Richard's First Chance Average theory

[Shounak]

Feel free to discuss.. This may stop this topic from spilling over into other threads..

Should fighters start brawling outside of this ring, the ref should drag both fighters back in.

Good opportunity to silence your critics Richard.. Go nuts..

 

[Richard]

Let me assure you, the thing has been done to death - very few realise that from the perspective of the batsman's ability there is no difference between a chance that is dropped and one that is caught.

 

[Pratters]

Let me assure you, the thing has been done to death - very few realise that from the perspective of the batsman's ability there is no difference between a chance that is dropped and one that is caught.

Go ahead and create robots who can bowl like you would like them to too then. Because even bowlers bowl poorly and had it not been for the poor balls, the batsmen would have scored less.

 

[andyc]

It definetely have some reason to it. That's all I'm saying

 

[Robertinho]

Uhh.. thanks for the input..

Richard, whilst I see your point, I think you've just got to accept that "missed chances" are part of the game and luck is a factor, and if two batsmen are dropped on 5, and one is able to score 100 runs and the other just 10, you're saying there's no difference between their ability? What if this continues happening?

 

[Blaze]

I actually pretty much agree with it.

 

[Burpey]

What's the actual theory ?

 

[Nate]

It`s alright, but pretty picky.

 

[age_master]

what defines a chance?

 

[Swervy]

Uhh.. thanks for the input..

Richard, whilst I see your point, I think you've just got to accept that "missed chances" are part of the game and luck is a factor, and if two batsmen are dropped on 5, and one is able to score 100 runs and the other just 10, you're saying there's no difference between their ability? What if this continues happening?

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

 

[a massive zebra]

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

Brilliant post Swervy.

Having said that, I definitely do not think this theory is even remotely as ridiculous as the 'I know more about Flintoff than he does himself' claim.

 

[Richard]

Go ahead and create robots who can bowl like you would like them to too then. Because even bowlers bowl poorly and had it not been for the poor balls, the batsmen would have scored less.

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.

 

[Richard]

Richard, whilst I see your point, I think you've just got to accept that "missed chances" are part of the game and luck is a factor, and if two batsmen are dropped on 5, and one is able to score 100 runs and the other just 10, you're saying there's no difference between their ability? What if this continues happening?

Of course missed chances are part of the game - regrettable, but there we are.
And of course there's a difference - which is why it's - perhaps - better to use the two averages (first-chance and all-chance) together rather than just the first-chance one.

 

[Swervy]

Brilliant post Swervy.

Having said that, I definitely do not think this theory is even remotely as ridiculous as the 'I know more about Flintoff than he does himself' claim.

hehehe..well that goes without saying

 

[Swervy]

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.

several balls bowled for every catch offered??? Is that right?

 

[Richard]

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

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.
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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

 

[Richard]

several balls bowled for every catch offered??? Is that right?

Take a look at, on average, how many deliveries faced by top-order batsmen.
Say an innings lasts 100 overs. That's maybe 500 deliveries faced by top-order batsmen.
And maybe 3 or 4 top-order batsmen will usually get dismissed to catches.

 

[Richard]

Having said that, I definitely do not think this theory is even remotely as ridiculous as the 'I know more about Flintoff than he does himself' claim.

Have you, or indeed anyone else who holds that against me, ever actually examined exactly what was said?

 

[Swervy]

Take a look at, on average, how many deliveries faced by top-order batsmen.
Say an innings lasts 100 overs. That's maybe 500 deliveries faced by top-order batsmen.
And maybe 3 or 4 top-order batsmen will usually get dismissed to catches.

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

 

[Richard]

What's the actual theory ?

The actual theory is pretty straightforward:
A batsman hits the ball to a fielder. What happens next?
Why does what happens next matter, as far as the batsman's ability is concerned? What happens next does not reflect anything on him - all that reflects on him is that the ball has gone to the fielder ITFP. Most of the time, that will result in dismissal.
Likewise... a batsman gets trapped plumb lbw. What has he done differently when the Umpire's finger goes up or when it stays down? Precisely nothing.
Similarly - why does a batsman get penalised for a shocking lbw decision when it should have been given not-out? Normally it will be given not-out. And when it's not, I like to act as if it weren't - while it's obviously not possible to know what would've happened next, you can at least credit the batsman for not getting out.