as I've said elsewhere - stats gathering & analysis without the proper controls is never going to be anything other than mumbo jumbo....
eg - some of the best have been caught out by not having a large enough survey group so far as being a reliable representation of the survey group - likewise they also need to be representative / applicable of your topic, but not exclusive to one side of the arguement of another..............
next you need to be able to deal with absolutes, or have a variety of options (i.e. yes / no, or 1 - 5 ratings are the common tools).........
your arguement / theory is always going to fall on it's sword regarding the interpretation of a chance because it is a subjective determination - you may eventually be in a position to make that determination for yourself in each & every instance (ie - view each 'chance'), and then your data will at least have some chance at some consistency - ie only 1 person making the determination that is central to your theory - however this will only be your determination which in turn can vary from anyone elses, let alone any inconsistencies in you own application..............
the only absolutes & facts are that the batsman was given out / not out for whatever score.........
your theory may better serve as an indicator regarding the batsman's style of play, & as such I'm certain that teams already use something similar in regard to a batsman's relative strengths & weaknesses - eg offers chances early in his innings to swing bowling, or whatever...........
anyway don't the rules state that any doubt must be given to the batsman - as such your theory can be seen as an attempt to eliminate that doubt (by disregarding any score after the 1st 'chance') and not in compliance to the rules or spirit of the game..............
eg - some of the best have been caught out by not having a large enough survey group so far as being a reliable representation of the survey group - likewise they also need to be representative / applicable of your topic, but not exclusive to one side of the arguement of another..............
next you need to be able to deal with absolutes, or have a variety of options (i.e. yes / no, or 1 - 5 ratings are the common tools).........
your arguement / theory is always going to fall on it's sword regarding the interpretation of a chance because it is a subjective determination - you may eventually be in a position to make that determination for yourself in each & every instance (ie - view each 'chance'), and then your data will at least have some chance at some consistency - ie only 1 person making the determination that is central to your theory - however this will only be your determination which in turn can vary from anyone elses, let alone any inconsistencies in you own application..............
the only absolutes & facts are that the batsman was given out / not out for whatever score.........
your theory may better serve as an indicator regarding the batsman's style of play, & as such I'm certain that teams already use something similar in regard to a batsman's relative strengths & weaknesses - eg offers chances early in his innings to swing bowling, or whatever...........
anyway don't the rules state that any doubt must be given to the batsman - as such your theory can be seen as an attempt to eliminate that doubt (by disregarding any score after the 1st 'chance') and not in compliance to the rules or spirit of the game..............
