Class is Permanent, Form is... an Illusion?

[zaremba]

So: without a reasonable definition of form you can't define an acceptable model..? It might be better suited to a baseballer if he enters each bat with the intent get a hit or home run. Rarely would a batsman in test cricket bat the same in the 1st and 2nd innings where a 25 off 100+ balls to save a match, declarations etc make it near impossible to make sense of the data without a test by test analysis at least. E.g. this method would highlight the great run of 100's Kallis went on in successive test matches, Bradman, Hayden et al.

Even in baseball there are a lot of such batter-related variables. For instance a batter who is on a long hitting streak will be very aware of the fact, and so may tend to adapt his play in the hope of extending his run. Perhaps by playing it safe and focussing on getting hits rather than home runs, etc.

 

[Jamee999]

Wouldn't innings or match bowling be a better sample than runs scored in an innings?

 

[Richard]

So: without a reasonable definition of form you can't define an acceptable model..?

That's my precise point. Form and performance are not the exact same thing. Form is merely one component in the likelihood of whether or not a player will perform.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's my precise point. Form and performance are not the exact same thing. Form is merely one component in the likelihood of whether or not a player will perform.

That's it. If you define form by the end result (i.e. runs), well yeah we've seen the lack of a positive correlation there. I don't think the end result describes 'form' well enough, though. For example, a bloke might be spanking them in the lead-up to a series, barely score a run then smack the daylights out of the next opponent. To the outsider, it would appear he'd been in and out of form but I don't think it's that simple. How many times do you hear a player go on and on about how well they're hitting them in the nets despite not scoring a run? That said, if it's taken to Mark Taylor-esque heights of denial........

A really big indicator of form for mine has always been how a player is getting out. If they're getting out different ways for low scores, I've always thought it less likely they were out of form than if they're nicking every ball in the corridor. Mark Taylor, again, has coloured my judgement here perhaps; squared-up and nicks just about every time to 'keeper/slip and claims he's just around the corner from a big score? Whatever, Tubby.

 

[Furball]

Bumping this on the back of the discussion in the Voges thread. Shame the graphs don't exist.

 

[indiaholic]

Good read. To T_C, even if form can't be captured through runs scored, doesn't it mean that form at least has no predictive value?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Here are some new versions of the graphs that kicked the whole thing off...

EDIT: Is it just me or is that second one going Rorschach Blot on the rest of you?

 

[Pratters]

In statistics this is true. However, in cricket, this isn't the case. Every event isn't independent of previous ones. An in form batsman is more likely to make runs than a not in form batsman, or one with lower abilities.

 

[Pratters]

Wouldn't innings or match bowling be a better sample than runs scored in an innings?

I would think so. I also think this thing would hold true for lesser players. Would love analysis of a bowler like Brett Lee or a batsman like Nasser Hussain.

 

[Furball]

In statistics this is true. However, in cricket, this isn't the case. Every event isn't independent of previous ones. An in form batsman is more likely to make runs than a not in form batsman, or one with lower abilities.

What's your basis for the above?

 

[Pratters]

Common sense and logic, dude. Cook went through a trough. He was less likely to make runs during that trough. However, he was more likely to make runs once he was out of the trough in 2015. He did make runs more in 2015 when he was out of that trough.

 

[Furball]

So, nothing then.

 

[Pratters]

Haha, not nothing at all.

 

[Pratters]

In 2015, Cook passed 50 11 times in 26 innings (1 not out). 11/25 is 44%.
In 2013 and 2014 when he was not in form, he crossed 50 11 times in 40 innings (1 not out) 11/39 is 28%.

How is form nothing when a player is more likely to cross a 50 when he is in form?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Hey can you stop talking about anything maths-related.

 

[hendrix]

In 2015, Cook passed 50 11 times in 26 innings (1 not out). 11/25 is 44%.
In 2013 and 2014 when he was not in form, he crossed 50 11 times in 40 innings (1 not out) 11/39 is 28%.

How is form nothing when a player is more likely to cross a 50 when he is in form?

have you just missed the whole actual statistical argument in this thread? Or do you not understand it?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Worth restating in another way, to illustrate the difference between being "in or out of form" using Tendulkar's numbers, and being technically and mentally shot, as Cook was.

These are Tendulkar's 50+ rates depending on his average from the last ten innings.

 8-16: 75% (4 innings)
16-24: 47% (15 innings)
24-32: 28% (36 innings)
32-40: 30% (47 innings)
40-48: 38% (63 innings)
48-56: 42% (52 innings)
56-64: 37% (52 innings)
64-72: 29% (34 innings)
72-80: 47% (17 innings)
80-88: 17% (6 innings)
  88+: 50% (2 innings)

Here are the 100+ rates

 8-16: 25% (4 innings)
16-24: 13% (15 innings)
24-32: 8%  (36 innings)
32-40: 15% (47 innings)
40-48: 17% (63 innings)
48-56: 21% (52 innings)
56-64: 15% (52 innings)
64-72: 18% (34 innings)
72-80: 12% (17 innings)
80-88: 0%  (6 innings)
  88-: 0%  (2 innings)

When was he meant to be in form again?

 

[Top_Cat]

Here are some new versions of the graphs that kicked the whole thing off...

More constellation than correlation...

EDIT: Is it just me or is that second one going Rorschach Blot on the rest of you?

Invaders....from space!

 

[weldone]

interesting thread

 

[Furball]

have you just missed the whole actual statistical argument in this thread? Or do you not understand it?

This is the man who chucked away a prescription for a skin condition because it contained steroids.