Richard's First Chance Average theory

[Prince EWS]

I have problems with FCA though as it assumes a hypothetical scenario, but then treats the rest of the match plays out as if that scenario had never happened. For instance, if a guy is dropped on 5 and goes on to make a big hundred (say 150 out of 350), then in his second innings he would likely to come out and bat in completely different circumstances to what he would've encountered if he'd been dismissed on 5. I guess it's not a big deal for drops that occur in the second innings of a match, but it does muddy things.

This is no more of a flaw than what it exists in actual averages though. Players come out to bat in completely different situations all the time.

 

[GIMH]

I think the bigger problem people had was that it devalued any runs scored after the drop.

I mean it wouldn't be 'First Chance Average' otherwise but there is surely more merit in runs/chances, than chance=end.

 

[Bahnz]

That's not really what I meant, but it's too late at night for me to try and clarify what I'm saying.

I will say that I think FCA would be kinda useless except in very small sample sizes. Batsmen who offer more chances will tend to be dismissed more often in the long run, and so will tend to have lower averages. It may be somewhat useful where a batsman/bowler has only played a handful of games, or where they've benefitted from a number of chances during a particular series. But over the course of a player's career, I tend to think that the number of let-offs that a batsman gets would be pretty uniform (at least respective to his contemporaries - fielding standards have generally risen over time). Might be more useful for bowlers that bowl for **** fielding sides like Pakistan. But then I'm not sure how a bowler FCA would work.

 

[Furball]

My 2 biggest gripes with it as a 'stat' is 1) it's not very fair to batsmen wrongly given out (admittedly less of these days with DRS) and 2) it is a statistic that has absolutely zero context or meaning behind it. It was conceived by Richard purely as a means of rubbishing batsmen he didn't like and didn't rate (in this case Trescothick). It was meant to show how 'lucky' a batsman was when it reality it does no such thing. To use an extreme example, a batsman who gets dropped on 0 who then nicks his very next ball to a different fielder (Michael Clarke instead of Shane Watson for example) and gets dismissed has a score book average and First Chance average of 0. Whereas if he goes on to score a faultless 200 without offering any further chances, then his averages respectively are 200 and 0. But that doesn't go any way at all to quantifying luck.

It also doesn't take things like a batsman really going after the bowling and getting an edge that goes at such a speed where the fielder's actually doing really well just to get a hand on it; by attacking the bowling rather than just neekly prodding at the ball the batsman in that scenario is creating his own luck and deserves to benefit from it.

 

[Pratters]

Should apply to bowlers too. I was thinking about it a week or so earlier. Wasim Akram must have had much more dropped catches in his career, compared to a say a McGrath.

 

[Furball]

That's not really what I meant, but it's too late at night for me to try and clarify what I'm saying.

I will say that I think FCA would be kinda useless except in very small sample sizes. Batsmen who offer more chances will tend to be dismissed more often in the long run, and so will tend to have lower averages. It may be somewhat useful where a batsman/bowler has only played a handful of games, or where they've benefitted from a number of chances during a particular series. But over the course of a player's career, I tend to think that the number of let-offs that a batsman gets would be pretty uniform (at least respective to his contemporaries - fielding standards have generally risen over time). Might be more useful for bowlers that bowl for **** fielding sides like Pakistan. But then I'm not sure how a bowler FCA would work.

Again though, if you bowl in a dreadful fielding side then you're creating your own bad luck as a bowler if you're bowling for nicks that get clanged by whatever Akmal is wearing the gloves. In that scenario the bowler should be attacking the stumps for bowled/lbws.

 

[Prince EWS]

1) it's not very fair to batsmen wrongly given out

I believe he actually credited batsmen with a not out in these cases.

 

[GIMH]

He certainly did. He cited Strauss in the 06-07 Ashes as having a scorebook average lower than his FCA

He also, however, applied it to batsmen who were dismissed run out through the fault of their partner. Which of course never opens up shades of grey

 

[Howe_zat]

Of the many problems, the biggest is that - if I've understood it correctly - it ignores any and all events after the first chance given in an innings. Why, for what is a data-gathering exercise, would you omit the majority of an innings from the records completely?

Someone who offers an edge on 0 and then makes 300 has clearly played better than someone who offers a chance on 0, makes 3 and then gets out. But according to FCA they played just as well as each other.

~

Actually, on second thoughts that's not the biggest problem, it's just the most fixable problem. The biggest problem is that cricket is about making the most of the chances you're given at a quite fundamental level. Being out 'if only the fielder had held on to it' is essentially equivalent to being out 'if only it was hitting the stumps on hawkeye', for example. One's fielder error and one's bowler error, is all.

The batsman can't do anything to ensure the fielder drops it, sure, but he can't do anything to make the bowler give him a loosener outside leg stump either. His job is pretty much just making the most out of both.

 

[fredfertang]

I believe he actually credited batsmen with a not out in these cases.

He certainly did. He cited Strauss in the 06-07 Ashes as having a scorebook average lower than his FCA

He also, however, applied it to batsmen who were dismissed run out through the fault of their partner. Which of course never opens up shades of grey

**** me I didn't realise that

 

[Howe_zat]

uh uh. If you really want to assess a batsman and give him his worth, you would want proper deliveries bowled (which can vary from person to person).

If a proper delivery is not bowled, the batsmen will score far more runs wont he.

He would score far less runs. Far more poorer deliveries which you are saying - means far more runs.

Your theory of first chance averages to assess a player's performance can never hold good. Because there are so many variables in cricket. We cannot just discount them.

As I said, its a sport played by humans. Humans are not perfect and so we will see two sets of teams competing against each other and how much a player makes on a particular day will vary always.

Next you will say the wicket is not valid as it was played in a deterioting pitch and had it not been for an imperfect pitch (like an imperfect fielder who dropped the catch) he would not have taken the wicket.

I reckon Pratters was pretty on point here.

 

[Daemon]

Of the many problems, the biggest is that - if I've understood it correctly - it ignores any and all events after the first chance given in an innings. Why, for what is a data-gathering exercise, would you omit the majority of an innings from the records completely?

Someone who offers an edge on 0 and then makes 300 has clearly played better than someone who offers a chance on 0, makes 3 and then gets out. But according to FCA they played just as well as each other.

haha, that's ridiculous

 

[GIMH]

Of the many problems, the biggest is that - if I've understood it correctly - it ignores any and all events after the first chance given in an innings. Why, for what is a data-gathering exercise, would you omit the majority of an innings from the records completely?

Someone who offers an edge on 0 and then makes 300 has clearly played better than someone who offers a chance on 0, makes 3 and then gets out. But according to FCA they played just as well as each other.

~

Actually, on second thoughts that's not the biggest problem, it's just the most fixable problem. The biggest problem is that cricket is about making the most of the chances you're given at a quite fundamental level. Being out 'if only the fielder had held on to it' is essentially equivalent to being out 'if only it was hitting the stumps on hawkeye', for example. One's fielder error and one's bowler error, is all.

The batsman can't do anything to ensure the fielder drops it, sure, but he can't do anything to make the bowler give him a loosener outside leg stump either. His job is pretty much just making the most out of both.

Yeah this is why I'd always see more merit in runs/chances+outs, despite the many flaws that still exist

 

[cnerd123]

Chances aren't uniform either. Some are easier than others. I like the example of Gilchrist hitting hard in the air because he expects that, even were a fielder to get a hand to it, it would be really hard to stick on. He's weighed up the risks and played the shot accordingly. It's different to a batsman poking tamely to a loosener outside off, or chipping the ball to an infielder.

 

[Daemon]

yeah agree with what howe and pratters mentioned.

i mean, if you want to go down that route you should also discount all the absolute screamers because the average fielder wouldn't have caught the ball. the batsmen did nothing different in either case.

 

[GIMH]

Chances aren't uniform either. Some are easier than others. I like the example of Gilchrist hitting hard in the air because he expects that, even were a fielder to get a hand to it, it would be really hard to stick on. He's weighed up the risks and played the shot accordingly. It's different to a batsman poking tamely to a loosener outside off, or chipping the ball to an infielder.

Haha Richard had that debate with many, many people

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Did this thread make the book?

 

[Debris]

Chances aren't uniform either. Some are easier than others. I like the example of Gilchrist hitting hard in the air because he expects that, even were a fielder to get a hand to it, it would be really hard to stick on. He's weighed up the risks and played the shot accordingly. It's different to a batsman poking tamely to a loosener outside off, or chipping the ball to an infielder.

The way you bat probably also has an effect on the fieldsman's mindset. We have all seen fieldsmen drop chances purely because they were not expecting a catch to come to them.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

The way you bat probably also has an effect on the fieldsman's mindset. We have all seen fieldsmen drop chances purely because they were not expecting a catch to come to them.

indeed. It's often mentioned how Williamson's uncanny tendency to be dropped in the field is almost certainly a product of his demeanor and batting style, rather than plain luck.

 

[silentstriker]

ESPNcricinfo Superstats launched, will add 'layer of quality and value' to traditional numbers | ESPNcricinfo.com


Sorry for resurrecting this fun topic from four years ago, but....we have the Luck Index now.