Duckworth/Lewis - Fair?

[Top_Cat]

Reckon the D/L is a brilliant bit of work, a great example of merging of maths with real-life data. Been the most widely accepted system for that reason.

As an aside, they're also a decent band;

The Duckworth Lewis Method on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Downloads

Any band who has a song named Jiggery Pokery is alright by me.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Reckon the D/L is a brilliant bit of work, a great example of merging of maths with real-life data. Been the most widely accepted system for that reason.

As an aside, they're also a decent band;

The Duckworth Lewis Method on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Downloads

Any band who has a song named Jiggery Pokery is alright by me.

I wrote a review of that album, it's around here somewhere. I've also seen them play live during the innings break of the Ireland/England game at Stormont last year. Twas pretty awesome.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I wrote a review of that album, it's around here somewhere.

Here in fact.

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Resisting the temptation to dig into Statsguru, I'd suggest that a 'good' first innings total (not the same as a par score) at a top-level ODI (i.e. between two test-playing nations) is closer to 280. The batting powerplay in particular has seen a massive upsurge in 300+ scores.

Varies heavily based on conditions though, obvz.

From 2001 to today, teams batting first and scoring 250-260 have won 64 out of 99 matches.
Between 240-250 it's 48 out of 103.

From 2007 to today, the stats are 11 out of 35 for 240-250, and 21 out of 35 for 250-260.

280+ has won 128 out of 154 games since 2007 - not really the number I'm looking for. I stand by my number!

---

In all T20Is, 160-170 has won 5 out 16, and 170-180 has won 8 out of 9: in fact 170+ has only lost three times as a target. So we're definitely looking in the same range of figures - a far smaller reduction in the par score than in the number of overs.

[Uppercut]

I may be somewhat jumping the gun, because it hasn't been very long, but my thinking has changed based on the introduction of the batting powerplay (Oct 2008). Since then, 250-260 wins 4 times out of 7, 260-270 wins 4 times out of 7, 270-280 wins 7 times out of 13. It's all rather marginal indeed. I'd call that par.

We'll have this discussion again in a few years when there are a few more numbers for me to play with.

[Neil Pickup]

Fair enough. I couldn't remember OTTOMH when the batting powerplay came in - it will be interesting to see how it plays out, and it's certainly the sort of thing that should affect the way D/L works.

[vic_orthdox]

Batting powerplay came in well before 2008, was with the introduction of the super sub tbh, mid-2005 or so I think.

Anyways, came in here to post about our weekend's game, relating to D/L and just general rules. We had a shocker, and got bowled out for 94. The rain then came, and the rules state that 25 overs are required to constitute a game, however, they also cater for a side to come out and and use less than that to chase down the target, which our opposition decided to do.

So they ended up chasing 30 to win from 4 overs. However, each time we took a wicket, they needed to make extra runs, i.e. when we took a wicket, their target became 34. This is complete rubbish, isn't it?

And is 94 off 50 overs the equivalent in D/L to 29 off 25?

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

However, each time we took a wicket, they needed to make extra runs, i.e. when we took a wicket, their target became 34. This is complete rubbish, isn't it?

That's weird. Doesn't seem consistent with how D/L works at all; wickets only matter before a rain delay as to set a team a target to chase with their remaining resources. Your target doesn't change if you lose wickets unless there's more lost play afterwards.

It sounds like the playing conditions are just a little confused as a result of this thing:

they also cater for a side to come out and and use less than that to chase down the target

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, I'm sure it's been a total **** up.

Like, my understanding of the less than 25 overs thing is that D/L works out what the total should be off 25, and you can choose to chase it with whatever overs are remaining till compulsory finish time. So therefore it's basically a 25 over innings, so we should have bowled all four of our overs in a powerplay. But there were no bowling restrictions, etc.

EDIT: also, what should have the target off 25 been?

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Yeah, I'm sure it's been a total **** up.

Like, my understanding of the less than 25 overs thing is that D/L works out what the total should be off 25, and you can choose to chase it with whatever overs are remaining till compulsory finish time. So therefore it's basically a 25 over innings, so we should have bowled all four of our overs in a powerplay. But there were no bowling restrictions, etc.

EDIT: also, what should have the target off 25 been?

Yeah, I get the feeling the umpires at your game just completely misinterpreted how it was supposed to work.

I went to duckworth-lewis.com and it seems to think that if your opposition actually did have 25 overs to chase your score they'd have been set 63 to win. I don't know where they got the target of 30 from at all.

[Prince EWS]

If the opposition actually thought they had a full 50 overs to chase your 94 and then it rained after 25 overs, they'd need to be:

32/0
34/1
38/2
42/3

etc

So that (or something really similar to that) is probably what's been applied. If so, that is a huge ****-up by whoever was involved, as it makes no sense to apply it like that at all.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

If the opposition actually thought they had a full 50 overs to chase your 94 and then it rained after 25 overs, they'd need to be:

32/0
34/1
38/2
42/3

etc

So that (or something really similar to that) is probably what's been applied. If so, that is a huge ****-up by whoever was involved, as it makes no sense to apply it like that at all.

Yeah, I was going to say it sounds like the target if rain shortens the innings while in progress, not if the overs were reduced prior to the innings starting.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

If the opposition actually thought they had a full 50 overs to chase your 94 and then it rained after 25 overs, they'd need to be:

32/0
34/1
38/2
42/3

etc

So that (or something really similar to that) is probably what's been applied. If so, that is a huge ****-up by whoever was involved, as it makes no sense to apply it like that at all.

Hmm, wondering if that G50 factor at the top might change for grade cricket to play around with the results.

We were given some sort of printout, with those details, and that's what they went by I think, with the 0/29 at 25 overs being used as their total target or something.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Hmm, wondering if that G50 factor at the top might change for grade cricket to play around with the results.

We were given some sort of printout, with those details, and that's what they went by I think, with the 0/29 at 25 overs being used as their total target or something.

Yeah, I think that's what happened. Genuine goof, tbh, as the only way the playing conditions actually make sense if they were to be set 63 (or something close to that if grade cricket has a different agreed par score as suspected) to win off however many overs they could get in short of 25.

Did they end up winning?

[vic_orthdox]

Nah, they got to 2/29 off their four overs, and because we took two wickets they (supposedly, etc. etc.) had to be 37 to win.

The thing was, if the target was that 60-odd instead of 29, we wouldn't have waited around all day to give those guys a chance of getting it; played in pretty unsafe conditions to give them the chance to win. Umpires left their common sense at home, again.