Luckiest and Unluckiest batsmen

[Richard]

no the problem is that you hand-picked 15 batsman, instead of picking 15 at random. theres a difference. and neither is 15 batsmen anywhere near conclusive enough a sample to use it as a general rule.

I did not hand-pick them at all, I picked them totally at random.

 

[Richard]

hes had just as many let offs as smith has had, and hes averaged more than smith despite that. the fact is that if sehwag is a mediocre player because of his fc average then so his smith

No, he's not had as many, he's had far more (in a shorter period) - Smith has simply tended to score more having been let-off.

 

[Richard]

Erm 15 people for one year is nowhere near as good a sample as 40 for 5 years.

15 people out of the number who played in one year is a minor percentage and not statistically significant.

It's not as minor as you might think.
Ask yourself: how many front-line batsman play a reasonable number of Tests for the top 8 nations in a year?

 

[marc71178]

No, that's not what I did - I compared them to randomly selected batsmen whom I'd done the same for.

It cannot be random - you would have some vested interest in it or you wouldn't have bothered doing it.

 

[marc71178]

Ask yourself: how many front-line batsman play a reasonable number of Tests for the top 8 nations in a year?

Oh, maybe 7 in every game - over a year you won't have the same top 7 every game, so for arguments sake 10 (although it should surely be applied to all players, since everyone will benefit by a percentage - so say 15 players a nations = 120)

But there are 10 nations - that makes it 150 - suddenly this "random" sample is fairly small.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, that's not what I did - I compared them to randomly selected batsmen whom I'd done the same for.
As I've said, I flatter myself I'm normally pretty good at working-out what should and shouldn't be out - and so would anyone else be if they actually bothered to try.

And what method did you use for this 'random' sample?

 

[C_C]

Luckiest batsmen are those who end up having a long and fulfilling career.

Unluckiest batsmen are those who meet a premature end to their careers and sometimes, even their life.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, that's not what I did - I compared them to randomly selected batsmen whom I'd done the same for.
As I've said, I flatter myself I'm normally pretty good at working-out what should and shouldn't be out - and so would anyone else be if they actually bothered to try.

As for working out what should and shouldn't be out, you have to give a definition of that along with the findings so whoever reads it understands exactly what you're looking at. At the moment you're presenting us with an ICC-style report, naming players who you think are lucky without saying who you compared them to, and what methods you used to find this.

 

[shaka]

The luckiest player in cricket in my opinion is Justin Langer, on numerous occasions I have seen him being given not out when it was evident that he was out.

 

[Zinzan]

The luckiest player in cricket in my opinion is Justin Langer, on numerous occasions I have seen him being given not out when it was evident that he was out.

Seem the most popular choice for those who believe luck plays a factor

 

[Richard]

It cannot be random - you would have some vested interest in it or you wouldn't have bothered doing it.

No, you just presume I would.

 

[Richard]

Oh, maybe 7 in every game - over a year you won't have the same top 7 every game, so for arguments sake 10 (although it should surely be applied to all players, since everyone will benefit by a percentage - so say 15 players a nations = 120)

But there are 10 nations - that makes it 150 - suddenly this "random" sample is fairly small.

So think about what it actually means: how many batsmen for the top 8 teams, given that those you've attempted to bring in don't matter?
It's never normally 6 specialist-batsmen, let alone 7.
There will be perhaps 4 or 5 batsmen who play regularly for their country in a year.
So 4.5 for 8 teams - 44.
In other words, 1\3, not 1\10th.

 

[Richard]

And what method did you use for this 'random' sample?

What? To select them? Typed myself up a list of all of the candidates and got my brother (who knows sod-all about cricket and would have heard of maye 1\8th of the players) to select 15 of them.
To anaylse their luck? Read 4 or 5 reports of all their innings in the period, collated a list of their first-chance scores and number of let-offs and compared.

 

[Richard]

Luckiest batsmen are those who end up having a long and fulfilling career.

Unluckiest batsmen are those who meet a premature end to their careers and sometimes, even their life.

Milburn and Jackson are more than just unlucky - they're tragic.
Border and Waugh have got more than luck - they've got longevity.
Luck is all about what happens when you're at the crease.

 

[Richard]

As for working out what should and shouldn't be out, you have to give a definition of that along with the findings so whoever reads it understands exactly what you're looking at. At the moment you're presenting us with an ICC-style report, naming players who you think are lucky without saying who you compared them to, and what methods you used to find this.

Right, I'll dig the thing out and tell you who I used. Happy?

 

[Swervy]

Milburn and Jackson are more than just unlucky - they're tragic.
Border and Waugh have got more than luck - they've got longevity.
Luck is all about what happens when you're at the crease.

Was AB lucky????

Never really thought of him as lucky...

 

[Son Of Coco]

So think about what it actually means: how many batsmen for the top 8 teams, given that those you've attempted to bring in don't matter?
It's never normally 6 specialist-batsmen, let alone 7.
There will be perhaps 4 or 5 batsmen who play regularly for their country in a year.
So 4.5 for 8 teams - 44.
In other words, 1\3, not 1\10th.

4.5 x 8 = 36

 

[Son Of Coco]

What? To select them? Typed myself up a list of all of the candidates and got my brother (who knows sod-all about cricket and would have heard of maye 1\8th of the players) to select 15 of them.
To anaylse their luck? Read 4 or 5 reports of all their innings in the period, collated a list of their first-chance scores and number of let-offs and compared.

15 out of how many?

What period are we talking about?

Can we be sure that what is described as a let off in these reports is actually so?

How do you know your brother didn't just pick the players he's heard of? Your method still isn't random.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Right, I'll dig the thing out and tell you who I used. Happy?

That would be great, thanks!

 

[marc71178]

There will be perhaps 4 or 5 batsmen who play regularly for their country in a year.

No side plays 4 or 5 specialist bats.

Also, to define luck under your theory, surely you need to look at what they do average as a percentage of what they'd average if dropped catches (that could actually be agreed upon) were held.

Therefore, every player is relevant, not just 4 or 5 players a team.