Tuesday, April 22, 2008

More on getting your eye in

I've left things too late for a comprehensive post, but since I'm disappearing again for a few days (Toulouse and Carcassonne this time), I thought I'd do a little post on those effective average curves without coming to any sweeping conclusions.

Some of the fits seem to have fallen into a local minimum that doesn't describe the effective average curve very well. Most obvious of these is Mark Richardson, who apparently always bats like he averages 57 but really only averages 45 (eyeballing his empirical hazard function, I think his effective average starts high and decreases). Such clearly wrong curves seem to be pretty rare, so hopefully they don't poison the overall trends too much.

Best and worst on nought (qualifications: average of 35, and some minimum number of innings, probably 50):

name µ(0) µ(1) µ(10) µ(30) avg
MH Richardson 57,4 57,4 57,4 57,4 44,8
AN Cook 53,3 49,5 46,5 44,3 43,5
AL Hassett 52,1 52,1 52,1 48,0 46,6
CL Walcott 47,1 47,2 50,1 62,8 56,7
CH Lloyd 42,6 46,7 47,7 48,3 46,7
H Sutcliffe 41,0 73,8 75,0 75,6 60,7
Saeed Ahmed 39,1 41,3 41,3 41,3 40,4
CC McDonald 36,8 41,1 41,1 41,1 39,3
PE Richardson 35,8 36,8 36,8 36,8 37,5
GM Ritchie 35,8 16,9 33,4 34,9 35,2
DL Amiss 7,8 29,4 39,6 46,2 46,3
NS Sidhu 7,7 37,0 46,8 52,6 42,1
MW Gatting 7,6 26,2 37,1 44,4 35,6
VL Manjrekar 7,4 42,5 42,5 42,5 39,1
DM Jones 7,1 35,7 46,1 52,2 46,6
FMM Worrell 6,9 37,6 51,5 60,2 49,5
JA Rudolph 6,9 23,0 33,9 41,4 36,2
FE Woolley 6,5 41,1 44,3 46,0 36,1
CG Borde 6,5 36,7 41,1 43,5 35,6
MS Atapattu 6,1 32,5 36,4 38,4 39,0

But as I said in my previous post, much of the variation in how players do on nought can be put down to chance. Not all of it, though, so some of those names in the table above should belong around where you see them.

Here's a plot of effective average at nought against regular average:

Now the effective average on 1 against regular average (there's much less scatter because there's basically no smoothing done at nought, but there is at 1):

Effective average at 10:

Effective average at 30:

The effective average at 10 is very good at predicting the overall average — the scatter is noticeably less than at 1 or 30 (I haven't tried numbers in between to see where the minimum actually is). Part of this might be an artefact of the model, but I think that part of this is a real effect, especially the larger scatter at 30. Good players should have their eye in by 30 and do much better than their overall average. Bad players don't improve so much from how they did earlier in their innings. Why don't they improve? Why do they get as much eye in as possible (which is not very much) early in their innings? Questions for psychologists perhaps.

sorry for being off track DB...

there is one query...in IPL match between rajasthan royals and punjab kings x1 dinesh salunkhe played for rajasthan royals...

more details of his in my post...

the question i want to ask is he didnt even had any first class experence before...so can yo enlighten us how many players (in recent history) have debted for team with no tracj records as such??

thanks in advance...and sorry to bother you...
Aamer Nazir played for Pakistan with no first class experience. Wasim Akram literally picked him up from the roads.

Wasim Akram himself along with Inzamam and Mushtaq played for Pakistan with no first class experience.

Inzy and Mushy had played for Pak U19 and club teams but no first class teams. While Wasim Akram was eyed by Javed Miandad on the streets.

There are many other Pakistanis who have played international cricket before first class cricket.
thanx Q!!

how gnorant me :(
no hover captions?
Sincere apologies for the absence of hover captions. I was in a rush to get this posted while preparing for my south-of-France holiday.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]