Richard's First Chance Average theory

[Pratters]

There are far, far more poor deliveries bowled than catches dropped.
And, more significantly, there's several hundred deliveries bowled for even every catch offered.

uh uh. If you really want to assess a batsman and give him his worth, you would want proper deliveries bowled (which can vary from person to person).

If a proper delivery is not bowled, the batsmen will score far more runs wont he.

He would score far less runs. Far more poorer deliveries which you are saying - means far more runs.

Your theory of first chance averages to assess a player's performance can never hold good. Because there are so many variables in cricket. We cannot just discount them.

As I said, its a sport played by humans. Humans are not perfect and so we will see two sets of teams competing against each other and how much a player makes on a particular day will vary always.

Next you will say the wicket is not valid as it was played in a deterioting pitch and had it not been for an imperfect pitch (like an imperfect fielder who dropped the catch) he would not have taken the wicket.

 

[Richard]

you said several hundred balls for each catch offered. I would suggest that it maybe more in the region of a catch offered every 80 balls or so

Like I say - I reckon otherwise.
More often than not there are no more than 4 or 5 catches offered by top-order batsmen per innings. And most innings usually last something in the region of 100 overs at present, which will mean that top-order batsmen have faced maybe 500 deliveries.

 

[Richard]

uh uh. If you really want to assess a batsman and give him his worth, you would want proper deliveries bowled (which can vary from person to person).

If a proper delivery is not bowled, the batsmen will score far more runs wont he.

He would score far less runs. Far more poorer deliveries which you are saying - means far more runs.

Your theory of first chance averages to assess a player's performance can never hold good. Because there are so many variables in cricket. We cannot just discount them.

As I said, its a sport played by humans. Humans are not perfect and so we will see two sets of teams competing against each other and how much a player makes on a particular day will vary always.

Next you will say the wicket is not valid as it was played in a deterioting pitch and had it not been for an imperfect pitch (like an imperfect fielder who dropped the catch) he would not have taken the wicket.

Almost all variables in cricket are unquantifiable. Pitch, quality of bowling, quality of ground-fielding, amount of playing-and-missing, etc.
Giving a chance is very discreet, and easy to measure. And IMO you don't deserve credit for conquering difficult bowling on a tricky pitch if you've needed let-offs to do so.
Of course, all innings should be assessed on how difficult they were relative to the pitch and bowling - and most people do. Everyone knows that a chanceless 140 on an even, grassless, non-turning pitch against an attack of pie-chuckers is worth less than a chanceless 102 on a pitch where the ball's seaming all over the place and the occasional one is scuttling along the ground.
But the point is all runs given credit for should have been earnt, not gained through luck.

 

[Robertinho]

Well Richard, after further examination, it does seem to appear *slightly* logical. Does it include LBW appeals? Getting bowled off a no-ball? Appeals for being stumped?

Anyway - what point does it serve? Also - just for curiosity's sake, do you have the first chance averages from the Ashes by any chance? I'm wondering what the "world of first chance averages" looks like

 

[Swervy]

.[/QUOTE]
And as I've said countless times, everything is subjective if you dig deep enough. Fact is, most of the time most people will be able to work-out what should and shouldn't have been caught. If they don't try to devalue it for fear of it "spoiling" one of their favourite innings..[/QUOTE]

no, not everything is subjective if you dig deep enough.
One of my favourite innings is Bothams 118 at Old Tfafford..he offered a difficult chance on about 30 odd, but it certainly doesnt spoil my enjoyment of that innings. I am sure pretty much evryone on here bar you wouldnt let a chance given ruin an innings for them.

And as for b) ... I find it hard to take you seriously on that one because even when I've told you of the credible alternative that DOES give credit for going on to score 250 without further chances having been dropped on 0, you've still dismissed it with as much unthinking as the first-chance notion... all of which leads me to the conclusion that you just don't like using anything other than the routine scorebook scores that you've always been taught to use.

I take it you mean the second chance average, or whatever...or is it the all chance average...which in fact someone debunked a while ago because it doesnt take into consideration a whole host of things...

The point is Richard, you appear to use this first chance average thing (of which we STILL havent seen any figures for) as a be all and end all way of figuring the worth of a batsman..which is a joke really

How many times do I have to say this? NO, IT DOES NOT. A CHANCE IS WHAT DID AND ONLY WHAT DID GIVE THE FIELDER A CHANCE OF TAKING THE CATCH..

Oh right..so here we start to see the subjectivity coming in..some people may consider a potential chance being one that falls right in the middle of three players, none of who may have picked the ball up in its fight and were late to go for the ball....thats not down to the batsman is it..so why not have that as a chance?

I'm sure he doesn't. I'm absolutely certain that, like everyone else, he just plays on instinct - if the ball is there to play a shot he thinks he can play, he plays it - and a big backlift and a huge swing just comes naturally to him.
However, for an international-standard fielder, even a catch like that isn't tremendously difficult unless you're standing really close. What's worse, Gilchrist is actually very rarely dropped off those sorts of chances and most are actually absolute sitters..

if you think a batsman doesnt think (no matter how quickly) about a shot that he is going to play whilst the ball is in flight, you are deluding yourself. Of course instinct comes into it massively, but top class players have the ability to gauge the circumstances of the ball coming down at them, and make decisions accordingly

Fact is, Trescothick got himself out for less than 50 every time.
Only reason it didn't go down in the book is because of drops and no-balls.

again, I suggest you go refer to the laws of the game and see what a dismissal is

 

[shankar]

I've discussed this with Richard before. I have no problem with the subjective defn. of a chance - That can be resolved using benefit of doubt considerations. The main problem with this system is that it neglects any runs made by the batsman after the chance. Regardless of whether the batsman should have had the opportunity or not, the fact that it did happen means those runs have to be included in the analysis of the batsman for it to be credible.

 

[Robertinho]

I think there's a case for "first chance averages", but not as the be-all and end-all. It can show a batsman who gives nothing away, but it says nothing about those who are, perhaps, nervous starters who, once they get their eye in, can be incredibly damaging. It'd also fairly irrelevant to the game, really, because a batsman's "all-chance" score is all that counts.

 

[Robertinho]

Also - something else that counts against it is the fact that fielding is just like any other aspect of the game, such as fielding. If a batsman doesn't go out, then the bowlers may not be good enough to get him out. And if he's dropped, then the fielders are not good enough to get him out. (If anyone understands what I'm getting at )

 

[Pratters]

Almost all variables in cricket are unquantifiable. Pitch, quality of bowling, quality of ground-fielding, amount of playing-and-missing, etc.
Giving a chance is very discreet, and easy to measure. And IMO you don't deserve credit for conquering difficult bowling on a tricky pitch if you've needed let-offs to do so.

If the bowler has bowled badly, the chance will in all likelihood not take place as much. So the batsman will go on to make more runs. So if you say batsman deserved 12 runs and not more than that because he offered a chance at 12, you have to first examine how he earned those runs by your logic.

Also, chances are very subjective. What maybe a chance according to me maynot be a chance according to you.

 

[shankar]

Also - something else that counts against it is the fact that fielding is just like any other aspect of the game, such as fielding. If a batsman doesn't go out, then the bowlers may not be good enough to get him out. And if he's dropped, then the fielders are not good enough to get him out. (If anyone understands what I'm getting at )

I understand what you're getting at. But a fielder not being good enough to get the batsman out doesn't happen often enough for the batsman to take this into account i.e. the batsman doesn't usually count on the fielder dropping catches when he plays his shots. Of course there are some batsmen who don't come under this category like Gilchrist,Sehwag etc... and in those cases I think your point is valid.

 

[Pratters]

Also - something else that counts against it is the fact that fielding is just like any other aspect of the game, such as fielding. If a batsman doesn't go out, then the bowlers may not be good enough to get him out. And if he's dropped, then the fielders are not good enough to get him out. (If anyone understands what I'm getting at )

Yeah this is the single most important factor which nullifies the theory.

 

[Richard]

Well Richard, after further examination, it does seem to appear *slightly* logical. Does it include LBW appeals? Getting bowled off a no-ball? Appeals for being stumped?

Well - if someone got away with a stumping that was missed, yes. Not if they had an appeal against them and were not-out.
Yes, it takes into account bad lbw decisions - for and against batsmen - and being bowled (or caught, or lbw, or stumped) off no-balls.

Anyway - what point does it serve? Also - just for curiosity's sake, do you have the first chance averages from the Ashes by any chance? I'm wondering what the "world of first chance averages" looks like

Sadly I've never had the inclination to do one for every batsman over an entire career.
The point it serves is to work-out what influence luck had on a batsman's runs.

 

[Robertinho]

Whilst it's valid, I think it's unnecessary. You could also work out how many runs a batsman scores off the first ball of an over and his average and so on - but why bother? Luck is part of the game - you can't measure luck either.

If you're going to use a batsman's average based on the quality of the opposition's fielding, why don't you also do one of the quality of the bowling?

All in all - look, it has it's uses, but there aren't many. If you're going to bring in such "subjectivity", why don't you just watch the batsman to see how good he is? Ultimately that is the only real way to judge a batsman.

 

[andyc]

Yes, it takes into account bad lbw decisions - for and against batsmen - and being bowled (or caught, or lbw, or stumped) off no-balls.

About being out off a no-ball, the bowler was that much closer to the batsman, which means he had less chance to react to it, so surely being out off a no ball shouldn't count as a dismissal, especially because off a slow bowler a batsman might see/hear the no ball call and chance his arm.

 

[C_C]

Richards 'first chance average theory' = baseball-esque statistics ( ie, great bowlers averaging 14-15, good ones 15-20 and really really shyte ones 20-25, great batsmen averaging 35, good ones 30 and really really shyte ones like 5.00)

 

[Richard]

no, not everything is subjective if you dig deep enough.

Yes, it is. Is the sky really blue? No, it's gngiuhurehg if someone calls it that.

One of my favourite innings is Bothams 118 at Old Tfafford..he offered a difficult chance on about 30 odd, but it certainly doesnt spoil my enjoyment of that innings. I am sure pretty much evryone on here bar you wouldnt let a chance given ruin an innings for them.

That's up to you.
I wait to see what this "difficult" chance really was, because it mightn't have been a chance at all.
Spoiling enjoyment of innings is not the important thing - I enjoyed seeing Sehwag smash Lee, Williams, MacGill and co. all over The MCG, even though he should have been caught on 45. But I don't believe the innings says that he's a fantastic opening-batsman.

I take it you mean the second chance average, or whatever...or is it the all chance average...which in fact someone debunked a while ago because it doesnt take into consideration a whole host of things...

No, no-one debunked it. It was probably the discussion with shankar. And the conclusion we came to is that all averages have faults - the scorebook one the biggest faults because it acts as if luck were non-existent.
And as far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as second-chance scores because most innings don't contain 2 chances.

The point is Richard, you appear to use this first chance average thing (of which we STILL havent seen any figures for) as a be all and end all way of figuring the worth of a batsman..which is a joke really

No, it's not a joke, you just don't like it.
I don't use it as a be-all-and-end-all - no statistic is ever the be-all-and-end-all.

Oh right..so here we start to see the subjectivity coming in..some people may consider a potential chance being one that falls right in the middle of three players, none of who may have picked the ball up in its fight and were late to go for the ball....thats not down to the batsman is it..so why not have that as a chance?

We see subjectivity coming in every single ball of every single cricket match... and everything else in life, really.
If it was an easy catch that no-one picked-up and someone should have caught, yes, of course it's a let-off. If it's something like Pietersen-Katich at The Oval where Katich might just possibly have caught it if he'd picked it up early, no, it's not a let-off.

if you think a batsman doesnt think (no matter how quickly) about a shot that he is going to play whilst the ball is in flight, you are deluding yourself. Of course instinct comes into it massively, but top class players have the ability to gauge the circumstances of the ball coming down at them, and make decisions accordingly

No, no-one has the ability to think about a stroke when a ball is coming at them at 80+mph. Especially when it's a full one. Very, very occasionally, you see players managing to pull-out of Pull-strokes at the last second (Hussain was a master of it) but more often they get themselves into a tangle (a la Dravid, Sehwag and Kallis vs Lee in the 3 SS games) and often get out.
Against spinners you can obviously think more, but even then it's very limited.

again, I suggest you go refer to the laws of the game and see what a dismissal is

And I suggest you examine the fact that the laws of the game have been changed many times and many different things have constituted dismissal down the years.
And equally I suggest you look at the fact that what goes down in the book isn't the sole outcome of a delivery.

 

[Richard]

Also - something else that counts against it is the fact that fielding is just like any other aspect of the game, such as fielding. If a batsman doesn't go out, then the bowlers may not be good enough to get him out. And if he's dropped, then the fielders are not good enough to get him out. (If anyone understands what I'm getting at )

Yes - all of which is part of cricket being a team game.
Thing is, though, it's a team game played by individuals, and we like to summise the performances of individuals. And with batsmen how poor the fielders were isn't relevant.

 

[Richard]

If the bowler has bowled badly, the chance will in all likelihood not take place as much. So the batsman will go on to make more runs. So if you say batsman deserved 12 runs and not more than that because he offered a chance at 12, you have to first examine how he earned those runs by your logic.

Not really - examining how he earned those runs is a slightly different matter altogether - never mind that 12 isn't really a particularly significant score.

Also, chances are very subjective. What maybe a chance according to me maynot be a chance according to you.

No, the chances are we will agree.
Occasionally, we will disagree.

 

[Richard]

Whilst it's valid, I think it's unnecessary. You could also work out how many runs a batsman scores off the first ball of an over and his average and so on - but why bother? Luck is part of the game - you can't measure luck either.

If you're going to use a batsman's average based on the quality of the opposition's fielding, why don't you also do one of the quality of the bowling?

Well obviously you do look at averages against different quality of bowling - that's the whole point. Overall averages are pretty meaningless, what matters is different averages at dfferent times and different strengths of opposition.

All in all - look, it has it's uses, but there aren't many. If you're going to bring in such "subjectivity", why don't you just watch the batsman to see how good he is? Ultimately that is the only real way to judge a batsman.

Exactly - but so many people don't look at how many chances batsmen have given, just at how good the run-scoring shots were.

 

[Robertinho]

Yes - all of which is part of cricket being a team game.
Thing is, though, it's a team game played by individuals, and we like to summise the performances of individuals. And with batsmen how poor the fielders were isn't relevant.

Why? What about about poor the bowlers were? Fielding isn't all about catching - good fielders can cut off boundaries, save singles, restrict a possible 3 to just 2, etc., it all has an effect. Not that I worry about it - but why worry about first chance average and not everything else?