriker]

Almost invariably? I can't see how in any way possible the first-chance average could be higher than the scorebook average.

If he is given out when he is in fact not out.

 

[The Argonaut]

Back on the forum after about a year away and this concept is still being argued. It feels like I've never been gone.

It is highly subjective as Marc and others have stated. Until someone publishes some data to show me the comparison I refuse to take idea seriously. Richard lists a number of players that are deemed lucky but have seen no hard figures to back it up. I am a believer in the good and bad decisions evening out in the long haul.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Its funny, I see the logic of it but it is flawed as it tries to look at luck but leaves as many questions unanswered as it addresses.

For example what if there is no second slip in place and the ball goes through the gap. That is still a mistake by the batsman and he would have been out if the fielding captain had put a fielder there.

An edge is still an edge whether there is no slip in place, a dropped catch or out. If you are trying to look at "luck" then false shots etc would have to be incorporated.

As it is, the system partially analyses a controversial idea and as such this partial data isnt enough to draw any real conclusions from.

Yep. There are two central problems with the theory as a way of analysing the performance of a batsman, as far as I can see. One is that it assumes that a false stroke is equivalent to a dismissal, when it is merely part of the equation, and the other is that the data used (presumably only by Richard) cannot possibly encompass all forms of luck a batsman might have in their innings. If the basis of the theory is that an edge to the keeper that isn't caught is effectively the same as one that is, then why is a wild top edge that happens to fortuitously land in between two fielders any different? The reality is that in most innings it takes more than one error for a batsman to be dismissed, just like it takes more than one good delivery to take a wicket. If a batsman was dismissed every time they made a mistake, few teams would pass 100.

There is also the fact that it isn't a particularly accurate reflection of a batsman's success, when a let-off on 0 that results in a double century is considered a failure.

A batsman is out when the opposition is good enough to dismiss them. That includes fielding as well as bowling and any other factors which might come into the equation.

 

[Pratters]

It's pretty hard to fail to make sense of it...

Not really. The appropriate way to put it would be

It's impossible for Richard Dickinson to fail to make sense of it...

I remember I spoke with you for 2 hours or so on msn on the topic once ages ago pointing out flaws. Just because you are obsessed with some thing doesn't mean that it is true or makes a lot of sense.

 

[adharcric]

Top post Fuller.

 

[Craig]

Don't go there.

It's extremely subjective and thus has no basis for any meaning.

Who do you disagree with more? Richard or Piscine?

This thread needs to be sticked for future reference. Surely Richard can pick up the Shane Warne/Shhid Afridi Award next week.

 

[Matt79]

Interesting idea but has too many problems to be used seriously as a gauge between players - which Goughy, Adharcric and Fuller have listed already.

Unless you had extremely strictly defined criteria for some of the more subjective ones (ie. "should have" been caught/run out/lbw) and transparency and consistency in how those criteria were applied, its pretty much your standard stats fiddle to try and prove a point.

 

[Matt79]

what if there is no second slip in place and the ball goes through the gap.

It's also unfair because in this scenario it will often be ignoring the good work a player has done to have that second slip removed. Player's can and do create their own luck, and of the ones you list, like Gilchrist and Sehwag, the fact is often a field will be spread, slips will be taken out, and fielders placed in the wrong place, BECAUSE of the pressure these attacking players place on the fielding captain. That pressure they create is not something they are lucky to benefit from - they make it and earn it, and will be rewarded when there aren't catching men in place, or the captain tries to cheat with one man in the slips at 1and a half slip and the ball goes between him and the keeper.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Its funny, I see the logic of it but it is flawed as it tries to look at luck but leaves as many questions unanswered as it addresses.

For example what if there is no second slip in place and the ball goes through the gap. That is still a mistake by the batsman and he would have been out if the fielding captain had put a fielder there.

An edge is still an edge whether there is no slip in place, a dropped catch or out. If you are trying to look at "luck" then false shots etc would have to be incorporated.

As it is, the system partially analyses a controversial idea and as such this partial data isnt enough to draw any real conclusions from.

I agree...it's not the worst concept in the world, but Richard's version is too simple (no offence intended Richard) to take into account the massive number of variables that are unaccounted for in my opinion. For a start, there are too many variables that cannot be accurately measured when you start withdrawing dismissals that shouldn't have been etc Those variables will never be able to be accurately measured so it's a flawed concept.

 

[James90]

I quite like the idea. So long as it's not taken too seriously and I don't think it would ever be. Maybe if it were only for convincing wrong umpiring decisions. What's considered a chance though?

Regulation edge between keeper and first slip, the two look at each other and let the ball go, surely that's a chance. Ball hits the stumps and the bails aren't removed. Is that another one?

 

[Matt79]

As the suggested model stands it is biased against batsmen in that, if they score 100 but were incorrectly given not out on 5, that goes in the books as a 5. An alternative scenario would be If they are incorrectly given out lbw on 5, on a dead flat track, with the ball doing nothing and them in the form of their life. That goes in the books as 5*. Now because it's not out, that will help their average, but what it can't factor in is what they might have done, ie. gone onto to score 200, or nick one to the keeper next ball and still be out for five. Either is possible, but not captured in the stat. Therefore, it enforces the downside of the concept, but doesn't offer the upside that theoretically should exist.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It's also unfair because in this scenario it will often be ignoring the good work a player has done to have that second slip removed. Player's can and do create their own luck, and of the ones you list, like Gilchrist and Sehwag, the fact is often a field will be spread, slips will be taken out, and fielders placed in the wrong place, BECAUSE of the pressure these attacking players place on the fielding captain. That pressure they create is not something they are lucky to benefit from - they make it and earn it, and will be rewarded when there aren't catching men in place, or the captain tries to cheat with one man in the slips at 1and a half slip and the ball goes between him and the keeper.

That brings up another interesting question - does it count on the batsman's first chance average if he is dropped in row 18?

 

[Matt79]

Only if the guy also spills his beer...

 

[Steulen]

It brings tears to my eyes that after all this time there is a serious discussion on the merits and flaws of the first chance average.

I agree that its a nice concept but completely impractical and biased against batsmen by the way.

 

[open365]

I'm suprised no one's pointed out what i consider to be the biggest flaw in the FC average so far.

Richard says that "you expect catches to be taken" but it's quite clear that there's a hell of a lot of catches that aren't taken so therefor we shouldn't expect them to be taken at all.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Also has to be considered that if you start thinking of luck that you then must not include any runs that don't come off intentional shots - nicks, french cuts, leading edges...

 

[marc71178]

This thread needs to be sticked for future reference. Surely Richard can pick up the Shane Warne/Shhid Afridi Award next week.

On what basis?

 

[Richard]

I don't understand why this applies to batsmen only. Surely a bowler is doing nothing different when a yorker is miraculously or perhaps fortuitously dug out and when one clean bowls a batsman? Or perhaps when an inside edge narrowly misses the stumps and when it hits them?

Indeed - but that's just life.

Ask Angus Fraser - it's a hard life being a bowler.

As such, it's pretty simple - don't just judge a bowler on stats, take an examination of whether said things have happened consistently throughout a game (and IAH they don't do so that often).

 

[Richard]

Its funny, I see the logic of it but it is flawed as it tries to look at luck but leaves as many questions unanswered as it addresses.

For example what if there is no second slip in place and the ball goes through the gap. That is still a mistake by the batsman and he would have been out if the fielding captain had put a fielder there.

An edge is still an edge whether there is no slip in place, a dropped catch or out. If you are trying to look at "luck" then false shots etc would have to be incorporated.

As it is, the system partially analyses a controversial idea and as such this partial data isnt enough to draw any real conclusions from.

Nothing in cricket can ever come close to completely alleviating luck.

Nothing can address all problems.

However, the more problems addressed the better, hence: first-chance average > scorebook-average.

 

[Richard]

Almost invariably? I can't see how in any way possible the first-chance average could be higher than the scorebook average.

Err - batsman is run-out at non-striker's end and cops a bad caught-behind decision while being dropped 0 times in a series...?

Strauss' first-chance average sure as hell is higher than his scorebook one for The Ashes 2006\07.