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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ?

[Nnanden]

It`s alright, but pretty picky.

[age_master]

what defines a chance?

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Swervy

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]

Originally Posted by Pratyush

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]

Originally Posted by Robertinho

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]

Originally Posted by a massive zebra

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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?