Basic questions

[SillyCowCorner1]

You have been watching a lot of cricket lately.

Keep it up!

 

[rodk]

You have been watching a lot of cricket lately.

Keep it up!

Yes. I don't like the NFL and ice hockey and basketball are too early in the season to matter. Plus our cable company just activated the cricket channel Willow for me at no cost, and it is interesting to watch a live game during the overnight period rather than just highlights and reruns on SportsCenter.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Yes. I don't like the NFL and ice hockey and basketball are too early in the season to matter. Plus our cable company just activated the cricket channel Willow for me at no cost, and it is interesting to watch a live game during the overnight period rather than just highlights and reruns on SportsCenter.

Where do you live? What time zone? Which state?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Would love if you would contribute in other threads. Just read and ask questions. You'll learn faster.

Check out the "Front foot no balls" thread

 

[TheJediBrah]

But maximizing the runs is the goal, short of situations where a team is trying to force a draw. I get it that there may be other situations where A doesn't want B to hit at all, and thus gets into stalls, but if they can get a huge score the way T10 teams can, why wouldn't they do that instead of playing a game of keep away? Why wouldn't teams push as hard as they can in the last innings if they can score prodigiously?

I think you're deliberately being obtuse. If maximising runs is the goal, why would you score 140 runs in 60 balls when you can score 300 runs in 600 balls? That would just be dumb.

And as someone mentioned, not every game of cricket is in the same conditions, with the same sized grounds. The T10 games you are referring to are on very small grounds with very flat pitches and are not representative of your average Test match conditions.

 

[Dan]

Game fundamentally changes when you limit overs too -- the shorter the match, the greater importance on balls remaining as a resource (compared to wickets).

If wickets don't matter, you maximise runs scored per ball (i.e. slogging and not caring if you get out). If balls don't matter, you maximise runs scored per wicket (i.e. striking a balance between scoring and defending your wicket)

 

[stephen]

Nope. Already looked it up.



Maybe they should play blitz chess. If you didn't follow it, the championship last week went to blitz game tie breakers after the 12 scheduled matches all ended drawn, satisfying no one.

And it is a bad example. Chess isn't different because it is 25 minutes, just more prone to errors because of the accelerated pace. Cricket's pace doesn't accelerate in the shorter versions. It isn't less contemplative. The rules don't differ other than for the length. I get the idea that the pitch is set up differently for t20 and that will increase scoring. I get that a more worn out ball will move differently and that will decrease scoring. I get it that there are fewer power plays relative to the length of the contest and that suppresses scoring. What I'm not getting is why 5 day cricket does not see batsmen trying for the bleachers on a regular basis, as seen in t10 and t20. I get it that being too aggressive means that you risk losing wickets, but being passive means depriving yourself of runs, IMHO.

As for whomever asserted that the ovals are smaller, I did see that the t10 title match was played in a venue with a relatively short diameter of 145 meters. But the batsmen were putting shots into the audience. Those sixes seemed like sixes anywhere. Plus the venue is where lots of ODI's are played. If it was all wrong to play there, they wouldn't, would they?

Also, it sounds logical that the t10 scoring is going to be against better quality bowling. In that format, a team doesn't need everyone to be able to bat and bowl well; they can load up on specialists. If the 20% rule applies, then all the specialists are going to be fresh when it is there turn to bowl. Yet they seem to be getting pounded.

Say you try and smack the same ball on the same length at the same speed in a test match as one you hit in an ODI/t20. You have a 5% chance of miss hitting the ball by an inch which reduces a 90m hit to a 60m hit. That 60m hit will get you out instead of a 6.

That shot has an expected value of .95*6= 5.7 runs. Given you on average have 60 balls left and you expect to face 30 of them, on average you're reducing your expected number of balls faced by 1.5 balls, which on average will get you maybe 3 runs. So the payoff is worth it.

In a test the shot is not worth it. Because you might instead hit the same ball for 2 runs but with a risk of 0.5% on the lesser shot. You're scoring slower but your expected total score is higher because your chance of dismissal is so much lower.

These percentages are probably very low compared to actual numbers.

The other thing to consider is that against the same ball on the same length at the same speed a red ball may move an extra inch which turns the percentage chance of getting out trying to hit the 6 up to 30%. So the same shot is riskier.

 

[mr_mister]

Hetmyer is proving lately that you may as well treat tests like LO matches when batting sometimes and it can be beneficial

 

[weldone]

Hetmyer is proving lately that you may as well treat tests like LO matches when batting sometimes and it can be beneficial

Viv, Sehwag, Warner and even McCullum did that way before Hetmyer - but still for all 5 of them overall test match SR was way below ODI SR.

 

[mr_mister]

It's not so much his strike rate it's the way he batted. 9 sixes and 1 four in his 93, so many aerial risks taken lol.

Besides its becoming tradition now for WI batsmen in one dayers to be terrible at hitting singles. They soak up dot balls before going for a massive six shot and their strike rate ends up pretty meh despite a highlights package making it seem like its raining sixes

 

[Spark]

And it is a bad example. Chess isn't different because it is 25 minutes, just more prone to errors because of the accelerated pace. Cricket's pace doesn't accelerate in the shorter versions. It isn't less contemplative. The rules don't differ other than for the length. I get the idea that the pitch is set up differently for t20 and that will increase scoring. I get that a more worn out ball will move differently and that will decrease scoring. I get it that there are fewer power plays relative to the length of the contest and that suppresses scoring. What I'm not getting is why 5 day cricket does not see batsmen trying for the bleachers on a regular basis, as seen in t10 and t20. I get it that being too aggressive means that you risk losing wickets, but being passive means depriving yourself of runs, IMHO.

This is a horrible analogy. The amount of time you have to play in cricket is exactly fixed; in chess of any sort - but particularly classical time controls - there is a constant trade-off required between the depth to which you can mentally analyse and calculate a position and the amount of time you burn while doing so. This would only hold up in a cricket sense if teams could elect to "use", say, multiple balls at once in exchange for a multiplier on any runs scored off that ball. Which would be very interesting, but would be a fundamentally different sport.

Also IMHO the blitz games were the unsatisfying part, not the fact that all 12 classical matches were drawn. Should be 24 like the old days.

You're also forgetting the very severe fielding and bowling restrictions in LO cricket compared to 4- or 5-day cricket.

 

[andmark]

Also IMHO the blitz games were the unsatisfying part, not the fact that all 12 classical matches were drawn. Should be 24 like the old days.

It wouldn't have surprised me if they drew the extra 12 games though. Was so turgid.

 

[rodk]

Hetmyer is proving lately that you may as well treat tests like LO matches when batting sometimes and it can be beneficial

It's not so much his strike rate it's the way he batted. 9 sixes and 1 four in his 93, so many aerial risks taken lol.

Besides its becoming tradition now for WI batsmen in one dayers to be terrible at hitting singles. They soak up dot balls before going for a massive six shot and their strike rate ends up pretty meh despite a highlights package making it seem like its raining sixes

As it happens, I saw the Hetmyer appearance overnight, and it was in a test match against Bangladesh, not a limited contest. He was just cranking the ball past the ropes, throwing caution to the wind (sorry about bad pun).

I get it that his side was way, way behind, which probably means that the bowling strategy doesn't require anyone to really try to get him out, but instead to just survive his appearance while hoping he gets himself out, as happened on the 99th bowl to him. I get it that the opponent may not be using its best bowlers against him in a one sided game for any number of plausible reasons.

But if a team has guys who can smack the ball around the lot like that, it seems to me they ought to take advantage of that because it is these guys who are winning and losing the contest anyway. To reel them in and make them play super conservatively and defensively, IMHO, is to play with one hand tied behind your back.

As for the comments regarding expected values, I know I'm not agreeing with his math. Increasing the expected value of runs scored per batsman does not necessarily equate to increasing the expected value of runs scored per game. What the commenter missed is the further relevant discussion of standard deviation and the various types of statistical distributions.

But even if I did, I watched sufficiently over the past few days to see that batting very conservatively and defensively really doesn't improve anyone's chance of not getting himself out versus being aggressive. I've seen hitters with historic records for good and bad mi**** balls, miss them entirely, and go LBW trying to avoid a mi****. I've seen hitters get themselves out being cutesy by trying to flick a ball here or there into an open spot. Overnight I saw a Pakistan leadoff batsman go on a tip in the second over, after the first one ended in a maiden. And his team lost a second batsman in the third or maybe fourth over on two runs. His team could not have been batting more defensively, and there it was already desperate 10 minutes into their turn to hit.

So much for expected value.

One other thing about the math of cricket. TV announcers and posters on this forum sometimes seem impressed by Strike Rate and Economy. Me, not so much. These are essentially the same thing, just flipped over. In each case, it is supposed to meter the effectiveness of the batting.

But as all of you have noted, scoring runs seems like it is not the end all. Aside from the occasions when teams are playing defense by offense to force a draw, it seems like teams are, from time to time, tipping and tapping for the ulterior motive of waiting for something real good to happen later. IMHO, that is a dubious strategy but if it is entertaining to fans, so be it. But what these numbers don't tell you is if a player is good or weak at what he does or is attempting; that remains subject to the eyeball test.

They also don't tell you much about how the game is going. A comparable metric of quality in the NFL is the average amount of yardage gained each time a player took the ball. But an NFL quarterback may have a statistical average of zero yards per carry, a factoid that masks the fact that he kneeled down three times at the end of the game to with the aim to run out the clock. Basketball has a metric of shooting percentage -- the number of shots made divided by the number taken. This number is a subset of a second stat called "efficiency" which is the number of possessions ending in scores divided by the number of possessions total (not all possessions end in shots). Sometimes missing shots is not too bad; the strategy of taking shots from far away (for more value) can have the side effect of spreading the defense out, leaving other shots available and makeable. But being inefficient is always not a good sign.

Other sports are developing more sophisticated metrics to figure out if a player is useful or worth the money.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties; the stats are only there for the ride.

 

[weldone]

But if a team has guys who can smack the ball around the lot like that, it seems to me they ought to take advantage of that because it is these guys who are winning and losing the contest anyway. To reel them in and make them play super conservatively and defensively, IMHO, is to play with one hand tied behind your back.

Why don't you watch the game for 27 years before posting clueless advice like this one?

Other sports are developing more sophisticated metrics to figure out if a player is useful or worth the money.

I have been part of International Mathsport Conference and I can assure you cricket is ahead of most other sports in this respect. You have no clue how cricket stats work - so just talking out of your arse. If you want to learn through 'basic questions' learn a bit of humility first - because you don't know **** about cricket.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Owned...

 

[rodk]

Why don't you watch the game for 27 years before posting clueless advice like this one?

Interesting how trolls complain about opinions without isolating a single fact in support of their own.

I have been part of International Mathsport Conference and I can assure you cricket is ahead of most other sports in this respect. You have no clue how cricket stats work - so just talking out of your arse. If you want to learn through 'basic questions' learn a bit of humility first - because you don't know **** about cricket.

Interesting concept. The Yankees have 20 people in its analytical department. That leaves them tied with the Dodgers. https://www.yardbarker.com/mlb/arti...endous_analytics_department/s1_13237_27420533 The deal with results like https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/yelicch01-bat.shtml which add up to 40 and 50 columns in a spreadsheet. How many people in all of cricket are there figuring out runs against replacement (how much better player X is than the standardized non-roster player who would replace him if he left the team) or how he is doing against left-handed pitching indoors or the number of revolutions per minute occur on his fastball vs his curve vs his splitter vs his slider. I'm guessing it isn't a lot.

Also a team like the NFL Giants have about 20 coaches for 53 players for 16 games. They spend entire weeks breaking down video of prior games, studying practices, and creating detailed playbooks of 1000 pages that are regularly updated and regular game plans. Does cricket even have coaches?

 

[Spark]

It wouldn't have surprised me if they drew the extra 12 games though. Was so turgid.

Nah all the Shveshnikov games were very interesting imo.

 

[Spark]

Interesting how trolls complain about opinions without isolating a single fact in support of their own.



Interesting concept. The Yankees have 20 people in its analytical department. That leaves them tied with the Dodgers. https://www.yardbarker.com/mlb/arti...endous_analytics_department/s1_13237_27420533 The deal with results like https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/yelicch01-bat.shtml which add up to 40 and 50 columns in a spreadsheet. How many people in all of cricket are there figuring out runs against replacement (how much better player X is than the standardized non-roster player who would replace him if he left the team) or how he is doing against left-handed pitching indoors or the number of revolutions per minute occur on his fastball vs his curve vs his splitter vs his slider. I'm guessing it isn't a lot.

Also a team like the NFL Giants have about 20 coaches for 53 players for 16 games. They spend entire weeks breaking down video of prior games, studying practices, and creating detailed playbooks of 1000 pages that are regularly updated and regular game plans. Does cricket even have coaches?

This sort of thing has been part of mainstream cricket TV broadcasts for my entire life, let alone behind the scenes. People like CricViz do even more sophisticated work and I believe the teams themselves have enormously in-depth video analysis. England are especially famous for it.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

rodk, what do you mean by 'do cricket even have coaches?'

Every sport doesn't have to be like American sports. You're obviously coming into a sport like cricket with lots of bias, it's like you don't even wanna learn about the game. Instead, you keep on bringing american sports in the frame.

How are you gonna learn about the sport with out having an open mind about it?


There are batting coaches, bowling coaches, fielding coaches. Sports psychologists.

Every sport is unique in their own way. Kinda like the way MLB daub their balls with mud sourced from the banks of the Delaware river