StephenZA
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So very sorry...
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Stumped!
- Thread starter GHick405
- Start date
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Like most weeks…
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
Looks like GG CC is heading to DIV 2.1 T20 in Asia
Top of the class
Top of the class
Charlie B
U19 Vice-Captain
Update on Youth Pulls: An Update on the relative success/ failure of my (almost 100% random luck) youth 'pulling' which may be of interest to you as a yardstick for your own 'performances'
Just to establish the criteria again. Each week you get the opportunity to retire your pull , sell him , or keep (and play) him:
Jura - Weeks existed 84 - Retired 69 (82%) Sold 4 (5% for $331k) Kept 11 (13% - all still playing for Jura)
TBI - Weeks existed 44 - Retired 39 (89%) Sold 2 (5% for $6k!) Kept 3 (7% - all still playing for TBI)
So Jura gained 11 useful players in about 5.6 seasons - averaging 1.96 players per a season (adjusted for sales 2.14 per season)
(Total appearances of all kept Players 764 - 135 per season)
TBI gained 3 useful players in about 3 seasons - averaging 1.02 players per season (adjusted - still 1.02!)
(Total appearances of all kept Players 108 - 36 per season)
Note 1: During the time period Jura made one good sale for about 310k (it's important to consider your sales I think to get a rounded view of pulls. This guy if kept would probably have trained to be a decent player and made my kept number 12 if I had not been tempted by the cash!)
Note 2: (In TBI's early days when they were strapped for cash (they still are!) they used to sell crap pulls to Jura for $1k (perfectly legal!). I have not counted these as sales but as TBI's retirements as Jura would always immediately retire them!. TBI's 2 external sales were miserable events generating 6k so I do not consider them to have been players I would have kept and trained- hence no adjustment)
Note 3: TBI Management team used this report to justify never having any money.....' You see mate, we need to go out an buy an extra decent player a season'. They are right of course but actually the situation is a bit more dire than that (see below)
Assuming a team plays about 45 competitive matches a season ( 14 x 3 + 3 cup rounds) then total appearances for Jura over the past 5.6 seasons have been 5.6 x 45 x 11 = 2,772 appearances..... about 495 appearances per season. Jura's kept pulls have filled 135 of these appearances on average per season (about 27%)
Meanwhile the TBI kept pulls are contributing on average only 36 appearances per season out of 495 (about 7%). They are trailing Jura by 100 appearances a season in their contribution to our fixture list - so actually the net effect of the youth pull randomiser is that the over the three seasons the BUY Ins have needed more than 2 additional players each season (100 appearances / 45 matches) to make up the shortfall in appearances that come from 'pulling' vs Jura.
Whether you play 43 matches a season or 50 (based on the CUP) won't change these percentages too much. I do expect over time that TBI's appearance ratio will get better. This is because Jura have been playing longer so the older players now 20 and 21 are really beginning to play more matches a week. When they get to maybe 24 or more they will likely then find themselves reduced to 1 - 2 matches a season and the appearance ratio will fall (this theory can be quibbled with - maybe 17 year olds on average play more games a week than 20 year olds?)
In conclusion - Are TBI's unlucky ? Are Jura lucky ? I don't know ! Where do your teams sit on the spectrum? A sample size of two ain't much to base a conclusion on!
Just to establish the criteria again. Each week you get the opportunity to retire your pull , sell him , or keep (and play) him:
Jura - Weeks existed 84 - Retired 69 (82%) Sold 4 (5% for $331k) Kept 11 (13% - all still playing for Jura)
TBI - Weeks existed 44 - Retired 39 (89%) Sold 2 (5% for $6k!) Kept 3 (7% - all still playing for TBI)
So Jura gained 11 useful players in about 5.6 seasons - averaging 1.96 players per a season (adjusted for sales 2.14 per season)
(Total appearances of all kept Players 764 - 135 per season)
TBI gained 3 useful players in about 3 seasons - averaging 1.02 players per season (adjusted - still 1.02!)
(Total appearances of all kept Players 108 - 36 per season)
Note 1: During the time period Jura made one good sale for about 310k (it's important to consider your sales I think to get a rounded view of pulls. This guy if kept would probably have trained to be a decent player and made my kept number 12 if I had not been tempted by the cash!)
Note 2: (In TBI's early days when they were strapped for cash (they still are!) they used to sell crap pulls to Jura for $1k (perfectly legal!). I have not counted these as sales but as TBI's retirements as Jura would always immediately retire them!. TBI's 2 external sales were miserable events generating 6k so I do not consider them to have been players I would have kept and trained- hence no adjustment)
Note 3: TBI Management team used this report to justify never having any money.....' You see mate, we need to go out an buy an extra decent player a season'. They are right of course but actually the situation is a bit more dire than that (see below)
Assuming a team plays about 45 competitive matches a season ( 14 x 3 + 3 cup rounds) then total appearances for Jura over the past 5.6 seasons have been 5.6 x 45 x 11 = 2,772 appearances..... about 495 appearances per season. Jura's kept pulls have filled 135 of these appearances on average per season (about 27%)
Meanwhile the TBI kept pulls are contributing on average only 36 appearances per season out of 495 (about 7%). They are trailing Jura by 100 appearances a season in their contribution to our fixture list - so actually the net effect of the youth pull randomiser is that the over the three seasons the BUY Ins have needed more than 2 additional players each season (100 appearances / 45 matches) to make up the shortfall in appearances that come from 'pulling' vs Jura.
Whether you play 43 matches a season or 50 (based on the CUP) won't change these percentages too much. I do expect over time that TBI's appearance ratio will get better. This is because Jura have been playing longer so the older players now 20 and 21 are really beginning to play more matches a week. When they get to maybe 24 or more they will likely then find themselves reduced to 1 - 2 matches a season and the appearance ratio will fall (this theory can be quibbled with - maybe 17 year olds on average play more games a week than 20 year olds?)
In conclusion - Are TBI's unlucky ? Are Jura lucky ? I don't know ! Where do your teams sit on the spectrum? A sample size of two ain't much to base a conclusion on!
StephenZA
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Orangutans started off pretty lucky then petered out with some few ok but nothing great players... TNT have also started off gun with scouting overal,l even better than TMOs.
cnerd123
likes this
Great data. I should run some stats like that for ZCC, but given we've been playing since Day 1 there will be a lot of numbers to crunch...
Keeping the theme of Youth cricketers - anyone want to join the ZCC Development Invitational friendly comp?
Need one more team. Good prep ahead of Season 32 and CWC6...
Keeping the theme of Youth cricketers - anyone want to join the ZCC Development Invitational friendly comp?
Need one more team. Good prep ahead of Season 32 and CWC6...
Charlie B
U19 Vice-Captain
Its very quick ***** to get the data - Coaching Tab/ then click 'View All' under Past recruits - copy paste the list onto an excel sheet - add a horizontal filter and job done! - you'll have your kept/sold/retired/TOTAL weeks very rapidly - though yes it might take you a while to critically analyse your sales. But just assume you play 45 matches a season and 495 appearances a season and you can float out some numbers rapido! (much simpler than the clever stuff you do at NAT level!)Great data. I should run some stats like that for ZCC, but given we've been playing since Day 1 there will be a lot of numbers to crunch...
Keeping the theme of Youth cricketers - anyone want to join the ZCC Development Invitational friendly comp?
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
and regarding to the JCC survey?
Schmaltzberg: 78 matches, 62 rejected (80%), 6 kept (8%), 8 sold (12%) - total of ~47k, with Steenkamp (Buy-Ins) the most expensive
Morpork: 115 matches, 95 rejected (83%), 12 kept (10%), 8 sold (7%) - total of 2.25m, two big sales (Matt Tudor and Stef Coetzee)
Schmaltzberg: 78 matches, 62 rejected (80%), 6 kept (8%), 8 sold (12%) - total of ~47k, with Steenkamp (Buy-Ins) the most expensive
Morpork: 115 matches, 95 rejected (83%), 12 kept (10%), 8 sold (7%) - total of 2.25m, two big sales (Matt Tudor and Stef Coetzee)
Charlie B
U19 Vice-Captain
Good stuff I will adjust Morpork by 2 as they were big sales
So Adjusted for decent sales - Jura 13% , TBI 7%, DS 8%, DM 12% - Main and Affiliate %'s are similar (though is this a trend ...the Aff doing much worse than the main?)
TOTAL kept (or big sales ) (12+3+6+14) / (84+44+78+115) = 35/321 = The average successful pull rate for these 4 teams over 321 weeks is about 11 % or 1 good pull every approx 9 weeks !
Last edited:
Will update over the weekend.
But if there is a desire for individual placed playoffs than you'd face Jura to decide who finishes 5th and 6th overall in CWC5.
Outside of a playoff for deciding individual positions the TMOs don't have another game after facing Moo - but will look through last couple pages most likely a similar time to now tomorrow to help update my last results summary.
cnerd123
likes this
Another crap batting effort by ZCC 
The Buy-Ins are deserving finalists, topped the league and clearly have a system that works. Well played!
The best we can hope for now is a 3rd place finish, while FHK are in the Finals for the Plate. Bit underwhelming but the standard has been good this season. Our squad just hit bad form at the wrong time.
The Buy-Ins are deserving finalists, topped the league and clearly have a system that works. Well played! The best we can hope for now is a 3rd place finish, while FHK are in the Finals for the Plate. Bit underwhelming but the standard has been good this season. Our squad just hit bad form at the wrong time.
StephenZA
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I miss-understood; thought the game between TMOs and Mooo was a shot to play in semis not just a playoff for position...