Luckiest and Unluckiest batsmen

[Richard]

Yes, because I've said so - and there are reasons why I've said so.
Primarily because there's no need to compare all players, there are plenty of other things that come into the accounts when you compare down the years - the lack of any certainty about catches is just another one.
All that it's of use for is comparing players of comparable eras - and it can do that fine.

 

[marc71178]

If you don't compare all players, then it is meaningless, and only used as a tool to put down players you don't like.

 

[Richard]

No, it's not - it's used as a tool to point-out that some players aren't as good as might be thought.
Of course, as tooextracool has shown, it's perfectly possible for other people to point-out the same thing about players I haven't used it on.

 

[marc71178]

But unless you can do it for everyone it is irrelevant, because every batsman has luck, so you cannot use it to put one man down without doing it for every other batsman for comparison.

 

[tooextracool]

But unless you can do it for everyone it is irrelevant, because every batsman has luck, so you cannot use it to put one man down without doing it for every other batsman for comparison.

the thing is, he says sehwag is a lucky batsman even though he has a better first chance average than graeme smith, who is the next bradman with his brilliant FC average of 35 odd.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yes, because I've said so - and there are reasons why I've said so.
Primarily because there's no need to compare all players, there are plenty of other things that come into the accounts when you compare down the years - the lack of any certainty about catches is just another one.
All that it's of use for is comparing players of comparable eras - and it can do that fine.

There is a need to compare all the players from the one era to see if there's any differences in the amount of luck they receive though. Picking out one or two you consider to be lucky proves nothing unless they are compared to every player from that era.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yet the same thing has happened in each of the last 3 Ashes series (and it may be more).
If it's the same poor preparation every time there's some serious naivity in the dressing-room - something I personally find less hard, more impossible, to conceive.
No, there's another reason why England always drop stacks of catches against Australia - I haven't a clue what it is, but it can't possibly be poor preparation.

Pressure maybe? Feeling under the gun. If your preparation is as good as it possibly can be both mentally and physically you shouldn't be dropping so many catches.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, no more than the reasons why everything is a flawed concept.
Because nothing is perfect.

No, but it needs to be close enough to perfect to count out any perceived biases etc. You can't say that finding out how many chances each player in the current era has had and then collating the data to see if anyone has been luckier than anyone else can't be done - it can, but are any of us going to be bothered? Probably not. The reason these particular examples are flawed is because they are taken over a time period that suits the poster, not a career, and 'luck' hasn't been clearly defined for each player. Players have also been chosen at random with no comparison to other players.

Nothing is perfect, but if you're comparing stats it has to be as perfect as it can be.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, it's not - it's used as a tool to point-out that some players aren't as good as might be thought.
Of course, as tooextracool has shown, it's perfectly possible for other people to point-out the same thing about players I haven't used it on.

It doesn't point out anything until it's been standardised across the population you're talking about (i.e players from a certain era). You are welcome to it as your opinion though.

 

[marc71178]

And until we can compare that with all the other current players, it's an irrelevant statistic.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And until we can compare that with all the other current players, it's an irrelevant statistic.

exactly.

 

[Richard]

But unless you can do it for everyone it is irrelevant, because every batsman has luck, so you cannot use it to put one man down without doing it for every other batsman for comparison.

And as I've said, on a random-sample comparison certain players benefit more than others.
Hence you don't need to do it for every player ever.

 

[Richard]

the thing is, he says sehwag is a lucky batsman even though he has a better first chance average than graeme smith, who is the next bradman with his brilliant FC average of 35 odd.

Sehwag is a lucky batsman - maybe Smith has benefited equally from his luck, but he's sure had less of it.

 

[Richard]

There is a need to compare all the players from the one era to see if there's any differences in the amount of luck they receive though. Picking out one or two you consider to be lucky proves nothing unless they are compared to every player from that era.

As I say, I can't be expected to compare every single player, it'd take 20 years, a random-sample comparison is perfectly reasonable to demonstrate that some are more lucky than others.

 

[Richard]

Pressure maybe? Feeling under the gun. If your preparation is as good as it possibly can be both mentally and physically you shouldn't be dropping so many catches.

For high looping catches it's obviously possible for the feeling under-the-gun mentality - but for slip-catches (which more than not actually have been) you don't have time to feel pressure, it's just an instinct reaction.
As I say, I can't 100%-certainly gurantee that the preparation has been what it should be, but knowing Duncan Fletcher I'd be quite frankly amazed if it wasn't - because I do know for certain the importance he places on catching catches.

 

[Richard]

No, but it needs to be close enough to perfect to count out any perceived biases etc. You can't say that finding out how many chances each player in the current era has had and then collating the data to see if anyone has been luckier than anyone else can't be done - it can, but are any of us going to be bothered? Probably not.

That's the point I was making - it is not realistic to expect it to be done.

The reason these particular examples are flawed is because they are taken over a time period that suits the poster, not a career, and 'luck' hasn't been clearly defined for each player. Players have also been chosen at random with no comparison to other players.

Nothing is perfect, but if you're comparing stats it has to be as perfect as it can be.

And if you ask me taking a random-sample of players, researching as thoroughly as possible the luck they received over a certain period and collating a first-chance average for them, then comparing it to the two or three players you've identified as quite clearly very lucky is a valid thing to do and as close to perfect as it's possible to expect anyone to go. And certainly far more valid at indicating a batsman's pedigree than the scorebook-average.

 

[Richard]

And until we can compare that with all the other current players, it's an irrelevant statistic.

No, it's not - a random-sample comparison is every bit as valuable as a complete sample.

 

[Richard]

It doesn't point out anything until it's been standardised across the population you're talking about (i.e players from a certain era). You are welcome to it as your opinion though.

What d'you mean by standardised?

 

[marc71178]

And as I've said, on a random-sample comparison certain players benefit more than others.
Hence you don't need to do it for every player ever.

Why not?

A random sample cannot tell you a great deal about every player, only a few "random" people.

 

[marc71178]

No, it's not - a random-sample comparison is every bit as valuable as a complete sample.

Erm, no it is not - the larger the sample the more value to be attached - you cannot work out the "average luck" without looking at all batsmen.