First Chance Average?

[Craig]

On what basis?

Ok take away the Shahid Afridi one. But for the Shane Warne Award:

Like his bowling it must be interesting but just like his private life it can also be controversial.

If this isn't controversial and not interesting considering the amount of replies then what is?

 

[marc71178]

The best thread goes to the thread starter though.

 

[steds]

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

Eh?

Have you not seen the multi-quote button in between "quote" and "quick reply"? It allows you to do this:

Bahaha. Yep.

Look

My first-chance average would be like 0.02 lol

at

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.

all

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.

these quotes.

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.

Fluggerwumples.

 

[Richard]

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".

No-one can possibly eliminate all luck from cricket. There's a difference, though, a massive one, between being dropped or being given not-out when out would be the correct decision, and hitting the ball in the air away from a fielder or getting an inside-edge just past the stumps.

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.

We're never better off sticking to something that assumes luck is non-existant than something which at least acknowledges it to some extent.

 

[Richard]

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.

You find it nonsense, so you will bag it. I find it very appropriate, so I 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.

That's precisely the point. You talked, you didn't let me do any talking. It's not laughable at all. I don't possess that convo any more given that my disc got wiped (it was more like 18 months ago, incidentally), maybe you do? If you do, you might look at the bias in "Pratyush says" compared to "Rich | InDulciJubilo, Moonlight Shadow says".

 

[Richard]

Have you not seen the multi-quote button in between "quote" and "quick reply"? It allows you to do this:

Look at all these quotes.

Fluggerwumples.

Of course I've seen it, be hard not to. But it's only any use if you're replying to several posts on the exact same subject.

Hell, even Marc agrees there.

 

[Pratters]

Dear Richard,

I am sorry I made the mistake of giving my two cents.

Cheers,
Pratyush

 

[Richard]

Damn right you are.

You've, after all, given them 50 or 60 times before.

("Oh, the irony" comment from Marc\Jamee in 5...4...3...)

 

[Pratters]

You've, after all, given them 50 or 60 times before.

("Oh, the irony" comment from Marc in 5...4...3...)

Not really. I am not like you..

Yes, there is irony in that comment and it is no surprise you can notice it.

 

[Richard]

There's irony in many things if you look far enough.

Marc has a penchant for "QUOTE=Richard: --- Oh, the irony" more than most things.

 

[Jamee999]

Damn right you are.

You've, after all, given them 50 or 60 times before.

("Oh, the irony" comment from Marc in 5...4...3...)

Oh, the irony.

 

[Richard]

Duly edited to reflect actuality of situation...

 

[The Argonaut]

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

Your response to my post only looks at one of my comments. I have asked on numerous occasions over the years for you to back up any claims with numbers. As yet I have seen no numbers and therefore refuse to take the theory seriously until you can supply these.

 

[shortpitched713]

As far as a measure of a bowler which would remove luck goes, one could simply count as a chance every time a bowler beats the bat, raps a batsman on the pad, or induces an edge. Cricinfo did/does this, and they used to include potentially wicket-taking deliveries in their ball by ball analyses of bowlers. One could use that data, potentially in combination with dropped catch statistics, in order to find the first-chance average for bowlers. S Rajesh uses this data to find out the "luckiness", or more properly "lucklessness" of bowlers in this article.

 

[Richard]

Your response to my post only looks at one of my comments. I have asked on numerous occasions over the years for you to back up any claims with numbers. As yet I have seen no numbers and therefore refuse to take the theory seriously until you can supply these.

I've done so several times and am not going to go through again... I have taken down one example, and one only, most I simply ad-lib. This is a list of scores, work-out the average for yourself.

 

[Richard]

As far as a measure of a bowler which would remove luck goes, one could simply count as a chance every time a bowler beats the bat, raps a batsman on the pad, or induces an edge. Cricinfo did/does this, and they used to include potentially wicket-taking deliveries in their ball by ball analyses of bowlers. One could use that data, potentially in combination with dropped catch statistics, in order to find the first-chance average for bowlers. S Rajesh uses this data to find out the "luckiness", or more properly "lucklessness" of bowlers in this article.

I'm aware of that, and while that method is ludicrous for batsmen it does have some merit for bowlers.

It's stupid not to include dropped catches in said method, though.

 

[The Argonaut]

I've done so several times and am not going to go through again... I have taken down one example, and one only, most I simply ad-lib. This is a list of scores, work-out the average for yourself.

OK, done. It comes to 30.3. You'll need to do better than a list of numbers. Who is the player so I can compare.

If you have spent so much time with this theory surely you would have a summary of a number of players that you have analysed to prove your point. I would have thought the luck y players such as Gilchrist and Hayden would have been at the top of your list.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

I wasn't aware that many people were taking it seriously.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

woh, woh, woh....first chance average CREATES more problems than it addresses.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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).

Why is it 'just life' for a bowler, but something that needs to be addressed in a batsman?