• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

One for the mathematicians amongst us

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This is beginning to really infuriate me and I am not smart enough to work it out

A, B and C play for the same club – they all come to the final game of the season having taken 23 wickets for 50 so an average of 2.17

In that last game A takes 7-40 (ave 5.71), B 2-25 (ave 12.50) and C 1-22 (ave 22.00) so obviously A must end up with the best bowling average for the season, or so I would have thought, but in fact

A has 30 for 90
B has 25 for 75
C has 24 for 72

So all still have the same average of 3.00!!!!!

If someone can explain the mathematical principles to me, preferably in words of no more than two syllables, I would be a lot happier, and the person who told me this last week, and then confessed he couldn't explain it, would be able to walk past my office again without fear of being struck by flying objects
 

S.P. Fleming

U19 Cricketer
I understand how this comes about but I am struggling to find the words to represent it.

In general, because their overall average is considerably lower than their averages in the last game, the more that happens in their last game will have more effect on their average. So, because A took seven wickets at a greater average but C only took one wicket in the last game it evens itself out.

Its an interesting idea, one which I hopefully helped to understand.
 

Redbacks

International Captain
They all had 23 wickets for 50 runs so to make a forumla for what is required to average 3 let:

r= runs conceded in the last innings
w= the number of wickets

3 = (50+r)/(23+w)

rearranging to isolate r we get the number of runs that can be conceded given a bag of w wickets in the final game:

r = 3*w + 19

so the first 19 runs takes their totals to, lets say, 23 wickets for 69 runs = ave 3 then;

A takes 7/21 @ 3
B takes 2/6 @ 3
C takes 1/3 @ 3 and they all end up with the same average
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
I'm no mathematician. But it seems to me that there are two tricks here which make the result seem counter-intuitive, particularly to a cricket fan.

1. The figures are deliberately designed to trick cricket lovers. Treat them with care. It may help to multiply the runs conceded and averages by 10 to get a more meaningful picture for a cricket fan. Remember that, given their previous figures, each of the bowlers performed extremely badly in their last innings. Including A, who although he took 7 wickets, haemorrhaged 40 runs, which in the context of his season is masses. It's the equivalent of Bowler D going into the last game averaging 21.7 and conceding 400 runs in that innings. But as a cricket lover rather than a mathematician, it's very difficult to get your head around the idea that taking 7-40 can significantly worsen your average.

2. It's also possible to be misled by the bowlers' averages in the last game alone. These need to be treated with extreme care. However if you bear in mind point 1 above, it becomes possible to digest them properly. Bowler A's average of 5.71 in that game was very poor (again, think of Bowler D averaging 57.1). What makes it worse is that not only did he concede a whopping 5.71 runs per wicket, but he did that 7 times over by taking 7 wickets. Bowler C, however, had an average that was positively disastrous - conceding 22 runs per wicket (think 220 runs per wicket) - but fortunately he only did that once because he only took one wicket.
 
Last edited:

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Thanks gents - I'm not going to go as far as to say I now understand but at least I can see the point ........................................................ sort of!
 

bagapath

International Captain
The figures are deliberately designed to trick cricket lovers. ....although he took 7 wickets, haemorrhaged 40 runs, which in the context of his season is masses. ....it's very difficult to get your head around the idea that taking 7-40 can significantly worsen your average.
:thumbup1:
 

Hambledon Harry

Cricket Spectator
I wouldn't claim to understand it well enough to explain it, but it works because each bowlers share of the pools wickets remains identical to his share of the pools runs, though crucially the shares of the pool are no longer equal.

What happens the week after when the bloke who takes 7fer has to buy another jug is described in the famous "barstool economics" parable used to discuss tax policies ;)

And there is a "real world" cricket effect - you see this situation with Net Run Rate calculations sometimes - particularly in ICC comps with minnows in. And in our own now killed off FPT - if you had a match rained off against someone you would expect to beat (Ireland, say, sorry Worcester) you not only miss out on the point, but also suffer that everyone else benefits in the net run rate calcualtion from hammering them. You can see this in the example if you now remove one of the earlier better performances from each, say 3 for 6... now the averages diverge, as you would expect.

Not sure if that helps!
 

thierry henry

International Coach
I don't know if this is so obvious that it isn't worth mentioning, but.....

With 1-22 and 2-25, the latter has one extra wicket and 3 extra runs, so an average of 3 per extra wicket

With 2-25 and 7-40, the latter has 5 extra wickets and 15 extra runs, so an average of 3 per extra wicket

So basically, in order for any of the 3 players' average to "blow out" from 2.17 to 3, they would have to take 1-22. At this point Bowler A has stopped bowling with his total average at 3, whereas the other two have continued on taking a wicket for each 3 runs.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
To make the same point in a more realistic example, let's say 3 bowlers had taken 19 wickets each for 361 at an average of 19.

Next week bowler A takes 1-39, bowler B takes 2-59, and bowler C takes 7-159. They all end up with the same average of 20.

It's simply a case that bowler A has allowed his average to increase to 20 by doing substantially worse than normal, but has then ended his spell. The other two might have also allowed their averages to increase to 20, but have then started to take each additional wicket for the cost of a further 20 runs.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Yes, and this is why even though average is effectively a combination of ER and S/R, it does make sense to pay attention to the two separately as well.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
This is beginning to really infuriate me and I am not smart enough to work it out

A, B and C play for the same club – they all come to the final game of the season having taken 23 wickets for 50 so an average of 2.17

In that last game A takes 7-40 (ave 5.71), B 2-25 (ave 12.50) and C 1-22 (ave 22.00) so obviously A must end up with the best bowling average for the season, or so I would have thought, but in fact

A has 30 for 90
B has 25 for 75
C has 24 for 72

So all still have the same average of 3.00!!!!!

If someone can explain the mathematical principles to me, preferably in words of no more than two syllables, I would be a lot happier, and the person who told me this last week, and then confessed he couldn't explain it, would be able to walk past my office again without fear of being struck by flying objects
Here is something that might help: Game is not a unit of time, wicket is a unit of time.

Here is a chart of the three bowlers. In essence, what has happened is that bowler A is getting worse, but at a very slow rate. Bowler B is getting worse, but at a much faster rate. Bowler C just completely went from Malcom Marshall to Mohammad Sami in one innings. So while the average is the same, Bowler B and Bowler C haven't had as much time as bowler A, otherwise their averages would be much worse.

Basically, all three are getting worse, and obviously all three will have an average higher than 3.00 at some point if they keep going at this rate. However (and this seems obvious), they all have to 'cross' 3.00 to get above 3.00. The difference is that bowler A will take the longest to cross 3.00 while B will get to 3.00 and above faster, and C will get to 3.00 the fastest. So it's not a matter of all of them having 3.00 average, it's a matter of them all going past 3.00 at varying rates. What the scenario did was to simply give the wickets it takes for them to get past that number, but that we already knew. You can't average 4 from 2, without averaging 3 in between (well you can, if one wicket takes you there, but you still 'crossed' that number at some point during the innings).

The graph below shows how long it took them to get to that 3.00. Yes, it was one game, but think of time in terms of number of wickets. A 'game' is an arbitrary notion when it comes to averages. The idea of number of games played does not factor into what your average is. Only total runs and total wickets do, so your co-worker gave you a cutoff point which was fake, and did not say anything about the nature of their averages. If we look at a moving average in terms of wickets as a unit of time, you get the graph below, and you can see how all 3 got there at different 'times'.



Remember, we are effectively using wickets as a unit of time, so for proper comparison, that needs to be standardized. If we extrapolate their averages to 30 wickets, here is what the graph would look like, and as you can see, bowler A is miles better at that point. He has more than twice better average than C.



I hope this was beneficial :).
 
Last edited:

Shri

Mr. Glass
Here is something that might help: Game is not a unit of time, wicket is a unit of time.

Here is a chart of the three bowlers. In essese, what has happened is that bowler A is getting worse, but at a very slow rate. Bowler B is getting worse, but at a much faster rate. Bowler C just completely went from Malcom Marshall to Mohammad Sami in one innings. So while the average is the same, Bowler B and Bowler C hasn't had as much time as bowler A, otherwise their averages would be much worse.

Basically, all three are getting worse, and obviously all three will have an average higher than 3.00 at some point if they keep going at this rate. However (and this seems obvious), they all have to 'cross' 3.00 to get above 3.00. The difference is that bowler A will take the longest to cross 3.00 while B will get to 3.00 and above faster, and C will get to 3.00 the fastest. So it's not a matter of all of them having 3.00 average, it's a matter of them all going past 3.00 at varying rates. What the scenario did was to simply give the wickets it takes for them to get past that number, but that we already knew. You can't average 4 from 2, without averaging 3 in between (well you can, if one wicket takes you there, but you still 'crossed' that number at some point during the innings).

The graph below shows how long it took them to get to that 3.00. Yes, it was one game, but think of time in terms of number of wickets. A 'game' is an arbitrary notion when it comes to averages. The idea of number of games played does not factor into what your average is. Only total runs and total wickets do, so your co-worker gave you a cutoff point which was fake, and did not say anything about the nature of their averages. If we look at a moving average in terms of wickets as a unit of time, you get the graph below, and you can see how all 3 got there at different 'times'.



Remember, we are effectively using wickets as a unit of time, so for proper comparison, that needs to be standardized. If we extrapolate their averages to 30 wickets, here is what the graph would look like, and as you can see, bowler A is miles better at that point. He has more than twice better average than C.



I hope this was beneficial :).
What do you really think?:ph34r:
 

Dissector

International Debutant
Thierry Henry pretty much captures the basic idea but another example should help clarify the concept.

Suppose there are three batsmen all with the same average just before the end of their careers. Let's say it's the same average Bradman had before his last innings.

A has just one innings left. He needs 4 runs to average 100 like Bradman. (averaging 4 over that one innings)
B has two innings left. He will need 104 runs . (average 52 over those two innings)
C has three innings left. He will need 204. (average 68 over those three innings)

All three batsmen start off with the same average and end up averaging 100 but have different averages in their remaining careers. This is because these are of different length so those who play longer have to do more to maintain that 100 average. Same with the bowling where those who bowl more have to do more to maintain that average.
 

Hambledon Harry

Cricket Spectator
I can see how these numbers "infuriated" you.

They have me also now for a while.

But there is something interesting about them.

If you recast them as run rates, they are EXACTLY how rain adjusted targets were arrived at in England in the early days.

A team who'd made 50 off 23 overs, chasing a target made at 3 rpo, would have its new target derived exactly as here, ie if there were now only 30 overs available they'd need 40 more, to make their average run rate 3.

Even the run rate figures aren't absurd - the first Gillette Cup final in 1963 saw Sussex make 168ao in 60 of 65 overs, and bowl Worcs out for 154 in 63 overs, so had rain stopped play almost exactly these calculations would have been made.

And of course, the 22 off 1 reminds us of that 1992 semi-final where SA's target changed from 22 off 13 to 22 off 1 when rain stopped play (a very slightly different adjustment was used, Aus eliminated the "worst" overs from the target). Of course everyone remembers this as a game we won by allowing the rules to benefit us - Gooch even apologised! - but what isn't said is that England only got 45 of their 50 overs because Saffer bowled their overs Soooooo Slowly, so we were denied the last five overs of our innings with Reeve and Lewis in and going strong.

Checking that out led me to the scorecard for Zim V SL in the '92 World Cup - a match deemed so dull in prospect they didn't even bother to televise it. Zim made 312/4 off 50 (A Flower 115*) - which SL chased down with 4 balls to spare, Ranatunga 88* (thats Ranatunga, not Ramanujan ;) , a proper mathematician who would probably do a better job than Messrs Duckworth and Lewis )
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
in order for any of the 3 players' average to "blow out" from 2.17 to 3, they would have to take 1-22. At this point Bowler A has stopped bowling with his total average at 3, whereas the other two have continued on taking a wicket for each 3 runs.
Beautifully done.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
Beautifully done.
Thanks :)

Funny cos Maths was my worst subject in late high-school, but during primary school I was regarded as something of a Math prodigy. Have always had a weird gift for adding/subtracting etc (and recently discovered I can quickly memorize a string of numbers longer than anyone else I've come across) but suck at "real" math :huh:
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Yea, I know how you feel. One of the things I regret is not being better at math. I'm pretty good I think, but I've met true math prodigies - and I'm insanely jealous of them.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Thanks :)

Funny cos Maths was my worst subject in late high-school, but during primary school I was regarded as something of a Math prodigy. Have always had a weird gift for adding/subtracting etc (and recently discovered I can quickly memorize a string of numbers longer than anyone else I've come across) but suck at "real" math :huh:
Haha yeah was the same, around 14 years old I was in the top 100 of NZ in a Maths competition.

Currently I am doing a degree in English literature. :ph34r:
 

Top