Luckiest and Unluckiest batsmen

[Son Of Coco]

I can see I'll have to go into the whole hog:
There are two things you need to look at: first-chance average and all-chance average. Both have their merits - the all-chance average takes all runs and all chances, so if you score 244 being dropped on 52, you get 244 runs and 2 dismissals. I prefer, myself, the first-chance one where you get what you gave your first chance on and no more.
For a first-chance average a 0 where you're dropped twice doesn't make a difference. For an all-chance one it does.

So with a first chance average, where you're never lucky because you're out first time every time how can you be using that to measure luck? It seems like you're using the first chance average for players who get out on 0, but the normal average when they actually make a run. This in itself introduces yet another variable that is inconsistent with what you claim to be trying to prove. If you are, as you say, looking at luck then all chances have to be taken into account - otherwise you're just looking at a fairly tight personal definition of luck (taken after a batsman has actually scored a run).

 

[Son Of Coco]

I was not willing to waste paper by printing-out a load of stuff, cutting it up and dropping it into a container.
Believe me, I know perfectly well how random it was, and it was every bit as good as picking invisible names - no amount of throwing Uni research at me can change THAT.

If you weren't willing to make an effort as far as making it as random as it possibly could be then there's no use using excuses to try and cover the fact. You either try to make it random or you don't. In this case you haven't, even though you claim to have done so to 80% effectiveness.

I will tell you right now, with 100% certainty, that it was not random. That's not simply to disagree with you Richard, it's a fact. You obviously don't know how random it was because you seem to be under the illusion that there was a high degree of randomness involved whilst we're telling you that there definately wasn't. I'm not throwing Uni 'research' at you, it's 3 years of studying it at Uni and knowing that there's a set pattern you follow to make something as random as possible when choosing subjects, and you haven't even come close - what you did introduces way too many biases to ever be random, whether you recognise that or not.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And I'm not going to complain at that, it's a good comparison - but I maintain that it's not possible to do anything approaching a perfect study on this matter - so all we can do is identify lucky batsman, use first-chance scores when we know what we know and take it from there.

You can maintain all you want, but just because it's not easy to do a perfect study doesn't mean we should blindly accept a study that leans too far the other way.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Like I said (somewhere) d'you really think I haven't scoured everywhere I can possibly find for something like that? Otherwise I'd have wasted my time and efforts doing what I did.
Of course I can't find anything approaching every study ever done, but you'd hope anything seriously major would be published.
I simply think that most people just don't realise how important it is.

Like I say, I've used what I consider a very good system to study dismissals and should-be dismissals - I've read countless stuff from countless reporters, comparing it to what I know (and believe me, I've watched quite a bit of cricket in the last 4 years) and I can tell what various reporters mean when they talk about dropped catches and similar things.

I was referring to the possibility of someone doing that in the future, not the past Richard. Did you look at university resources and online databases? It probably hasn't been done before, but you never know.

I'm sure you have used what you consider a good system, but when you release information in a self-proclaimed 'study' you then have to convince other people of the same. It's hard to do without fully explaining the method and definitions used.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So they know, by assumption, that method X42ABN6 cannot be random?
Don't be ridiculous - the only way you can know is to have a full understanding of the individual situation, and I had that. I also have some knowledge of statistics and I do know about degrees of randomness and that 100% randomativity is totally impossible to achieve or even come close to.

Yes they do know that method Z42ABN6 cannot be random Richard because there are only a limited number of ways you can legitimately randomise a sample and everyone uses one of these when they do an experiment (if they want it to be recognised as such anyway).

You don't need full understanding of what you're trying to achieve at the end because all you're concerned about at that point in the randomisation of that sample. That's the end point, not what you hope to achieve after that.

You keep saying you have knowledge of stats and randomness but what you're saying indicates otherwise. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing mate, and you're spouting some absolute rubbish whilst attempting to prove you know all about it. You keep saying a level of randomness of 100% is impossible, and you'd be correct, but as I've said before - you still have to get as close as you can, and you haven't! You'd be at around 15% and I think that's being generous.

Oh, and I don't think randomativity is a word.

 

[Camel56]

Nope, but I have a perfectly decent grasp of it, something you don't need University degrees to gain.

Yes you have a perfectly decent grast of the basics of statistics. You do not have a grasp of the kind of statistical knowledge you need for something like this.

 

[marc71178]

Err - they didn't get out, they get the credit for not getting out.
Understand?

And how is that fair on them?

It completely ignores anny further runs they'd have made.

Yep, I am - how many people have dismissed out-of-hand the relevance of my first-chance score theorem?

Not many, but you ignore all critics of it - and now you decide we're not taking it seriously - how on Earth do you know what someone else is thinking?

Plenty - and coincidentally it's mostly those who insist on making disgreements where the truth is very obvious - the Lara 0-400*, for instance.

I'm actually talking about less obvious ones - ones which people disagree on.

 

[marc71178]

Nope, but I have a perfectly decent grasp of it, something you don't need University degrees to gain.

Yet those who have the degrees surely know more about it?

You still seem to think you know more.

 

[Richard]

Nope, I think nothing of the sort.
I think this thing is simple enough that the sort of thing degree-level stuff doesn't affect.

 

[Richard]

So with a first chance average, where you're never lucky because you're out first time every time how can you be using that to measure luck? It seems like you're using the first chance average for players who get out on 0, but the normal average when they actually make a run. This in itself introduces yet another variable that is inconsistent with what you claim to be trying to prove. If you are, as you say, looking at luck then all chances have to be taken into account - otherwise you're just looking at a fairly tight personal definition of luck (taken after a batsman has actually scored a run).

I still don't seem to have made it clear enough:
Different dropped catches will have different outcomes: if you're dropped on 0 and go on to score 200, that makes quite an impact; if you're dropped on 0 and go on to score 3 it doesn't make much impact. So certain players will have larger differences between scorebook and first-chance averages.
The important thing to investigate, you could say, is the average number of let-offs per visit to the crease.
I have investigated that, and I have also investigated the average amount of influence luck has on an average.
I really can't make it any clearer than that.

 

[Richard]

If you weren't willing to make an effort as far as making it as random as it possibly could be then there's no use using excuses to try and cover the fact. You either try to make it random or you don't. In this case you haven't, even though you claim to have done so to 80% effectiveness.

I will tell you right now, with 100% certainty, that it was not random. That's not simply to disagree with you Richard, it's a fact. You obviously don't know how random it was because you seem to be under the illusion that there was a high degree of randomness involved whilst we're telling you that there definately wasn't. I'm not throwing Uni 'research' at you, it's 3 years of studying it at Uni and knowing that there's a set pattern you follow to make something as random as possible when choosing subjects, and you haven't even come close - what you did introduces way too many biases to ever be random, whether you recognise that or not.

This whole thing seems to be centred around the selection.
Let me assure you, there was NO difference between the method I used and the "picking out of a hat" method; you can't know that for fact, because you don't have the neccessary background details; I do.

 

[Richard]

You can maintain all you want, but just because it's not easy to do a perfect study doesn't mean we should blindly accept a study that leans too far the other way.

Leans the other way?
Don't understand.

 

[Richard]

I was referring to the possibility of someone doing that in the future, not the past Richard. Did you look at university resources and online databases? It probably hasn't been done before, but you never know.

I looked at some, yes - you can't really expect me to look at every one, though, can you?
If I hear of someone doing it, I'll be delighted to study the results.

I'm sure you have used what you consider a good system, but when you release information in a self-proclaimed 'study' you then have to convince other people of the same. It's hard to do without fully explaining the method and definitions used.

Well I can't really do that, you'd have to have watched the thing being carried-out to fully understand.

 

[Richard]

Yes they do know that method Z42ABN6 cannot be random Richard because there are only a limited number of ways you can legitimately randomise a sample and everyone uses one of these when they do an experiment (if they want it to be recognised as such anyway).

You don't need full understanding of what you're trying to achieve at the end because all you're concerned about at that point in the randomisation of that sample. That's the end point, not what you hope to achieve after that.

You keep saying you have knowledge of stats and randomness but what you're saying indicates otherwise. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing mate, and you're spouting some absolute rubbish whilst attempting to prove you know all about it. You keep saying a level of randomness of 100% is impossible, and you'd be correct, but as I've said before - you still have to get as close as you can, and you haven't! You'd be at around 15% and I think that's being generous.

Oh, and I don't think randomativity is a word.

No, nor do I - no harm in inventing words.
Look, you don't have a grasp of what the selection involved - it's akin to sticking a finger on the screen, which is akin to dropping in a container and picking-out.
Maybe there are reasons why it mightn't be in some circumstances, but I really can't explain how these are discounted - you don't know anything about my brother and how his mind works.

 

[Richard]

Yes you have a perfectly decent grast of the basics of statistics. You do not have a grasp of the kind of statistical knowledge you need for something like this.

Yes, I do - the grasp needed for stuff like this is not complicated, it's very basic.

 

[Richard]

And how is that fair on them?

It completely ignores anny further runs they'd have made.

Yep - you can't take account of "might have"s, you can only deal with what did happen.

Not many, but you ignore all critics of it - and now you decide we're not taking it seriously - how on Earth do you know what someone else is thinking?

I don't know for certain, but the comments on the matter from certain people make it pretty clear.
And I don't ignore all critics of it at all - I do the absolute opposite, trying my utmost to win them around, and succeeding in quite a few cases.

I'm actually talking about less obvious ones - ones which people disagree on.

Which are very, very rare.
They'd be even rarer if people didn't treat let-offs so offhandedly, with all this "half-chance" rubbish.

 

[marc71178]

I have investigated that, and I have also investigated the average amount of influence luck has on an average.

On a very small sample.

 

[marc71178]

Yep - you can't take account of "might have"s, you can only deal with what did happen.

Which is what is given in the score book.

 

[Richard]

Let-offs aren't given in the scorebook.

 

[Richard]

On a very small sample.

Speaking in the context of the entire Test-match history, yes.
As I say, it's not realistically possible to look at a reasonable-sized sample from that.