First Chance Average?

[Son Of Coco]

Bull**** does it.

It cannot create problems unless you are of the opinion that batsmen deserve every piece of luck they get.

Christ...are you Yoda?

Yes it can, because you are discounting variables on the basis of it being 'too hard' to include them. Basically, anything you can't be bothered with is discarded.

This is where I stand by the statement about your age dictating you know everything. You'll argue with people who have studied stats about stats, you'll argue with people who know more about cricket about cricket. Basically, no matter what anyone else has done, you know more about the given topic.

 

[Son Of Coco]

If you want to go that far there are too many variables in anything.

There are things that can't be measured statistically in just about everything - therefore these things have to be discarded when you're trying to make-up a set of statistics.

No, they have to be accounted for.

 

[shortpitched713]

No they don't. But they have to be acknowledged in the error of the statistical analysis. In this case that would be hard to do, because one doesn't know the degree to which the measurable variables affect the outcome in relation to the unmeasurable one. Considering we're trying to account for a variable as abstract as luck, it would be next to impossible to account for all the variables that effect it. That doesn't mean that a statistical analysis would be useless though.

 

[Richard]

Christ...are you Yoda?

Yes it can, because you are discounting variables on the basis of it being 'too hard' to include them. Basically, anything you can't be bothered with is discarded.

Nope, there are many things which can't have anything done about them, regardless of how bothered you are.

This is where I stand by the statement about your age dictating you know everything. You'll argue with people who have studied stats about stats, you'll argue with people who know more about cricket about cricket. Basically, no matter what anyone else has done, you know more about the given topic.

There aren't a massive number of people who know more about cricket, and if I speak to one of them I listen where their knowledge is greater than mine. Otherwise I'd never have come to know one single thing about cricket.

Where stats are concerned, I hardly see that any in-depth statistical knowledge is required to operate basic batting-averages.

 

[Richard]

No, they have to be accounted for.

So how do you account for them?

 

[Son Of Coco]

No they don't. But they have to be acknowledged in the error of the statistical analysis. In this case that would be hard to do, because one doesn't know the degree to which the measurable variables affect the outcome in relation to the unmeasurable one. Considering we're trying to account for a variable as abstract as luck, it would be next to impossible to account for all the variables that effect it. That doesn't mean that a statistical analysis would be useless though.

Sorry, that's what I meant by 'accounted for'. Too many and the statistical analysis becomes of very dubious use though does it not? We were taught if there's too much 'error' to be accounted for then it's explained in the analysis and you then have to decide whether your stats are valid or not. As far as 'luck' goes there are some concrete examples, such as dropped catches etc. You can't just go - too hard, not going to think about it, and drop them completely from thought...which is what Richard seems to be doing.

 

[shortpitched713]

Agree with most of what you have to say there, but I don't think Richard put the unmeasurable variables out of his thought. Obviously there are so many things that can effect what would be considered as luck on a batsman's part. Personally, I feel that enough of them are measurable to make a statistical analysis that is fairly trustworthy, but that is a matter of opinion because with something like luck we can't say with absolute certainty how much of it is due to unmeasurable variables as opposed to those that are measurable.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, that's what I meant by 'accounted for'. Too many and the statistical analysis becomes of very dubious use though does it not? We were taught if there's too much 'error' to be accounted for then it's explained in the analysis and you then have to decide whether your stats are valid or not. As far as 'luck' goes there are some concrete examples, such as dropped catches etc. You can't just go - too hard, not going to think about it, and drop them completely from thought...which is what Richard seems to be doing.

It's nothing of the sort. The Laws Of Cricket cater for doubt - if in doubt, not out. It's pretty obvious to anyone with an ounce of cricketing sense that balls that flick the fingers of a fielder are never, ever going to be caught. It's pretty obvious, too, that the term "half-chance" makes precisely no sense whatsoever.

Almost every stroke that goes in the air you can tell whether it should or should not have been caught. Without requiring much careful analysis.

 

[Dick Rockett]

There aren't a massive number of people who know more about cricket, and if I speak to one of them I listen where their knowledge is greater than mine. Otherwise I'd never have come to know one single thing about cricket.

Let's just assume that this spectacularly arrogant statement is true for a second.

Unless you're actually claiming to know everything about cricket (and I realise that you are not), doesn't it make sense that even if some random doesn't know as much as you, that he/she may still be aware of some fact(s) that you aren't? So surely it would make further sense to listen to everyone, even though they do not share the rarified cricketing omnipotence that you possess?

 

[Richard]

Where exactly did I say I don't listen to anyone?

If someone appears to know more than me about a certain topic I'll listen (\read).

However, my knowledge of topics is ever-expanding.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Where exactly did I say I don't listen to anyone?

You didn't, and neither did I. For someone who makes such a big deal over picking on the minutest mistakes of others, your comprehension is pretty poor.

 

[Richard]

It was hardly the easiest thing to phrase, and you clearly have misunderstood.

I'll have another go.

Where did I say there was a single person who I make-up my mind never to listen to?

 

[Dick Rockett]

There aren't a massive number of people who know more about cricket, and if I speak to one of them I listen where their knowledge is greater than mine.

You didn't say a single person, rather the above quote implies pretty strongly that you only deign to listen to those with superior knowledge, hence there are many that you never listen to.

 

[Richard]

As you mentioned, "having superior knowledge" is not an invariable. There are some whose knowledge on certain subjects is superior to your own. Where they are involved in a conversation concerning such a subject, I listen. And this changes according to subjects and people.

Whatever your preconceived notions of my attitudes are.

 

[Dick Rockett]

There are some whose knowledge on certain subjects is superior to your own. Where they are involved in a conversation concerning such a subject, I listen.

Which still sounds like you're saying you don't listen to those who you consider to have inferior knowledge.

 

[Richard]

I don't yield where I consider the speaker to have inferior knowledge on that particular subject. That's different from not yielding to someone on any matter whatsoever once you've decided you know better than them on one single thing.

I always listen\read, because if I didn't I'd not be arguing against it in the first place.

 

[Johnners]

I don't yield where I consider the speaker to have inferior knowledge on that particular subject. That's different from not yielding to someone on any matter whatsoever once you've decided you know better than them on one single thing.

I always listen\read, because if I didn't I'd not be arguing against it in the first place.

guess that means you have superior knowledge than everyone about everything because i haven't seen you yield once yet

 

[adharcric]

Damn Richard, you really have a hard time avoiding heated arguments (usually meaningless) huh? FFS guys, stop clogging threads ...

 

[Dick Rockett]

You're right, but to be fair, in this instance the topic of the thread is one of Richard's pet subjects.

 

[Richard]

guess that means you have superior knowledge than everyone about everything because i haven't seen you yield once yet

Given the amount of posting you've seen me do, that's hardly surprising.