First Chance Average?

[Richard]

Exactly. There are far too many factors that need to be considered to get an accurate "first-chance average" for a batsman.

There aren't. The examples you give down there have no bearing on the first-chance average - they're unquantifiables, and I have never attempted to take them into consideration.

Off the top of my head, you'd have to look at the placement of the ball, the batsman's intention (guided through slips, etc), field settings, the power with which the ball is hit, the quality of the fielder, etc. Pretty much impossible and a utter waste of time.

Dropped catches are a part of the game

They are, but like bad light and politically-motivated problems are something the game would be better off without and has no chance of ever getting rid of.

 

[Richard]

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.

And as I've said, you and anyone else who genuinely believes that is sticking their head in the sand.

 

[Richard]

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.

Err, obviously.

So why, therefore, do we not just credit batsmen with not-outs every time they give a chance that ends-up being taken?

Arial strokes away from fielders, edges just past the stumps, missed direct-hits, etc., they're all part of the game. As you say, if none happened few teams would ever pass 100.

Dropped catches (and caught ones) are totally different and as far as the batsman is concerned there's no difference. There is, however, a difference between hitting the ball in the air to a fielder and hitting it in the air (intentionally or unintentionally) away from one.

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.

Which is why you need all-chance averages for said thing - where a batsman gets 200 runs for 2 dismissals.
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.[/QUOTE]
And as far as an analysis of the batsman's ability rather than the teams' this is very, very poor.

 

[Richard]

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.

Well given that most of it was you speaking and refusing to let me get a word in hedgeways I hardly see that that counts...

It's not hard to understand, even if you refuse to acknowledge it's merits.

 

[Richard]

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's precisely why the said scheme does not do any such thing. Manipulating the field is one of the skills of batting.

Forcing simple dropped catches is not and can never be. A dropped catch can never, ever credit the batsman.

 

[Richard]

I agree...it's not the worst concept in the world, but Richard's version is too simple 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.

It's not impossible to accurately measure said things.

It is impossible to accurately measure some things, and as such I don't try.

(no offence intended Richard)

Really? You've never given a stuff about it before.

 

[Richard]

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?

Obviously the first is - the second happens so infrequently I don't really worry about it. I suppose if you had to consider it, I'd say no, it isn't.

 

[Richard]

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.

That's because it's not possible to do so.

Don't try and do what you can't, but equally don't give-up on what you can do just because of worrying about what you can't.

 

[Richard]

I agree that its biased against batsmen

And the scorebook-record is biased in favour of them! So what?

 

[Richard]

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...

Why?

There's a big difference in the amount of luck involved with said things and a dropped catch.

 

[Richard]

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.

So tell me - you see a thin nick, do you expect the wicketkeeper to catch it or fumble it?

 

[ripper868]

is that some sort of record? 14 straight posts in the thread without anyone else entering anything?

not having a dig rich you answered questions in each but wow, 14 straight.

good point about strauss's scorebook being < FCA

 

[Richard]

I'm sure I've done a few more than that (or at least excluding those where people were saying "you've just posted 10 in a row") once or twice.

But yeah, if there's one subject you'd expect me to post a lot on, it's this'un.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

For Christ's sake, there's a multi-quote feature for a reason. Use it.

 

[Richard]

Eh?

 

[DJellett]

For Christ's sake, there's a multi-quote feature for a reason. Use it.

Bahaha. Yep.

 

[Josh]

My first-chance average would be like 0.02 lol

 

[James90]

For a few years there my first chance average would have been higher than my proper batting average. It's probably evened out now though.

 

[adharcric]

There aren't. The examples you give down there have no bearing on the first-chance average - they're unquantifiables, and I have never attempted to take them into consideration.

In that case, your method is extremely flawed. You need to factor in all (or most) of those things to get any sort of accuracy in "eliminating luck".
If you ignore nearly all of those factors, we're better off sticking to the status quo. With your FC average, there is no uniformity in analysis from batsman to batsman.

 

[Pratters]

Well given that most of it was you speaking and refusing to let me get a word in hedgeways I hardly see that that counts...

It's not hard to understand, even if you refuse to acknowledge it's merits.

Yawn. I can read what you have said and get the view. However, you fail to let others get a word in hedgeways. The theory is nonsense but just because you are obsessed with it, you will defend it.

Your accusation that I don't let you speak on the given topic is laughable. As I stated, I talked on the theory for a long time with you on msn few months ago.