Recent NZ best bowling attack...

[Mingster]

What a joke.

So you would take someone with a higher fantasy average that means jack than a realistic one.

First chance means nothing. It means they were either put down etc but it didn't count. Luck. It's all part of cricket.

 

[Craig]

I notice you miss Brett Lee out of that list - still unable to accept that he is a damn good ODI bowler?

No I think he's including those names with very good rpo's.

Lee is good but too inconsistent. He can bowl rubbish in one or two games (v India at Brisbane) then bowls tight then loses it again.

 

[Richard]

I notice you miss Brett Lee out of that list - still unable to accept that he is a damn good ODI bowler?

No, to be unable to "accept" something means it's a fact that someone refuses to see.
Brett Lee being good in ODIs is not a fact.

 

[Richard]

Why, because the First Chance Average doesn't exist?

Realistically that doesn't exist, so it is impossible.

No, because no-one is going to have averages that high and low respectively.
The existance of the first-chance average is not something for dispute, I'm afraid. You can try devaluing it, but what you're trying there is just stabbing in the dark.

 

[Richard]

Originally posted by Mingster
What a joke.

So you would take someone with a higher fantasy average that means jack than a realistic one.

First chance means nothing. It means they were either put down etc but it didn't count. Luck. It's all part of cricket.

It doesn't mean nothing because while luck is part of cricket it's not part of how good cricketers are. Just because something "didn't count" in the scorebook doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I would, meanwhile, judge that the better player is the one who can score more runs. Not the one who happens to have the more runs against his name.

 

[marc71178]

No, to be unable to "accept" something means it's a fact that someone refuses to see.

So Lee's high number of wickets at an extremely low average are not a fact then?

 

[marc71178]

The existance of the first-chance average is not something for dispute, I'm afraid.

If it exists and is such a great guide, how come it is not documented anywhere by anyone apart from yourself?

 

[marc71178]

I would, meanwhile, judge that the better player is the one who can score more runs. Not the one who happens to have the more runs against his name.

So how did he get the runs against his name without scoring them?

And you've never explained how this wonderful average deals with people being sawn off.

 

[Neil Pickup]

And you've never explained how this wonderful average deals with people being sawn off.

To be fair, he has, several times. As not outs.

 

[marc71178]

To be fair, he has, several times. As not outs.

But that doesn't take into account how well a player is going - whats to say he's not going to add another 100 or so?

 

[Richard]

So Lee's high number of wickets at an extremely low average are not a fact then?

Oh, yes, that's a fact (well... I won't bother going into the "everyone in The World could be imagining it" thing) but it is not a fact that this in itself makes it fact that Lee is a good ODI bowler.
It only makes that the opinion of those who value this statistic above anything else.

 

[Richard]

If it exists and is such a great guide, how come it is not documented anywhere by anyone apart from yourself?

Because some people don't realise what a great guide it is. Dur. :P
Very many mathematical phenomenons are documented only by an incredibly small number of people. Does that make them non-existent?

 

[Richard]

But that doesn't take into account how well a player is going - whats to say he's not going to add another 100 or so?

One, that doesn't change the fact that I've said this, as Neil mentions, several times.
Two, no, it doesn't take account the fact that he "might" have gone on to score 381. Nor does the scorebook score take account of when players should have been out and deserved no credit for not being so. But it's still fairer than counting him as out when he should not have been.

 

[Mingster]

Post these first-chance averages.

THen i will believe you.

Show me the averages for the NZ Team.

 

[Craig]

Michael Papp's first chance average is 1.

He got dropped by Graeme Smith for that score.

 

[Kent]

I want to see if CW can keep a track of Michael Papps and Brendan McCullum's first-chance test averages, with everyone taking turns to watch their innings or read ball-by-ball archives. Seeing what a hair-brained utopia I reckon Richard has devised, doing just two players 100% accurately would be an incredible feat.

I've taken run outs completely out of the equation (too much of a nightmare regarding blame, potential direct hits, etc.), as well as all but the plumbest of LB's. I haven't followed Richard's idea closely enough to know if this is correct.

I doubt even Richard will take me up on this, but I'll get him started anyway!


M Papps 1 (59) + 12 = 6.5 (real ave. 35.5)

B McCullum 57 + 19* = 76 (real ave. 76)

 

[Craig]

Ntini's first chance average for the Hamilton would be about 7 or 8. He was missed several times.

His bat is looking like the best NZD$500 he has ever spent.

 

[Richard]

I want to see if CW can keep a track of Michael Papps and Brendan McCullum's first-chance test averages, with everyone taking turns to watch their innings or read ball-by-ball archives. Seeing what a hair-brained utopia I reckon Richard has devised, doing just two players 100% accurately would be an incredible feat.

I've taken run outs completely out of the equation (too much of a nightmare regarding blame, potential direct hits, etc.), as well as all but the plumbest of LB's. I haven't followed Richard's idea closely enough to know if this is correct.

I doubt even Richard will take me up on this, but I'll get him started anyway!


M Papps 1 (59) + 12 = 6.5 (real ave. 35.5)

B McCullum 57 + 19* = 76 (real ave. 76)

Just take run-outs as "clearly should have been out". That really won't arouse much dispute. Though of course there can't be "unlucky run-outs". The only way to get a * with a run-out is when it's clearly not your fault, and it really doesn't take a genius to work-out whose fault a run-out was. And you'd be amazed how many lbws have very, very little doubt over them. To cut it down to "absolutely plumb" would be extremely foolish because stone-dead lbws occur once in a blue-moon. About every 40 or 50 shouts.
It really isn't difficult to keep track of f-c averages. For instance, Marcus Trescothick's entire career average, excluding the Bangladesh series for obvious reasons, is 30.4 - surprisingly high (remember how much was owed to that 219), but still only took about 10 minutes to work-out - and this is for someone who's played 42 Tests (remember, excluding the Bangladesh games).
For a shorter career it's obviously a hell of a lot easier.

 

[marc71178]

You cannot tell me you can analyse every ball of every innings of a batsman who's played 42 Tests in 10 minutes.

 

[Kent]

107.3 Adams to McCullum, no run, down the pitch, into the pads, silly piint fires to Boucher, dive saves him
direct hit would have had him short

Enough to say 'out', Richard?

And what would you do if you read something like this?

Replays suggest that was a good LBW shout

Do you usually trust someone with the umpiring expertise of a cricinfo text commentator? People so lacking in bias one of them called J Langer a 'brown-nose gnome' recently?