How good a pair are Harmison and Flintoff ?

[marc71178]

Because the scorebook-average isn't what counts with Vaughan-the-opener, it's the first-chance one,

So we can't ever judge him then.

 

[Son Of Coco]

More tosh from Richard, I watched most of home series against India when Vaughan got some big scores (on some pretty batsmen-friendly wickets) which was really his breakthrough season and most of those big scores he got dropped or a bad decision in his favour 2-3 times. The thing that seems to be totally beyond your comprehension is that luck evens itself out over time.

yes it does, thank you very much!

As for this first chance, second chance average stuff Richard, what exactly are you taking into account? Is it every single time a batsman should have been out but wasn't? (i.e: LBW's, catches, run out's and so on) If a batsman skies it and a fielder loses it in the sun and gets no-where near it is it then a dropped/misses chance or does it not count?

 

[Tom Halsey]

"Match-winning performance" is a theoretical term - it would imply taking every wicket, bowled or caught-and-bowled, facing every ball and allowing no piece of fielding to be done by anyone else.

It means when the game was going away from your team, and then the player in question played very well and enabled his team to win the match.

 

[luckyeddie]

yes it does, thank you very much!

As for this first chance, second chance average stuff Richard, what exactly are you taking into account? Is it every single time a batsman should have been out but wasn't? (i.e: LBW's, catches, run out's and so on) If a batsman skies it and a fielder loses it in the sun and gets no-where near it is it then a dropped/misses chance or does it not count?

THAT'll be ignored for a start.

 

[Son Of Coco]

THAT'll be ignored for a start.

haha, NO, surely not!

 

[Richard]

Even when the period was broken down and it was showed how skewed it was by series like 2000 when the scoring was so low?

That wasn't skewed at all - it was a microcosm of the period as a whole.
The fact that Caddick was accurate, and was a huge threat whenever the wickets offered seam and\or uneven bounce, is reflected in this period's stats, as it is in the June 1999-May 2001 period.
Had the pitches which offered neither offered either, Caddick would probably have got good figures on them. But even with the poor figures on the wickets not suiting his style of bowling, his figures when the conditions did suit are so good as to more than cancel-out the bad ones.

 

[Richard]

It means when the game was going away from your team, and then the player in question played very well and enabled his team to win the match.

"Match-turning" is a better description.

 

[Richard]

As for this first chance, second chance average stuff Richard, what exactly are you taking into account? Is it every single time a batsman should have been out but wasn't? (i.e: LBW's, catches, run out's and so on) If a batsman skies it and a fielder loses it in the sun and gets no-where near it is it then a dropped/misses chance or does it not count?

No such thing as "second-chance" anything.
Every single time a batsman quite clearly should have been out his innings is counted only up to that point. It's not often hard to deduce when a wicket should have happened - in the instances where it is, normal rules apply - benefit-of-doubt to batsman.
And when an innings is clearly sawn-off incorrectly (eg poor lbw decision in bowler's favour) it's a not-out.

 

[Richard]

More tosh from Richard, I watched most of home series against India when Vaughan got some big scores (on some pretty batsmen-friendly wickets) which was really his breakthrough season and most of those big scores he got dropped or a bad decision in his favour 2-3 times. The thing that seems to be totally beyond your comprehension is that luck evens itself out over time.

Wrong again.
A common theory, but a very, very poor one, a generalisation hung-onto in attempts to dismiss luck from the equation and heap praise where none is deserved.
Luck doesn't even itself out at all - almost all batsmen get quite a bit more good luck than bad throughout a career, and as you'd expect it's about the same for more batsmen than not. About, not exactly. And some batsmen get far more luck than their peers. This is why a first-chance average is needed, to remove the skew that luck puts on scorebook-scores.

 

[a massive zebra]

Wrong again.
A common theory, but a very, very poor one, a generalisation hung-onto in attempts to dismiss luck from the equation and heap praise where none is deserved.
Luck doesn't even itself out at all - almost all batsmen get quite a bit more good luck than bad throughout a career, and as you'd expect it's about the same for more batsmen than not. About, not exactly. And some batsmen get far more luck than their peers. This is why a first-chance average is needed, to remove the skew that luck puts on scorebook-scores.

.... and for this very reason a certain Yorkshire player was known as David 'Lucky' Denton.

 

[marc71178]

That wasn't skewed at all - it was a microcosm of the period as a whole.

Erm, did you not read the figures I provided?

In 10 matches he had a total of 26 wickets @ 31.38
Thus in the other 13 he took 60 @ 20.52.

Now try saying that the 5 match series didn't skew things.

 

[tooextracool]

More tosh from Richard, I watched most of home series against India when Vaughan got some big scores (on some pretty batsmen-friendly wickets) which was really his breakthrough season and most of those big scores he got dropped or a bad decision in his favour 2-3 times. The thing that seems to be totally beyond your comprehension is that luck evens itself out over time.

you do realise that he was talking about the series away from home in 01 dont you? in india he didnt have any big scores while the one in england had vaughan opening the batting so you might actually be contradicting yourself here......

 

[Richard]

Erm, did you not read the figures I provided?

In 10 matches he had a total of 26 wickets @ 31.38
Thus in the other 13 he took 60 @ 20.52.

Now try saying that the 5 match series didn't skew things.

And I transformed those figures again, showing quite clearly the patterns they showed.
Of course, when you did them it was legitimate, as soon as I got my hands on them, it presumably became "twisting the figures"?

 

[Richard]

.... and for this very reason a certain Yorkshire player was known as David 'Lucky' Denton.

Er, yes, OK.
Never heard of that one.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No such thing as "second-chance" anything.
Every single time a batsman quite clearly should have been out his innings is counted only up to that point. It's not often hard to deduce when a wicket should have happened - in the instances where it is, normal rules apply - benefit-of-doubt to batsman.
And when an innings is clearly sawn-off incorrectly (eg poor lbw decision in bowler's favour) it's a not-out.

So...........how do you then estimate what the batsman would have made if he was given not out on the poor decision in the first place?

I hope you're not playing loose and fancy free with stats Richard!

Are edges over slips counted as out?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Wrong again.
A common theory, but a very, very poor one, a generalisation hung-onto in attempts to dismiss luck from the equation and heap praise where none is deserved.
Luck doesn't even itself out at all - almost all batsmen get quite a bit more good luck than bad throughout a career, and as you'd expect it's about the same for more batsmen than not. About, not exactly. And some batsmen get far more luck than their peers. This is why a first-chance average is needed, to remove the skew that luck puts on scorebook-scores.

If almost all batsmen get quite a bit more good luck that bad throughout a career then luck does even itself out. You're talking batsmen getting far more luck than their peers, but the players you've referred to as being lucky you've taken a period out of their careers to use as an example of when they apparently were 'the luckiest players on the planet'. If you're going to use statistics Richard one or two years out of a players 10-15 year career is not a big enough sample size to make any significant assumptions (neither is one or two games). In fact, given that 10-15 years is not a long period of time, and the fact that if you look hard enough you can probably find out what happened in every single innings, you'd really have to do that before you came up with any assumptions backed by so-called fact.

Therefore, saying players like McGrath and Pollock are lucky, or have been since 2001, does not take into account whether this does indeed even out over their 10 year careers (using luck in your opinion of course), and the same can be said for Gilchrist with an innings you've mentioned here or there. You also probably haven't ascertained whether the things you are using to measure 'luck' in this instance are actually valid measures.

I've got my doubts that you've sat down and watched every match they've played since you were 9, taking notes as you went as to how many times they've been dropped etc, so...........there's a bit of work to do.

THere's a lot of work ahead before the luck theory comes to fruition.

 

[luckyeddie]

And I transformed those figures again, showing quite clearly the patterns they showed.
Of course, when you did them it was legitimate, as soon as I got my hands on them, it presumably became "twisting the figures"?

Anybody who can come up with anything so clearly and demonstrably nonsensical and unworkable as a 'first-chance average', a concept clearly of interest to one person alone no matter how many times everyone else on here say they are bored to the **** with it, should not be allowed NEAR a calculator or a mathematical concept again.

 

[Swervy]

Anybody who can come up with anything so clearly and demonstrably nonsensical and unworkable as a 'first-chance average', a concept clearly of interest to one person alone no matter how many times everyone else on here say they are bored to the **** with it, should not be allowed NEAR a calculator or a mathematical concept again.

nothing more dangerous than someone who thinks they have a grasp of statistics when they dont understand the mechanisms behind the stats and the causes of the data produced.(when I say dangerous..i mean that very loosely)

 

[Richard]

Anybody who can come up with anything so clearly and demonstrably nonsensical and unworkable as a 'first-chance average', a concept clearly of interest to one person alone no matter how many times everyone else on here say they are bored to the **** with it, should not be allowed NEAR a calculator or a mathematical concept again.

Unworkable - how so?

 

[Richard]

nothing more dangerous than someone who thinks they have a grasp of statistics when they dont understand the mechanisms behind the stats and the causes of the data produced.(when I say dangerous..i mean that very loosely)

Except I do understand about should-be and shouldn't-be dismissals - far better than most, it seems, judging by this constant "half-chance" rubbish that is bandied-about so much.