Bolwer rotation for tests

[Son Of Coco]

I won't deny that I've foolishly jumped to conclusions at times, no. But upon reflection I've always tried to analyse the situations and work-out whether I was right or wrong to jump to those conclusions.
I admit, of course, that it's impossible to be totally certain about the luck situation down the years, but I have - very deliberately - researched dropped catches, and it does appear to me that they were far less common once upon a time than they are now.
Equally, though, I hate the assumption that so many people make that it must be the same for all players, because that's flagrantly not true, and it's just an excuse people use to avoid having to think about awkward things they'd rather ignore.

I'm not saying some players wouldn't work out to be slightly luckier or otherwise than others either, but simply saying you have a lot of comparisons to make before you can even attempt to claim that any difference is significant which is the basis of all statistical analysis.....

 

[Richard]

I think what you're defining as 'little' injustices exist in size solely by your own interpretation.

Look - what's a bigger injustice? Getting a brilliant ball edged just wide of a slip, or benefiting from a let-off when you've spooned a simple catch to mid-on which he drops?

 

[Richard]

Surely though, if a batsman is to be given the benefit of a poor decision via a not out or whatever there has to be a similar system in place for the bowlers that is comparable!?

No - because as you've shown, it's totally impossible to create such a system. The only comparable thing is simply to count in a bowler's average all chances created (ie a dropped catch is the same for a bowler as a caught one - sound familiar ), but that's not what I use, because so many chances off deliveries bowled don't actually deserve them.
Regrettably, the system I use for judging bowlers involves a hell of a lot more in the way of generalisation.

 

[Richard]

I'm not saying some players wouldn't work out to be slightly luckier or otherwise than others either, but simply saying you have a lot of comparisons to make before you can even attempt to claim that any difference is significant which is the basis of all statistical analysis.....

You wouldn't believe what a significant change can be made by just a few things. Two or three innings can alter an average very significantly indeed.

 

[tooextracool]

He is criticised (or rather not praised) in this one-off situation, yes - but I always look at stuff in spells, rather than balls. If someone is bowling well, they'll keep bowling similar balls and eventually they'll get a wicket or two. If they're bowling accurately, those wickets will come cheaply.
If they're bowling poorly then suddenly produce one extraordinary ball - that does or doesn't get a wicket - the chances are they'll still not get especially good figures.

yes they'll get wickets cheaply, but they wont come off wicket taking balls, rather more often than not they'll get 1 or at the most 2 wickets of wicket taking balls and then have the rest of them just played and missed, falling short of fielders etc. fact is that most wickets come off non wicket taking balls, of course if there are plenty of wicket taking balls in between and the ball is not a poor one then they certainly deserve everyone one of em.

 

[biased indian]

Bolwer ( ) rotation for tests

 

[Son Of Coco]

You wouldn't believe what a significant change can be made by just a few things. Two or three innings can alter an average very significantly indeed.

Over the course of a career? Possibly if that career lasts a very small number of tests, but if it's a ten year career I'd have my doubts. Again, that's significant in your eyes, not necessarily significant overall.

 

[Richard]

Bolwer ( ) rotation for tests

Typos are part-and-parcel of CW.n (or any computer-related stuff).

 

[Son Of Coco]

Look - what's a bigger injustice? Getting a brilliant ball edged just wide of a slip, or benefiting from a let-off when you've spooned a simple catch to mid-on which he drops?

Hmmm, I'd say they rank equally for the parties concerned......

 

[Richard]

yes they'll get wickets cheaply, but they wont come off wicket taking balls, rather more often than not they'll get 1 or at the most 2 wickets of wicket taking balls and then have the rest of them just played and missed, falling short of fielders etc. fact is that most wickets come off non wicket taking balls, of course if there are plenty of wicket taking balls in between and the ball is not a poor one then they certainly deserve everyone one of em.

In the situation you describe I don't dispute a thing - I've said exactly that on the rare occasions you've given me the chance.
What I dislike is when you get 6 wickets in a spell, none of which have come off wicket-taking balls.

 

[Richard]

Over the course of a career? Possibly if that career lasts a very small number of tests, but if it's a ten year career I'd have my doubts. Again, that's significant in your eyes, not necessarily significant overall.

A single innings, even over a 40-or-50-Test career, can make 3 or 4 runs difference in an average if it's 309 or so.
Certainly a year of consistently being lucky can make a massive difference - 6 or 7 runs, occasionally even more.

 

[Richard]

Hmmm, I'd say they rank equally for the parties concerned......

Really?
I'd say a batsman is far more lucky to get dropped off a crap shot than a bowler is to have a good delivery edged away from fielders.

 

[Son Of Coco]

A single innings, even over a 40-or-50-Test career, can make 3 or 4 runs difference in an average if it's 309 or so.
Certainly a year of consistently being lucky can make a massive difference - 6 or 7 runs, occasionally even more.

If, on every occasion, the batsman goes on to produce a big innings then maybe it could.........but stats isn't about 'if' and 'could' it's about what did happen, without proving conclusively that one batsman is luckier than the rest etc there's not much point dealing in speculation.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Really?
I'd say a batsman is far more lucky to get dropped off a crap shot than a bowler is to have a good delivery edged away from fielders.

Well, I don't think I'd count being edged through slips off a good ball as 'lucky' if I was the bowler. You were talking about injustices though and from what i can see, in both cases the player suffering is the bowler......in equal measures.

 

[Richard]

If, on every occasion, the batsman goes on to produce a big innings then maybe it could.........but stats isn't about 'if' and 'could' it's about what did happen

But as I've said - there is no if about giving chances. It is fact - it definately did happen, beyond all question.

without proving conclusively that one batsman is luckier than the rest etc there's not much point dealing in speculation.

No, there isn't - I try not to.
On some occasions, though, I have no choice.
I don't think you could accuse me of being wildly inaccurate.

 

[Richard]

Well, I don't think I'd count being edged through slips off a good ball as 'lucky' if I was the bowler.

No, neither would I - it's unlucky. But it happens a hell of a lot, sadly.

You were talking about injustices though and from what i can see, in both cases the player suffering is the bowler......in equal measures.

No, he's suffering injustice (a small one) on the second, and poetic justice on the first.

 

[marc71178]

I judge bowlers in a completely different way.

If you like them then they're good, otherwise they're either lucky or useless, regardless of career figures.

 

[marc71178]

I admit, of course, that it's impossible to be totally certain about the luck situation down the years, but I have - very deliberately - researched dropped catches, and it does appear to me that they were far less common once upon a time than they are now.

No, the only thing you can say is that they were less frequently reported.

The fact that World Standards in fielding and catching are constantly improving makes it extremely unfeasible that less catches were dropped then than now.

 

[marc71178]

No - because as you've shown, it's totally impossible to create such a system.

Similarly with batting, but for some reason you clinge to the hope that one day the flaws won't exist any more and it will be a viable statistic.

 

[Richard]

If you like them then they're good, otherwise they're either lucky or useless, regardless of career figures.

Say it enough times, you might make it the case!
Try the other way around, you might be getting somewhere.