Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 114

Thread: First thread - Who will be the top run scorer and wicket taker?

  1. #46
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
    It's fair enough to believe someone's been playing way above his actual standards and it's only a matter of time he comes back down to earth.
    Yeah but that's not really saying "due a poor series"; that's saying "isn't as good as their performances so far have indicated and will start to fall back gradually as they play to their ability." If you're played above your mean then you're not suddenly more likely to play below your mean; that's nonsense. What you are likely to do is play to your mean and have your average converge on it.

    It's the Monte Carlo fallacy, gambler's fallacy, maturity of chances myth - whatever you want to call it - but applied to cricket.
    ~ Cribbage

  2. #47
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Valer View Post
    Batsmans' cricket scores aren't IID so this is incorrect. Can't be assed to import all that data to show this however. IIRC when I've seen this done before they don't have the markov property either.
    Yeah that stands to reason, but it doesn't follow that batsman doing well for ages ---> batsman has a higher-than-even chance of underperforming next season. That doesn't make sense.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    get ready for a broken ****in' arm

  3. #48
    U19 Captain Valer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    -
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Yeah but that's not really saying "due a poor series"; that's saying "isn't as good as their performances so far have indicated and will start to fall back gradually as they play to their ability." If you're played above your mean then you're not suddenly more likely to play below your mean; that's nonsense. What you are likely to do is play to your mean and have your average converge on it.

    It's the Monte Carlo fallacy, gambler's fallacy, maturity of chances myth - whatever you want to call it - but applied to cricket.
    Form is predictive ergo the gambler's fallacy does NOT apply...
    pappubahry: The concept of form in cricket has predictive value, though its sign varies with the batsman.

    Spark its sign varies as seen here. Note this is NOT my blog.
    Last edited by Valer; 14-05-2013 at 02:08 AM.

  4. #49
    International Coach
    Suicide Bob Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not really needed on CW
    Posts
    12,426
    jesus christ you ****ing nerds


  5. #50
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Valer View Post
    Form is predictive ergo the gambler's fallacy does NOT apply...
    pappubahry: The concept of form in cricket has predictive value, though its sign varies with the batsman.

    Spark its sign varies as seen here. Note this is NOT my blog.
    That's the complete opposite of the "due for a failure/success" after the opposite has happened theory though.

    That blog is suggesting that form is real and a batsman is more likely to score runs when in form and less likely to score runs when out of form - the complete opposite of saying someone is due for a failure because they've used up all their runs (which really is exactly like the Monte Carlo fallacy).

  6. #51
    U19 Captain Valer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    -
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    That's the complete opposite of the "due for a failure/success" after the opposite has happened theory though.

    That blog is suggesting that form is real and a batsman is more likely to score runs when in form and less likely to score runs when out of form - the complete opposite of saying someone is due for a failure because they've used up all their runs (which really is exactly like the Monte Carlo fallacy).
    Once again tho even if you've go a postive correlation to previous score its still not the Monte Carlo fallacy -- it requires IID trials. This doesn't suggest that the person making the failure claim is correct in positive correlation situations.

    Did you actually read the post? Hes suggesting that you can actually have both. Some quotes.
    Justin Langer got most of his big scores after mediocre runs.
    When Bradman had a rut for five innings, England must have been very, very worried. Conversely, if he'd made 750 runs in his last five dismissals, they would have been confident that he was due for a low score.
    Fwiw I think some form of modified garch would work well here but I haven't tested it. I could even trying adding in team mates scores (obviously multivariable) to see how it changes things. Probably too lazy tho.
    Last edited by Valer; 14-05-2013 at 03:03 AM.

  7. #52
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    54,382
    How long is "too long" whereby you're due for a failure? 10 innings of straight 50+ scores? Or 5?

  8. #53
    International Debutant Adders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    HMP Oz.
    Posts
    2,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
    jesus christ you ****ing nerds

    Was just about to post something similar. Got NFI what they are talking about but I'm sure they're right.

    I'm due a worthwhile post now me thinks
    He's got no hair... but I don't care... cause I love Matty Prior..
    He scores a six and catches all the nicks... now I love Matty Prior.
    Got robbed on tour.. but they made sure ... that I went home so happy..
    He give me his shirt and lessened the hurt ... now I love Matty Prior..
    Now he scores a four and I know for sure... that I love Matty Prior..
    With the Ashes in his pocket he's England's pocket rocket.. now I love Matty Prior..


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ATJfAAcbI

  9. #54
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    54,382
    Adders

  10. #55
    U19 Captain Valer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    -
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    How long is "too long" whereby you're due for a failure? 10 innings of straight 50+ scores? Or 5?
    Its not clear what you're asking. Unless you have a negative correlation (or zero) you're going to more likely to score runs after success in one particular innings.

    It should be noted David Barry (the author) only looked at a group of 5 outs prior.

    However something like Pr(# [innings with runs <50 after n innings] >=1) will converge to 1 (in most cases).
    Last edited by Valer; 14-05-2013 at 03:34 AM.

  11. #56
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Yeah but that's not really saying "due a poor series"; that's saying "isn't as good as their performances so far have indicated and will start to fall back gradually as they play to their ability." If you're played above your mean then you're not suddenly more likely to play below your mean; that's nonsense. What you are likely to do is play to your mean and have your average converge on it.

    It's the Monte Carlo fallacy, gambler's fallacy, maturity of chances myth - whatever you want to call it - but applied to cricket.
    Man.. it is real trouble when statsmongers start equating a person playing cricket to a coin toss and make comparisons..
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  12. #57
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,669
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    Man.. it is real trouble when statsmongers start equating a person playing cricket to a coin toss and make comparisons..
    Does any of the great stats guys who are coming up with these theories even understand the fact that how a batsman bats depends on a how the bowler bowls and vice versa.. It is almost as if every batsman plays against bowling machines and are supposed to get out or make big runs every Xth, Yth and Zth inning... Jeez.. Talk of overcomplicating a simple business. This is where my biggest gripe about having Performance Analysts telling professional cricketers what to do comes in.. Sure,as a performance analyst, I can scour through data and tapes and figure out that the release shot for a particular batsman when kept quiet is a slog over cow corner but how exactly does that help if said batsman is actually good enough to hit the ball over cow corner of either foot and off any line from outside off to outside leg? Theorizing on Human Beings as if they were predictable elements is just the biggest pile of **** going on today...

  13. #58
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    54,382
    But that's not the point PEWS is saying. All he is saying is that people saying someone is due a poor series is a stupid statement with no genuine argument or even remote evidence behind it. Its a figment of everyone's imagination.

    In fact there was nothing stats monger about that post you quoted of PEWS. He may have used stats terminology (i.e mean) but really, what he said was actually just common sense.

  14. #59
    U19 Captain Valer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    -
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    But that's not the point PEWS is saying. All he is saying is that people saying someone is due a poor series is a stupid statement with no genuine argument or even remote evidence behind it. Its a figment of everyone's imagination.

    In fact there was nothing stats monger about that post you quoted of PEWS. He may have used stats terminology (i.e mean) but really, what he said was actually just common sense.
    But (some) batsman do tend to be more likely to have a poor innings after a string of good ones....

    This makes no attempt at explanation tho. It could be just that batsman that do this minow basher and end up facing good bowlers after the string of good results, or in the other direction had to face a very good attack and got back to beating up easier attacks.




    As an aside I'd suggest that flawed models are NOT a good excuse for not trying to fit models.
    Last edited by Valer; 15-05-2013 at 05:37 PM.

  15. #60
    International Coach uvelocity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    seamy road
    Posts
    11,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Valer View Post
    But (some) batsman do tend to be more likely to have a poor innings after a string of good ones....

    This makes no attempt at explanation tho. It could be just that batsman that do this minow basher and end up facing good bowlers after the string of good results, or in the other direction had to face a very good attack and got back to beating up easier attacks.




    As an aside I'd suggest that flawed models are NOT a good excuse for not trying to fit models.
    don't mind if i do




    Last edited by uvelocity; 15-05-2013 at 06:25 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    I just love all kinds of balls.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Test Cricket Draft
    By LFD in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 17-12-2012, 05:30 PM
  2. Great Test Matches..
    By Neil Pickup in forum General
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 04-10-2010, 07:17 PM
  3. An A to Z of Cricketing Terms for newcomers
    By Dave Gregory in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 24-02-2008, 07:52 PM
  4. Mahmood and Panesar power England to series glory
    By symonds_94 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-08-2006, 10:11 AM
  5. Surrey 2002: A Cricket Captain Diary
    By SIX AND OUT in forum General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17-02-2005, 08:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •