Botham vs Flintoff

[shankar]

Maybe 'misleading' was a wrong term to use - 'Incomplete' would be more appropriate. What I'm trying to say is that, If you tell me that player A fas a first-chance average of 35 over a particular period, then I cannot draw any inference on the batsman's quality based on that alone because it is not giving me the complete picture.

However, where it might be useful and conclusive is if 2 batsmen have similar scorebook averages over a period but one has a higher first-chance average than the other by a significant margin.

 

[Richard]

Might be?

 

[marc71178]

It exists, and it's not flawed.
As I've detailed to you about 50 times.

No, you have not.

The flaws highlighted cannot be swept under the carpet as they undermine the very concept of the number.

 

[marc71178]

Hmm, Richards and Kallis have the same amount of natural ability?

 

[badgerhair]

Maybe a better idea would be to take the actual average of the batsman and his first-chance average together and evaluate the batsman based on that.

I'm beginning to come to the view that the batsman's individual score isn't quite as important as how many runs get made while he's batting. Pietersen wouldn't have been able to win the game yesterday if Jon Lewis and the other tailenders had got themselves out, to take an extreme example - but look at the way in which WI have recovered to good totals because Chanderpaul has hung around forever or England have been indebted to Thorpe for shepherding the tail as well as his own runs.

As has been pointed out already, no average can ever capture the impact of particular performances, especially when we are talking about great all-rounders like Miller, Botham, Sobers or Flintoff who can take superb catches as well as produce whirlwind innings or crucial bowling spells (apologies to fans of Kallis, Imran and so on, but I don't recall them being regarded as major stars in the field as well as with ball or bat).

I can see the idea behind the first-chance average, and it would indeed help to identify those who are nervous starters, for whatever that's worth. To use it on its own would be pretty limiting, and would undermine its overall logic: to use it as an overall measure, you would have to compile the every-chance average. The basic problem with that is that the figures would end up so small in most cases that it wouldn't really give you much help unless you're prepared to go to the barricades over the difference between 14.87 and 15.04.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Might be?

Even in this case, it's not conclusive as to what the first chance average actually means. I wouldn't necessarily say that the player who gives more chances in making the same number of runs is any worse, it really depends on the circumstances. And if it's a choice between a player with a first chance average of 30 and a scorebook average of 40 and another with a first chance average of 20 and a scorebook average of 50... well it's no contest at all.

Also, as has already been pointed out to you many times, there is more than just luck that determines whether or not a batsman who miscues the ball in the air or whatever gets out. There's a reason why Dravid's edges often fall short of the slip cordon, and also a reason why Gilchrist's edges often fly over the top of it, and it's not because they were dipped in holy water at birth.

 

[shankar]

I can see the idea behind the first-chance average, and it would indeed help to identify those who are nervous starters, for whatever that's worth. To use it on its own would be pretty limiting, and would undermine its overall logic: to use it as an overall measure, you would have to compile the every-chance average. The basic problem with that is that the figures would end up so small in most cases that it wouldn't really give you much help unless you're prepared to go to the barricades over the difference between 14.87 and 15.04.

It's not just that the average would be too small. The 'every chance' average would be completely misleading because the batsman doesnt start after a chance as he would, a new innings. In some cases the batsman might go through a bad phase in his innings where he's luckily, dropped a few times and each of those little phases between the drops would be unfairly counted as equivalent to a fresh innings.

 

[shankar]

Might be?

Yes. Let's say A has a scorebook average of 50 and a first-chance one of 25 while B has 50 and 40. Now who is better?

 

[shankar]

Also, as has already been pointed out to you many times, there is more than just luck that determines whether or not a batsman who miscues the ball in the air or whatever gets out. There's a reason why Dravid's edges often fall short of the slip cordon, and also a reason why Gilchrist's edges often fly over the top of it, and it's not because they were dipped in holy water at birth.

I don't think this is much of a problem, really. If a ball lands short of a fielder or goes out of his reach, it's not counted as a chance.

 

[Smudge]

Is anybody else incredibly tired after reading this thread?

 

[badgerhair]

Yes. Let's say A has a scorebook average of 50 and a first-chance one of 25 while B has 50 and 40. Now who is better?

C.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

Let me guess, because his name is either Smith or Ramprakash?

 

[social]

Except that back-against-wall performances are pretty often exuded in averages - eg the Atherton 185*.
As for the difference between Kallis and Richards - they're several. Kallis has the superior attitude; Richards faced far superior bowling to that that Kallis has in the last 4 years; they were probably about equal in natural ability; their styles of play, however, are totally different.
But being from completely different eras we'll never, ever know which was the better player.
Because there are no statistics that provide reliable guides, and certainly in England Kallis, being a South African, will never achieve anything like Richards' popularity.

You'll find no greater admirer of Kallis than me.

However, to mention him in the same ball-park, suburb, vicinity, state, location, etc, etc, etc etc as IVA is nonsense.

 

[Richard]

No, you have not.

The flaws highlighted cannot be swept under the carpet as they undermine the very concept of the number.

The flaws highlighted have either been non-existent or have been no worse than the flaws in anything - because nothing is perfect, this amongst them.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, Richards and Kallis have the same amount of natural ability?

Well haven't they?
They're both blessed with a very fine eye and extremely good concentration.
Viv was just much more naturally aggressive and Kallis simply has a superior attitude to batting.

 

[Richard]

You'll find no greater admirer of Kallis than me.

However, to mention him in the same ball-park, suburb, vicinity, state, location, etc, etc, etc etc as IVA is nonsense.

Why?
Yes, Viv is undoubtedly a better player as things stand, but if Kallis got the chance to face bowling of the calibre Viv did it's not remotely inconceivable that he could be as good.

 

[Swervy]

Why?
Yes, Viv is undoubtedly a better player as things stand, but if Kallis got the chance to face bowling of the calibre Viv did it's not remotely inconceivable that he could be as good.

There is no 'could be's' about it...King Viv blows Kallis out of the park

 

[Richard]

I'm beginning to come to the view that the batsman's individual score isn't quite as important as how many runs get made while he's batting. Pietersen wouldn't have been able to win the game yesterday if Jon Lewis and the other tailenders had got themselves out, to take an extreme example - but look at the way in which WI have recovered to good totals because Chanderpaul has hung around forever or England have been indebted to Thorpe for shepherding the tail as well as his own runs.

As has been pointed out already, no average can ever capture the impact of particular performances, especially when we are talking about great all-rounders like Miller, Botham, Sobers or Flintoff who can take superb catches as well as produce whirlwind innings or crucial bowling spells (apologies to fans of Kallis, Imran and so on, but I don't recall them being regarded as major stars in the field as well as with ball or bat).

I can see the idea behind the first-chance average, and it would indeed help to identify those who are nervous starters, for whatever that's worth. To use it on its own would be pretty limiting, and would undermine its overall logic: to use it as an overall measure, you would have to compile the every-chance average. The basic problem with that is that the figures would end up so small in most cases that it wouldn't really give you much help unless you're prepared to go to the barricades over the difference between 14.87 and 15.04.

Cheers,

Mike

They wouldn't be anywhere near that small - they would, of course, be smaller than the scorebook average, but perfectly sizeable enough to be comparable.
With regards to Kallis - not one to take as many spectacular catches as Sobers, Botham, Flintoff etc. - but nor one to drop much.
Hands every bit as good, just not as athletic.

 

[Richard]

There is no 'could be's' about it...King Viv blows Kallis out of the park

No, he doesn't, he's just better (and Kallis is disadvantaged, particularly in England, being a South African) and mainly only because he's had the chance to face better bowling than Kallis has.
To say he blows him out of the park is the height of ridiculous exaggeration.

 

[Richard]

Even in this case, it's not conclusive as to what the first chance average actually means. I wouldn't necessarily say that the player who gives more chances in making the same number of runs is any worse, it really depends on the circumstances. And if it's a choice between a player with a first chance average of 30 and a scorebook average of 40 and another with a first chance average of 20 and a scorebook average of 50... well it's no contest at all.

Why not? I'd say the 30-40 is almost certainly a better player than the 20-50 one - the 20-50 one has just been luckier.
And of course it depends on the circumstances - any average always depends on the circumstances, and must be read as such.

Also, as has already been pointed out to you many times, there is more than just luck that determines whether or not a batsman who miscues the ball in the air or whatever gets out. There's a reason why Dravid's edges often fall short of the slip cordon, and also a reason why Gilchrist's edges often fly over the top of it, and it's not because they were dipped in holy water at birth.

And that's just the reason why batsmen shouldn't be discredited just because they've edged something - the chances of them being out can still be slim-to-zero.
All I've ever said is that this has precisely no effect on any chance-averages.