tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post2375121540561772486..comments2023-05-18T10:02:56.564+02:00Comments on Pappus' plane - cricket stats: FormDavid Barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-40150404609813890572009-02-24T08:14:00.000+01:002009-02-24T08:14:00.000+01:00David, found it: The Best Batsmen and Bowlers in O...David, <A HREF="http://www.stat.sfu.ca/alumni/Theses/Beaudoin.pdf" REL="nofollow">found it</A>: The Best Batsmen and Bowlers in One-Day Cricket by David Beaudoin.<BR/><BR/>He calculates an average by dividing the runs scored for/against by the D/L resources used. I'm not entirely sure how different that is to what I suggested. It doesn't account for differences between innings, but suggests that they should be analysed separately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-27619393571025822612009-02-23T13:12:00.000+01:002009-02-23T13:12:00.000+01:00That's a good idea Russ. I recall someone (in NZ?...That's a good idea Russ. I recall someone (in NZ?) writing a Masters thesis on rating ODI players based on DL tables like that, but I don't have the thesis on this computer.<BR/><BR/>It should be online somewhere.David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-16450031529704231142009-02-23T04:28:00.000+01:002009-02-23T04:28:00.000+01:00David, you could probably achieve a similar effect...David, you could probably achieve a similar effect to what you are suggesting there for ODI analysis by the modifying the Duckworth/Lewis par score. It effectively already takes into account wickets and run-rate, as well as variations in the total during chases.<BR/><BR/>That is, each ball the batsman faces adjusts the expected score (in the first innings) and the par score (in the second innings). The accumulated changes should reflect the ability of the batsmen and bowlers, taking into account the state of the game.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-4687903704076566672009-02-12T07:14:00.000+01:002009-02-12T07:14:00.000+01:00Hey Professor. I didn't look at anything at an in...Hey Professor. I didn't look at anything at an individual level, my feeling being that it would take a lot of effort to work out how much is noise.<BR/><BR/>No-one has come up with what I would call a "good" true talent level for batting in limited-overs cricket. I made a tentative first step <A HREF="http://pappubahry.blogspot.com/2008/08/averages-and-strike-rates-in-odis.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, which at least gives the framework of how I'd go about it - you need to work out how average and strike rate fit together.<BR/><BR/>Only rather than generating exponentially-distributed scores as in that post, doing this properly would require a large number of ball-by-ball simulations to get the final scores to roughly mach reality. Then you can take a batsman's average and strike rate, put him in a team of "typical" international batsman and see how much better the new team does compared to a team of "typical" batsmen.<BR/><BR/>There would still be wrinkles, most notably that the number six batsman in a weaker side will come in earlier in the innings than his opposite number in a stronger side, and therefore will need to bat differently. But that sort of thing is a lesser problem, can be ironed out using fall-of-wicket data, etc.<BR/><BR/>That is a rather detailed project. All the other things I've seen are arbitrary guesses as what is good. Multiplying average and strike rate must be a decent short-cut to use in the meantime before someone does a thorough job. <BR/><BR/>I see from your blog that you have the right attitude - follow the baseball model of openness!David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-84924147568249831562009-02-12T01:59:00.000+01:002009-02-12T01:59:00.000+01:00Cool post.Did you look at the individual residuals...Cool post.<BR/><BR/>Did you look at the individual residuals here? <BR/>Just thinking that some sort of autoregressive procedure (with lags) might give you even cooler results.<BR/><BR/>Also, you allude to true talent levels in this post. I am working on a true talent index for ODI batsmen at the moment and just making sure that that has not been done already!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-48523289705699512092009-01-29T01:16:00.000+01:002009-01-29T01:16:00.000+01:00Hello dear blogging friend,Cricket with balls has ...Hello dear blogging friend,<BR/><BR/>Cricket with balls has now moved, true story. <BR/><BR/>We are now at <A HREF="http://cricketwithballs.com" REL="nofollow">cricketwithballs.com</A>, so if you could update our address in your blogroll that would be great. <BR/><BR/>Ofcourse if you already had us down as .com, never mind. <BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-90205169805499464622009-01-20T20:26:00.000+01:002009-01-20T20:26:00.000+01:00I never thought Cricket & Mathematics could go...I never thought Cricket & Mathematics could go together but your post changes things.<BR/><BR/>GREAT POST!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-32395129691125880182009-01-16T07:21:00.000+01:002009-01-16T07:21:00.000+01:00Your formula must be correct then!Your formula must be correct then!YellowMonkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14344094370490912785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-38727829251979460692009-01-14T11:12:00.000+01:002009-01-14T11:12:00.000+01:00On my adjusted averages, Harvey's at 48.8, Hayden ...On my adjusted averages, Harvey's at 48.8, Hayden 43.6.<BR/><BR/>Easy win to Harvs. I will leave a similar comment at your blog.David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-74782341142958815242009-01-14T09:25:00.000+01:002009-01-14T09:25:00.000+01:00Can you do a comparison between Hayden and Harvey?...Can you do a comparison between Hayden and Harvey?<BR/><BR/>My opinion says Harvey is better<BR/><BR/>http://monkeyatthecricket.blogspot.com/2009/01/harvey-vs-hayden.htmlYellowMonkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14344094370490912785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-23846219489333472432009-01-07T02:42:00.000+01:002009-01-07T02:42:00.000+01:00Russ:The ratio I used was weighted towards recent ...Russ:<BR/><BR/>The ratio I used was weighted towards recent form.<BR/><BR/>Next time I am at home and have some time to spare, I'll look at how the career average and weighted averages predict the next innings late in a career. Of course there will be a selection effect going on - players are usually dropped after making low scores. <BR/><BR/>I don't have birth dates in my database, but I should be able to get them off Statsguru, maybe I'll use them and do the comparison for, say, batsmen past the age of 35 or something.<BR/><BR/><I>I am curious what the form ratios are for each of the bins in your table?</I><BR/>It took me a while to work out what you're saying here, but that's a good idea. I'll add that to the to-do list... probably for the weekend.<BR/><BR/>Though I'll play around a bit to tidy up the 0.56 value - my guess is that it should be lower than that for a typical distribution of cricket scores, rather than exponentially distributed scores.David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-81104349108482922062009-01-07T00:38:00.000+01:002009-01-07T00:38:00.000+01:00David, thanks for doing this. I've been pondering...David, thanks for doing this. I've been pondering the results for a few days, because I am - and was when I wrote my post - confused about the overlap of competing trends.<BR/><BR/>Firstly though, a clarification, is the form ration in the table weighted towards current form, or the ratio of the player to date?<BR/><BR/>Secondly, on averages, I am not surprised to see the regular average performed better at predicting the next innings. It carries more information, while the weighted one is affected by shifts in form. The only query I have over it, is whether the regular average loses value towards the end of a player's career, or is affected by apparent shifts in a player's true talent. To the extent that a weighted/moving average and career to date average measure different things, I suspect the table would look slightly different.<BR/><BR/>I have no issue with how you handled not outs. I didn't do that because it was technically easier to just average them, and because I doubt think it makes a lot of difference.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, on the hypotheses. In some ways it is only one hypotheses: that a player doing well/badly should do well/badly in the next game relative to their true talent. However, relative to their recent average they will, in general, regress back to their true talent. And that the form ratio gives a way of differentiating players with similar recent averages but different form.<BR/><BR/>Going back to predictions, part of the reason the recent average gives inconclusive results in terms of next innings averages, is because it mixes form and average together. This, appears to distinguish them, though I'm slightly surprised by the size of the effect amongst players with poor form.<BR/><BR/>Addressing OB's question, I am curious what the form ratios are for each of the bins in your table? The reason being, that, if form is persistent, then we should see numbers similar to the left column, but slightly regressed towards 0.56. The amount of regression would give an indication of the length of a form cycle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-64162236819703189852009-01-06T21:02:00.000+01:002009-01-06T21:02:00.000+01:00I'm grappling with some of this (my weak and unatt...I'm grappling with some of this (my weak and unattuned brain rather than the analysis), but is it possible to arrive at an average length of time that a form 'streak' is likely to last? I wonder how cyclical it is.The Old Batsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14376172807195747856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22713811.post-49671315481415762002009-01-04T06:13:00.000+01:002009-01-04T06:13:00.000+01:00Great post.Johnson today has justified your faith....Great post.<BR/><BR/>Johnson today has justified your faith.<BR/><BR/>Thanks...natbashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14403716051658767925noreply@blogger.com