Richard's First Chance Average theory

[Richard]

I'll say I see merit in the First Chance theory - but I don't completely agree with it. I think the average chance theory is slightly better, as that gives credit to someone dropped on 0 who goes on to 200. Still needs work though.

For Heaven's sake, I don't completely agree with it! I just think it will always be a better indication than the scorebook record.

 

[Richard]

No, people do not.

They do.
19 out of 20 things that people say "that's a chance" are as far as I'm concerned either blatantly not (and you can get them to admit as much if you have the chance to confront them on the issue) or clearly are.

 

[greg]

Fundamental problem with it is that it takes a very narrow definition of what constitutes "luck".

A batsman who involuntarily edges the ball to second slip and is dropped is considered lucky. A batsman who involuntarily edges the ball to second slip but escapes because the opposition captain has split his slip cordon suffers no penalty.

The only two features of this theory which distinguish it from normal averages are

1) A batsman loses any runs after he gives his first chance
2) A batsman is given an extra "not out" when given out incorrectly.

One would be tempted at this moment to produce the old cliche about "these things evening out in the end". And on average they will. Some people's averages will suffer as a result of this different way of looking at things, some will gain. So really first chance averages will tell you nothing at all. The more successful people are at capitalising on any chances they are given the more "lucky" they will appear to be.

Oh dear. I'm heading off towards the reason why umpiring decisions being in England's favour didn't cost Australia the Ashes...

Good teams and players will always be shown to be luckier.

 

[Richard]

A batsman who involuntarily edges the ball to second slip and is dropped is considered lucky. A batsman who involuntarily edges the ball to second slip but escapes because the opposition captain has split his slip cordon suffers no penalty.

Fact is, batsmen hit balls in the air - involuntarily and deliberately - away from fielders all the game. It's the same as playing-and-missing. There are all sorts of little bits of luck, then there are BIG slices of luck like dropped catches, missed stumpings and bad decisions in the batsman's favour.

The only two features of this theory which distinguish it from normal averages are

1) A batsman loses any runs after he gives his first chance
2) A batsman is given an extra "not out" when given out incorrectly.

One would be tempted at this moment to produce the old cliche about "these things evening out in the end". And on average they will.

No, that old cliche is not true if you actually take a look - as I mentioned a few posts earlier. It's just something people say to try and work their way out of corners.
Please see post 56 for an explanation, I don't want to write the same thing twice.

Some people's averages will suffer as a result of this different way of looking at things, some will gain. So really first chance averages will tell you nothing at all. The more successful people are at capitalising on any chances they are given the more "lucky" they will appear to be.

Nope, not so. How lucky you are is defined by the number of let-offs you receive. Some receive more than others, and hence some are luckier than others.

 

[greg]

Nope, not so. How lucky you are is defined by the number of let-offs you receive. Some receive more than others, and hence some are luckier than others.

Your method will not show that though. Yes it is true that a batsman who has fewer letoffs will benefit under your method, with all other things being equal. But it is also true that a batsman who averages significantly more runs after his "first chance" will suffer compared to his counterpart.

The whole principle of "first chance average" is based on the idea that the player with the lower first chance average wrt his traditional average is the "luckier" and therefore inferior player. But this only works in the first case cited above. In the second both players are equally "lucky" but one has a significantly lower first chance average - as it happens in this case the player with the lower average is the better player. Your method can't distinguish between the two.

 

[Richard]

No - so that's where the all-chance average comes in.
I know the first-chance average won't show how lucky batsmen are - you just need to count number of let-offs for that. I've never said the first-chance average shows how lucky batsmen are - just that it's better to use it because it takes luck outta the equation.

 

[atichon]

The point it serves is to work-out what influence luck had on a batsman's runs.

I'm not a specialist but what I know is : over a significant period, luck evens itself.

If you detect distortions between players, showing one is luckier than another, it's not an assessment of the luck, but must give a hint at the differences between those players : Hits it harder, takes more risk, impresses the fielding side more or whatever.

I just suspect those statistics are just there to bring facts to some of your opinions (X is overrated, see his 1st chance avg, Y is underrated, see how his 1st chance avg is near his real avg). Nobody will ever bother challenging your stats so you can calculate them as suits you.

Anyway, if you guarantee me that X has much more luck than Y, I pick X, no matter how well he bats.

 

[atichon]

We see subjectivity coming in every single ball of every single cricket match...

No. In or out according to the umpire decision is not subjective and is the only material on which you can build stats.

No matter how the runs have been scored, with or without luck, with or without orthodox shots, with the decisions on your side or against...

 

[marc71178]

They do.
19 out of 20 things that people say "that's a chance" are as far as I'm concerned either blatantly not (and you can get them to admit as much if you have the chance to confront them on the issue) or clearly are.

So the Tait-Pietersen one then?

 

[nick-o]

This theory is such a heap of cr$p.

It revolves around the idea that a batsman should have been out because a chance should have been taken.

To determine whether the chance should have been taken, we would have to make a subjective rule that 'a cricketer worthy of playing in a Test' would normally take a catch of that difficulty.

But then we would also have to say that the batsman wouldn't have scored some of his runs if 'a bowler worthy of playing in a Test' had bowled the ball, because 'a bowler worthy of playing in a Test' wouldn't have bowled such a ball.

And then, the batsman wouldn't have scored some of his runs if the opposing captain was 'a captain worthy of captaining in a Test' because a different field would have been set.

So to make the theory work, we have to discount masses of runs scored, in addition to attributing wickets taken. So the 'first-chance average' has to be 'runs that should have been scored' divided by 'wickets that should have been taken.'


But the fact is, people play against the opposition they play against, in the conditions of the match they are playing. And if the opposition drop catches, set stupid fields, bowl bad deliveries, then the batsmen will benefit. Because they are playing against the opposition they are playing against.

Which is why it's a good sport to watch.



So, look at Warne dropping KP at the Oval. How does the theory take account of the stakes involved? That miss determined the fate of the Ashes; 99 times out of 100, Warne would have taken it. When the pressure was at its greatest, he dropped it. But this crazy theory says that the pressure, the occasion, the stakes, mean nothing. The runs KP scored after that chance shouldn't count.

That is just so antithetical to what the game of cricket is all about. Every run KP scored after that was pure gold, and knowledge of that fact affected Warne psychologically at the moment when he was presented with the chance.

But in the arid world of first-chance averages, Australia retained the Ashes. Not a realistic world, as far as I can see, nor one I want to be part of.

 

[greg]

This theory is such a heap of cr$p.

It revolves around the idea that a batsman should have been out because a chance should have been taken.

To determine whether the chance should have been taken, we would have to make a subjective rule that 'a cricketer worthy of playing in a Test' would normally take a catch of that difficulty.

But then we would also have to say that the batsman wouldn't have scored some of his runs if 'a bowler worthy of playing in a Test' had bowled the ball, because 'a bowler worthy of playing in a Test' wouldn't have bowled such a ball.

And then, the batsman wouldn't have scored some of his runs if the opposing captain was 'a captain worthy of captaining in a Test' because a different field would have been set.

So to make the theory work, we have to discount masses of runs scored, in addition to attributing wickets taken. So the 'first-chance average' has to be 'runs that should have been scored' divided by 'wickets that should have been taken.'


But the fact is, people play against the opposition they play against, in the conditions of the match they are playing. And if the opposition drop catches, set stupid fields, bowl bad deliveries, then the batsmen will benefit. Because they are playing against the opposition they are playing against.

Which is why it's a good sport to watch.



So, look at Warne dropping KP at the Oval. How does the theory take account of the stakes involved? That miss determined the fate of the Ashes; 99 times out of 100, Warne would have taken it. When the pressure was at its greatest, he dropped it. But this crazy theory says that the pressure, the occasion, the stakes, mean nothing. The runs KP scored after that chance shouldn't count.

That is just so antithetical to what the game of cricket is all about. Every run KP scored after that was pure gold, and knowledge of that fact affected Warne psychologically at the moment when he was presented with the chance.

But in the arid world of first-chance averages, Australia retained the Ashes. Not a realistic world, as far as I can see, nor one I want to be part of.

Don't be silly. Warne's drop didn't happen

 

[Top_Cat]

So, look at Warne dropping KP at the Oval. How does the theory take account of the stakes involved? That miss determined the fate of the Ashes; 99 times out of 100, Warne would have taken it. When the pressure was at its greatest, he dropped it. But this crazy theory says that the pressure, the occasion, the stakes, mean nothing. The runs KP scored after that chance shouldn't count.

Well of course they shouldn't! He didn't deserve them!

Just to strengthen your point, if pressure meant nothing then there's no way Australia shoudl have failed to chase 130 at Headingly in 1981, 130 against South Africa in 1994, England shouldn't have come close to failing to chase 129 against Australia in the fourth Test, etc., etc.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

the two main problems I have with it are:
a) what is a chance? Sounds like an easy quetion to answer, but it is purely subjective.
b) No credit is given to the batsman who may have been dropped on 0 and then goes on to score 250

It also doesnt take into consideration things like and edge through the slips when there are no slips...is that potentially a chance missed by the opposition captain..
or what about a batsman taking a wild slog and the ball lands 20 yards from the nearest fielder..does that go down as a chance in that the ball could have ended up anywhere.

It also doesnt factor in a player who may in fact chance his arm on a shot he plays particularly well and plays it hard..ie Gilchrist who cuts as hard as anyone, and I am sure he takes a calculated risk when playing them, in that if he hits it hard enough, it may well go in the air to a fielder, but because of the sheer velocity of the ball, it makes it a damned hard catch

its little things like that that erode away at the validity of teh First chance average theory.

that, and also ridiculous comments like Trescothick was dismissed under 50 every inning in the Ashes, when in fact he scored 3 50s

That sums it up exactly really.

A batsman is dismissed when the opposing team gets them out. If you edge the ball to slip and it is dropped, the opposing team has failed to get you out and therefore you have batted well enough for them to not get you out. It may sound silly, but there's really a lot more than luck that goes into anything in cricket, and if the opposition has poor catchers its no different from them having poor bowlers. A century against Zimbabwe might not be worth the same as one against Australia, and similarly one with 5 dropped chances might not be worth the same as one with no chances, but ultimately it comes down to the same thing, which is that you have scored X number of runs before the opposition has been godo enough to get you out.

You can certainly bring up dropped chances when subjectively discussing the value of an innings, and that's quite reasonable, but to attempt to express it statistically is just as pointless as attempting to express the value of the opposition bowlers statistically, as in the end it comes down to a subjective evaluation.

Furthermore, extending beyond the First Chance Average itself, Richard's theories about luck fail to take into account that if something keeps happening over and over it's worthwhile looking for a reason for it rather than dismissing it as being lucky ridiculously often. McGrath is the perfect example... a bowler who "cannot bowl wicket taking deliveries on flat pitches" being quite simply the most dangerous seamer in the world on a flat pitch doesn't add up, and Richard dismisses it as luck rather than examining his original dismissal of McGrath's abilities. In order for McGrath to be so successful on flat pitches without being any good of them requires that a) all batsmen in the world for some reason play him poorly on flat pitches, or that b) he is for some reason constantly lucky on flat pitches, virtually every single time he plays on them, for years and years on end regardless of the opposition. These are ridiculous and illogical propositions, so a reasonable person would suggest that McGrath is in fact good on flat pitches, and try and work out why. Richard doesn't do this.

 

[marc71178]

Don't be silly. Warne's drop didn't happen

Indeed it didn't, because GIlchrist should've caught him!

 

[Top_Cat]

Furthermore, extending beyond the First Chance Average itself, Richard's theories about luck fail to take into account that if something keeps happening over and over it's worthwhile looking for a reason for it rather than dismissing it as being lucky ridiculously often. McGrath is the perfect example... a bowler who "cannot bowl wicket taking deliveries on flat pitches" being quite simply the most dangerous seamer in the world on a flat pitch doesn't add up, and Richard dismisses it as luck rather than examining his original dismissal of McGrath's abilities. In order for McGrath to be so successful on flat pitches without being any good of them requires that a) all batsmen in the world for some reason play him poorly on flat pitches, or that b) he is for some reason constantly lucky on flat pitches, virtually every single time he plays on them, for years and years on end regardless of the opposition. These are ridiculous and illogical propositions, so a reasonable person would suggest that McGrath is in fact good on flat pitches, and try and work out why. Richard doesn't do this.

In any science, it's awfully difficult to argue with repeatability. This is an excellent point; if the results don't conform to the theory, it's time to reassess the validity and basic underlying assumptions of the theory, not assume it's always correct and ascribe all results which don't conform to your theory as essentially random chance (luck).

Putting down McGrath's success down to poor strokes is equally invalid; the proportion of bad strokes to good balls required for McGrath to be as successful as he is would be far in excess of the proportion of bad strokes to good balls top-line Test players generally get out to. What Richard is effectively asking us to believe is that there was a sudden and dramatic increase in the probablity that batsmen from multiple countries in multiple conditions at multiple times/dates would play a bad stroke. That isn't a credible conclusion to be drawn from the data available.

Indeed it didn't, because GIlchrist should've caught him!

So, in effect, Gilchrist dropped it! Two first-chances at once!

 

[SJS]

The only thing right about Richards idea of the first chance average is that it opens for debate the dubious nature of statistics (read normal averages as we know them) as anything more than an indicator or a point of reference as best. Clearly a batsman who scores a double hundred having been dropped at 0, 50, 60, 70 (exaggerate and add another ten catches to highlight the point if you will) etc seems to be unduly rewarded by the conventional system than another batsman who scored a chanceless 200.

So far so good. The point is well taken and understood.

But, to then propogate that an alternative to the conventional system is available by calculating the averages based on the score when the first chance was given by the batsman is to stretch the point beyond credibility.

A lot has been said against this "theory" (I dont know if Richard first called it a theory or the legions of his detractors did) and most of it is valid. Richards has been fighting with all the persistense at his disposal which is very impressive even when discussing less passionate subjects for him. I am not surprised at this because it is an idea that obviously appeals to him a lot. I daresay, he is not the originator of it. I have read a similar suggestion by a writer elsewhere a long time ago but cant recall it. Richards holds the "theory" very dear and hence his excessive-defense of it.

I have never got into this argument since it has a combination which I try to avoid getting into an argument about.

These are,1) the theory is full of holes and can be blasted to bits with reasoning in a logical, and surgical manner and b) Richard is passionate about it beyond reasoning

I leave such passions to burn themselves out or keep burning harmlessly as long as they dont cause collateral damage.

In this case, I think Richard is the one who is suffering the damage. I think he has many endearing qualities (besides some irritating ones) and has far more detractors than he deserves. The tag of this theory hasnt helped.

I wish there was a way to discuss with him one-on-one and I am fairly confident I could change his mind on the efficacy of this impractical and considerably unreliable alternative to conventional averages.

Just to deviate but still make a point.

There are batsmen who recieve an unplayable delivery first up (the ball of the month maybe) and leave without scoring and there are those who recieve long hops after long hop mixed injudiciously with juicy fulltosses and mouth watering half volleys from the same attack in the same innings and go on to make a massive score. The conventional averages cant account for it and we have to live with it.

There are batsmen who drive uppishly, mistimed mind you and not intentional, bang between the fielders at cover and point and get boundaries while Harsha Bhogle screams "shot to die for" and others drive from bang in the middle of the bat and it travels like lightening to the right of the cover fielder and he dives to come up with the ball from two inches above the grass. The conventional averages dont account for it and nor will first chance averages. We have to live with it.

There are batsmen who snick as they are comprehensively beaten but the opposing captain "forgot" to put in a second slip and tha ball goes between the first and the fourth for four (chance ??) and others who edge to the single slip fielder or the keeper dives like a football goalkeeper and comes up with a blinder. We have to live with it since no type of averages can account for it.

Chances are not just the catches that go to hand just as boundaries are not just the ones which are intentional.

Thats why stats are only an indicator at best and we have to watch (with our eyes) and understand the nuances of the game (if we are willing to take the trouble) to appreciate a player or an innings. Mere stats will always remain that, mere stats.

Some may think mastering the stats makes them masterful students (I am sure they would call themselves analysts ) of the game but the fact is it doesn't - irrespective of whether they are the conventional ones or the more 'exotic' variety like the first chance average.

 

[Top_Cat]

Thats why stats are only an indicator at best and we have to watch (with our eyes) and understand the nuances of the game (if we are willing to take the trouble) to appreciate a player or an innings. Mere stats will always remain that, mere stats.

Descriptive stats, yes. Analytical stats, another matter entirely.

 

[Pratters]

Eh? You can watch an innings and work-out how good the bowling was, but fact is runs are hardly ever scored off good balls, most runs come off bad balls and the skill is in waiting for these, not scoring off good ones.

The skill is in waiting for bad balls to score off according to you?

Okay lets take that assumption of yours to be correct for a moment.

A batsman's runs are helds so ideally by you - not a run after a missed chance should be counted according to you.

Now why should the bowler have the luxury of bowling bad balls in that very spirit? A bowler should ideally bowl only perfect/good balls.

And then we would have very low scoring matches with hardly ever runs being scored of good balls (a statement you made).

 

[Slow Love™]

I have never got into this argument since it has a combination which I try to avoid getting into an argument about.

These are,1) the theory is full of holes and can be blasted to bits with reasoning in a logical, and surgical manner and b) Richard is passionate about it beyond reasoning

I leave such passions to burn themselves out or keep burning harmlessly as long as they dont cause collateral damage.

LOL.

What a post though! Obviously won't be the last word on the subject, but it's likely the definitive word on the subject.

 

[Pothas]

That's one of the most commonly quoted pieces of rubbish that mostly people use to try to brush-off the effects of luck.
Facts are, and it's incredibly obvious to anyone willing to open their mind and eyes, every batsman will have slightly differing amounts of luck, some will have lots more than the regulation (Trescothick, Gilchrist, Hayden, Sehwag, Lara) and almost every batsman will have far more good luck than bad in their careers.

Is it just a coincidence that all these players are atacking batsmen that go at the ball hard? i think not, when you play like that you are bound to take more risks and it may apear as a result you apear to get mor luck