2nd Test

A section to discuss matters not related to Chess in particular.
Paul Cooksey

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sun May 27, 2012 3:33 pm

I think batting figures show that things have changed, at least in the 21st century and perhaps a little earlier. Similarly there was a time when 40 was a world class average, now it is at least 10 higher.

A well know cricket site is phenomenal for records. The Americans do get sports stats. Trying to avoid spoilers:
David Robertson wrote:* who worldwide can claim the most Test 6s?
I knew this one :) I think it is a reasonably well know fact.
David Robertson wrote:* name the top 3 England 6-hitters of all time (as far as I can tell)
I guessed this one. But I'll be impressed by anyone who got the fourth off the top of their head
David Robertson wrote:* Pieterson, of the current England team, has the most Test 6s. But who lies comfortably 2nd? And which batsman has yet to hit one?
I got second, but only because I happened to see it during this series. The one without, the who isn't Bairstow I suppose :)

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Paul McKeown » Sun May 27, 2012 4:02 pm

428 all out. Hardly where England would have wanted to be at the start of the day. Lead of 58.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8806
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sun May 27, 2012 5:21 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:428 all out. Hardly where England would have wanted to be at the start of the day. Lead of 58.
They still have a lead though, even with 3 Windies wickets gone. I'm wondering how the current England performances will stack up against a team like South Africa.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun May 27, 2012 7:40 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
David Robertson wrote:* of centurions, four (Strauss (21), Pieterson (20), Cook (19) & Bell (16) ) feature in the top 14 on the all-time list. Even Bell has more Test 100s than Hobbs (15), May (13), Graveney (11), Dexter (9) from not that many more innings. Now I'm a great fan of Ian Bell (not least since I follow Warwickshire). But is he really, already, a greater Test batsman than those I've cited? Is Cook already as good as Hutton (their numbers are identical!)? Strauss, the equal of Wally Hammond in one 100's time? I suspect part of the answer lies, not in how many innings each played in a career to earn their tons, but in the greater number of Test innings now played in prime career.
I would have thought that there was also a greater disparity in strength amongst the teams today. In the prime of those you mention, only New Zealand could be regarded as relatively weak opposition. Nowadays Bangladesh, Zimbabwe (when competing), and several other countries at differing times, have been no match for the England side.
You can't answer the question of how good a batsman is without taking into account a whole heap of statistics.

The currency of cricket is runs. This leads you to batting average as an indicator of ability, which seems reasonable; the number of runs scored per out. Even then there are variables that affect how good a batsman is:
(1) Occupation of the crease. Is a quick hundred more valuable than a slow hundred? There are times when the team situation requires the player to bat for time (to save a draw), bat for balls (to see off a new ball), rather than to bat for runs. So to judge a batsman by how many runs he scores isn't always the correct way to judge him, because there are some occasions where he's not trying to score runs! Batting average is affected the player is not trying to score runs.
(2) Running between the wickets. A good batsman is one who doesn't give the other team wickets. I could score 100, but if I've run the rest of my team out, does that make me better than a guy who has scored 30, but not run his partner out? Batting average does not contain this information. My partner's batting average is affected, even if I'm the one guilty of running him out! (So a batsman is debited, even though he's done nothing wrong!)
(3) The match situation. If you need to score quickly to win a match, you're going to bat more recklessly than you would otherwise, you're more likely to get out. Statistics exist that show how runs conceded per over is inversely proportional to the runs per wicket. This will affect my batting average.
(4) The wicket. If Hobbs was playing on the proverbial pudding, Cook would score more runs if he was batting on a flat pitch.

So the question of who is a better batsman has many variables, none of which can be explained by any conventional statistics.

By contrast, baseball has a relatively simple approximation of finding the best hitter - there's a more complicated way!

In baseball there is one goal: Not to get out. If you don't get out, you will advance to first base (or beyond). After all, if your team always gets people on base, you'll score an infinite number of runs. So batting average doesn't work; you need on-base percentage since you can get to first base in any way you like, so long as you get there. (A walk or being hit by the pitch doesn't count towards batting average, but it does count towards on-base percentage.)

Getting beyond first base is controlled by a statistic called slugging percentage, which is Total Bases/Plate Appearances. The higher the slugging percentage, the better the hitter.

In other words, since the goal is always the same, you can tell how good a hitter by a function of his on-base percentage and his slugging percentage. Adding them up is the crude way, but some statisticians believe on-base percentage is three times more important in the function. I'll have to take their word for it.

Unfortunately, a relatively simple solution can't exist for cricket, because the goal differs depending on the situation.

Alistair Campbell
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:53 pm

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Alistair Campbell » Sun May 27, 2012 9:42 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:In baseball there is one goal: Not to get out. If you don't get out, you will advance to first base (or beyond). After all, if your team always gets people on base, you'll score an infinite number of runs.
Surely the goal of baseball is to score runs? So a team which gets every second batter on base may never score any runs, and lose to a team that hits one home run.

There may be little point in getting to first base if you force out the base runner already there. (Of course, such a play may not count as a hit in your stats).

Alternatively, it may be a good play to hit a "sac-fly" and score a run*. This tactic is recognised and won't count as an "at bat" (but will count as an RBI)

As in cricket, when you are at the plate there may have several choices - score a run, get a legitimate hit and advance some runners, or just get on base. There are stats (e.g. RBIs, H, OBP) to measure all these functions and hence plenty of scope for argument over who is the best batter.

* assuming the man on third is reminded by his base coach to tag up :evil:

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun May 27, 2012 10:03 pm

Alistair Campbell wrote:Surely the goal of baseball is to score runs? So a team which gets every second batter on base may never score any runs, and lose to a team that hits one home run.
If a hitter doesn't get out in baseball, he will score runs. He can't not score runs! If four consecutive hitters all get on base in such a way that the runners already on base can safely advance, then they will score a run. So a ground out to a fielder's choice doesn't count.

Home runs count in slugging percentage. Specifically, 4 bases and 1 plate appearance, for a slugging percentage of 4.00. (No, I don't know why slugging "percentage" is a number between 0 and 4...) I did say that a hitter's ability is a function of OBP and SLG, but some MLB statisticians believe OBP to be three times more important.
Alistair Campbell wrote:There may be little point in getting to first base if you force out the base runner already there. (Of course, such a play may not count as a hit in your stats).
A fielder's choice does not count as a hit, and thus counts negatively towards both OBP and AVG in equal measure. The AB and PA is recorded. (Using abbreviations here, because it sounds like you know what you're talking about. :wink: )
Alistair Campbell wrote:Alternatively, it may be a good play to hit a "sac-fly" and score a run*. This tactic is recognised and won't count as an "at bat" (but will count as an RBI)
A sacrifice fly isn't a good thing, because although it may score a run, it's still an out. This contributes negatively towards scoring additional runs.

I take the point where if in a tied game in the bottom of the 9th, 0 outs, runner at 3rd, a sac fly is good enough, but if you judge a hitter by his ability to create runs, scoring the run with a hit is a sign of a better hitter than scoring the run with a sac fly.

Sac flies don't affect AVG, but negatively effect OBP. So a player who has a hit and a sac fly will have an AVG of 1.000, but an OBP of 0.500.
Alistair Campbell wrote:As in cricket, when you are at the plate there may have several choices - score a run, get a legitimate hit and advance some runners, or just get on base. There are stats (e.g. RBIs, H, OBP) to measure all these functions and hence plenty of scope for argument over who is the best batter.
I think this is a fundamentally flawed argument about how to play baseball. When you are at the plate, the primary objective is simple: Don't get out! A team with an OBP of 1.000 never loses a game.

RBI is a meaningless statistic. Grounding into a fielder's choice can get you an RBI if a run scores. It depends on the number of players on base; if I'm a hitter, and no one is on base, I can't score an RBI no matter what I do. Who is the better hitter? A guy grounding into a fielder's choice, or a guy getting a hit who hasn't scored an RBI because he came to the plate with the bases empty?

David Robertson

Re: 2nd Test

Post by David Robertson » Sun May 27, 2012 10:11 pm

I wasn't anticipating a debate on the metrics when raising the question of, say, Bell v. Cowdrey or Graveney or May. Precisely because the cricket metrics indicate that the current crop of English batsmen are 'better' than players of an earlier era, my query implied a scepticism. Whenever I've discussed the merits of players from different eras - and clearly it helps to have seen them - the debate turns more often on qualitative than quantitative judgements. So compare the cover drives of Cowdrey and Bell; the off-drives of May and Trescothick, of Gower and Cook. Like connoisseurship and the assessment of fine wine, the fun lies in running the sensations and images through the memory. Metrics if you want. But that may not be where we find the truth.

And bo**ocks to baseball, pace Don DeLillo

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun May 27, 2012 10:19 pm

David Robertson wrote:I wasn't anticipating a debate on the metrics when raising the question of, say, Bell v. Cowdrey or Graveney or May. Precisely because the cricket metrics indicate that the current crop of English batsmen are 'better' than players of an earlier era, my query implied a scepticism. Whenever I've discussed the merits of players from different eras - and clearly it helps to have seen them - the debate turns more often on qualitative than quantitative judgements. So compare the cover drives of Cowdrey and Bell; the off-drives of May and Trescothick, of Gower and Cook. Like connoisseurship and the assessment of fine wine, the fun lies in running the sensations and images through the memory. Metrics if you want. But that may not be where we find the truth.
Being the type of person I am, I don't think there's an answer to the question you're asking. For me, the answer to the question "Who is the better player?" is one that needs statistics to get to an answer. If you're working on the stock exchange, do you want me to invest money based on gut feel, or based on quantitative analysis?

In my eyes, the elegance of a cover drive is of secondary importance to the number of runs it scores.

David Robertson

Re: 2nd Test

Post by David Robertson » Sun May 27, 2012 10:24 pm

So you'll only drink a glass of Chablis to quench a thirst. It's your life. Count the days down

Mike Truran
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Mike Truran » Sun May 27, 2012 10:41 pm

He's still just a young man. He'll learn to appreciate the finer things in life, cover drives and Chablis (and Pomerol and Central Otago Pinot Noir) included.

Alistair Campbell
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:53 pm

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Alistair Campbell » Sun May 27, 2012 11:44 pm

David Robertson wrote:Cowdrey or Graveney
Cowdrey. Chris was a much better batsman than David... :twisted:

Alex H - I accept that OBP may be highly correlated to success, but it is not hard to find examples of teams with a higher OBP losing to teams with a lower OBP.

I think in this regard baseball is similar to cricket - you may play to protect your average, or you may play to win the game. Not getting out may be off little use if the batters after you are going to get out first ball, and hence the match situation, and the quality of the batting order are relevant factors. (Assuming that winning the game is important, which it may not be).

That there are ways of modifying the risk v reward calculation gives both games an extra dimension which makes them more attractive. As you have perhaps pointed out, cricket, for all its stats, has relatively fewer ways to measure relative strengths. For example, whilst cumulative runs scored are recorded, there is no record of partnership runs - e.g. a tailender making 5 but hanging around for a partnership of 50 might be better than someone going 4, 6, out.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon May 28, 2012 9:43 am

Alistair Campbell wrote:Alex H - I accept that OBP may be highly correlated to success, but it is not hard to find examples of teams with a higher OBP losing to teams with a lower OBP.
Of course not. Given that the regular season has 2,430 games in it, and each team plays 162 of them, the sample of games is big enough to find a thousand examples of a team with a lower OBP beating a team with a higher OBP.
Alistair Campbell wrote:I think in this regard baseball is similar to cricket - you may play to protect your average, or you may play to win the game. Not getting out may be off little use if the batters after you are going to get out first ball, and hence the match situation, and the quality of the batting order are relevant factors. (Assuming that winning the game is important, which it may not be).
Baseball is different in that, as a strategy, not getting out is always going to work, because you're always going to get on-base. As you've say, in cricket, it doesn't. In baseball, hitting a home run is covered not by OBP but SLG, which is why I said SLG has to be involved in the function.
Alistair Campbell wrote:That there are ways of modifying the risk v reward calculation gives both games an extra dimension which makes them more attractive. As you have perhaps pointed out, cricket, for all its stats, has relatively fewer ways to measure relative strengths. For example, whilst cumulative runs scored are recorded, there is no record of partnership runs - e.g. a tailender making 5 but hanging around for a partnership of 50 might be better than someone going 4, 6, out.
Baseball doesn't have this problem; you never bat with a partner.

It also has stats like wRC+, which calculates the number of runs created by a hitter, and is adjusted depending on whether the player has hit in hitting-friendly parks or fielding-friendly parks.

In 2001, when Bonds hit 73 HRs (breaking the all-time record for HRs in a season), he had a wRC+ of 236, but in 2002 when he hit only 46 HRs, he had a wRC+ of 245. So he was actually more valuable to his team with his bat in 2002 than 2001, despite hitting 28 fewer Home Runs. The reason for this is his OBP, which went through the roof in 2002, jumping from .515 to .582. Having been shelled in 2001, pitchers were scared, so were less willing to throw at the strike zone.

So, baseball can use statistics to show that Bonds was a better hitter in 2002 than 2001, because the increase in OBP (from .515 to .582) and decrease in strikeouts (14% to 7.7%) was worth more than his decrease in HR (73 to 46) and decrease in SLG (.863 to .799).

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon May 28, 2012 9:48 am

Where's baseball for dummies when you need it? :-)

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon May 28, 2012 9:56 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:Where's baseball for dummies when you need it? :-)
I remember Will Smith's explanation of baseball from my youth...

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5822
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: 2nd Test

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Mon May 28, 2012 12:16 pm

Batsmen score more runs now as they play more (as there are more countries to play, and it doesn't take 3 months to get to some of them).

Batsmen have higher averages because of covered pitches.
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey