Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 15th February 2015, 23:35   #21
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by elven highlord View Post
A par score is simply the expected number of runs in the innings. Or, to put it another way, if the innings was played 10,000 times, what would the average score be?

If we assume every team is of equal ability in batting, bowling and fielding then, yes, the par score will be that which gives a 50% of victory. But in reality this is not really a helpful assumption. If Australia scored 250 batting first at the MCG against Scotland that would be significantly below par. But they would still be significant favourite to win the match.
This is where cricket differs from golf, I think. As others have said the par score will change depending on oppo. This is why I reckon it would be better to have a score which is 50/50 win. We will never know what this is because it is impossible to prove.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 00:09   #22
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by elven highlord View Post
A par score is simply the expected number of runs in the innings. Or, to put it another way, if the innings was played 10,000 times, what would the average score be?

If we assume every team is of equal ability in batting, bowling and fielding then, yes, the par score will be that which gives a 50% of victory. But in reality this is not really a helpful assumption. If Australia scored 250 batting first at the MCG against Scotland that would be significantly below par. But they would still be significant favourite to win the match.
There are a number of problems with this though, even beyond the ones you mention. There has been enough ODI cricket to provide quite a lot of material to analyse but for practical purposes almost all of it is of no use at all, because the game has changed so much over time. Even worse, not only don't we especially want to know the par score for the history of ODI cricket but we don't even get terribly far by asking what it is for the last year or two, because the ground we're watching the game on is probably not an entirely average one. Alternatively we could pull stats for the ground but then our sample size is small and again, most of it tells us nothing that useful, even if the ground hasn't changed in character. Moneyball it isn't, perhaps sadly, perhaps happily, depending on view point.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde

Last edited by Fatslogger : 20th February 2015 at 23:21.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 00:10   #23
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
He was not fishing. He was repeating the crap uttered by the comms. Woakes has an economy rate of almost 6 and they say "that is much too high as you won't win matches" they are right of course but Do they understand how economy rates relate to runs scored?

They say par is over 300 then slate someone with an economy rate which would lead to below this. Bizarre.
Oh he was fishing.

The comms may be factoring in leg byes.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 00:21   #24
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
There are a number of problems with this though, even beyond the ones you mention. There has been enough ODI cricket to provide quite a lot of material to analyse but for practical purposes almost all of it is of no use at all, because the game has changed so much over time. Even worse, not only don't we especially want to know the par score for the history of ODI cricket but we don't even get terribly far by asking what it is for the last year or two, because the ground the we're watching the game on is probably not an entirely average one. Alternatively we could pull stats for the ground but then our sample size is small and again, most of it tells us nothing that useful, even if the ground hasn't changed in character. Moneyball it isn't, perhaps sadly, perhaps happily, depending on view point.
You can adjust for ground and adjust for year.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 00:27   #25
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
You can adjust for ground and adjust for year.
Yes but you're probably not going to get terribly meaningful data, is my point. Or to be more precise, you're not going to be get terribly predictive data.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 07:05   #26
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,630
Updated for the Irish win chasing
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 07:09   #27
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,411
I wonder how much the removal of "mystery spinners" (chuckers) has been to blame here.

Average last 10 over score is well over 100. Remember when we got about 50 for 8 vs oz a few weeks ago
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 07:17   #28
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by elven highlord View Post
A par score is simply the expected number of runs in the innings. Or, to put it another way, if the innings was played 10,000 times, what would the average score be?
Which makes it completely specific to the team, opposition, ground, and conditions (quietly ignoring the fact that playing it 10,000 times with everything unchanged would be somewhat impossible). That immediately (and correctly) renders the thread futile.

Quote:
If we assume every team is of equal ability in batting, bowling and fielding then, yes, the par score will be that which gives a 50% of victory. But in reality this is not really a helpful assumption. If Australia scored 250 batting first at the MCG against Scotland that would be significantly below par. But they would still be significant favourite to win the match.
The 50% chance of winning is a quantification of "par when chasing" for the side batting second, so renders the thread just as futile.

I believe the Duckworth Lewis definition of par is based on the relative performances of the team batting first and second. Again, this is completely specific to the teams and conditions on the day, even if is based on a statistical model drawing on a large database of past performances across many teams and conditions.
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 07:35   #29
Zebroston Chase
Not Lara or Chanderpaul but the best you've got
 
Zebroston Chase's Avatar
When Hope is gone, I will appear.
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Team(s): AFC Hornchurch, Essex, England
Age: 33
Posts: 18,456
As for 300 being par an excellent stat has just appeared on Twitter.

300+ targets have been chased successfully 5 times in the World Cup and Ireland have done it thrice (that probably doesn't include our tie in the last tournament).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley View Post
I'm fully aware of his thinking, which merely underlines the point that he's an idiot.
Zebroston Chase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 07:43   #30
beefy
World Class
 
beefy's Avatar
Bulldog spirit
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London Town
Team(s): England & Arsenal
Posts: 7,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
Not so bizarre when you think of the IQ of some commentators. You'd think that after a lifetime in cricket they would have a grasp of numbers and arithmetic but the likes of Agnew, Marks and others are always admitting (sounds more like boasting) that they are hopeless and haven't a clue how many more runs are needed to reach the target - yes basic things like that. They should be embarrassed but they display ignorance like a badge of honour.

However, they are full of bul*s*it knowledge and insight about things like par scores and economy rates and the importance of making a century in ODIs. (We've recently lost 2 matches in which centuries were made and if Taylor had got there today we'd still have lost this one).
Do they ever blame another England bowler for Anderson not getting a wicket, even after a ton of hard work?
__________________
ENGLAND; Ashes holders, World Champions and the Number One cricket team in World Cricket.
beefy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 07:48   #31
Zebroston Chase
Not Lara or Chanderpaul but the best you've got
 
Zebroston Chase's Avatar
When Hope is gone, I will appear.
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Team(s): AFC Hornchurch, Essex, England
Age: 33
Posts: 18,456
Ha ha. Darren Pattinson may have only played one test around seven or so years ago but his legacy lives on...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley View Post
I'm fully aware of his thinking, which merely underlines the point that he's an idiot.
Zebroston Chase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 11:03   #32
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
I wonder how much the removal of "mystery spinners" (chuckers) has been to blame here.

Average last 10 over score is well over 100. Remember when we got about 50 for 8 vs oz a few weeks ago
Is that you conceding that 300 is no longer par?

Quote:
Originally Posted by beefy View Post
Do they ever blame another England bowler for Anderson not getting a wicket, even after a ton of hard work?
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 11:05   #33
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 18,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Is that you conceding that 300 is no longer par?



Nope. It is me saying the middle overs will get even more tedious.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 11:06   #34
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,911
I think all this hoo-ha about par began when Sir Virgs took exception to the suggestion, made regularly by many commentators in recent years, that in this World Cup the par score will be 300+. Given the difficulties sketched above that attend any efforts to show otherwise, I think we have to just go along with the commentarial hunch.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 11:06   #35
Zebroston Chase
Not Lara or Chanderpaul but the best you've got
 
Zebroston Chase's Avatar
When Hope is gone, I will appear.
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Glasgow
Team(s): AFC Hornchurch, Essex, England
Age: 33
Posts: 18,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Is that you conceding that 300 is no longer par?



In fairness to Michelle she didn't actually post the famous words:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minor Maggie View Post
After all Jimmy's hard work it is ****ing Pattinson who gets the wicket of Prince!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Druid Nathan Barley View Post
I'm fully aware of his thinking, which merely underlines the point that he's an idiot.
Zebroston Chase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2015, 11:14   #36
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 23,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck of the ZebrIrish View Post
In fairness to Michelle she didn't actually post the famous words:
It was Michelle who got more wound up at the subsequent mickey taking though. However I am sure that we all realise that it isn't just derogatory comments towards Anderson or Bell that result in her foaming at the mouth/shaking with rage unnecessarily!
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2015, 01:56   #37
beefy
World Class
 
beefy's Avatar
Bulldog spirit
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London Town
Team(s): England & Arsenal
Posts: 7,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck of the ZebrIrish View Post
In fairness to Michelle she didn't actually post the famous words:
Ahhh yes. Well played, I do appreciate that you have that infamous quote close to hand lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think all this hoo-ha about par began when Sir Virgs took exception to the suggestion, made regularly by many commentators in recent years, that in this World Cup the par score will be 300+. Given the difficulties sketched above that attend any efforts to show otherwise, I think we have to just go along with the commentarial hunch.
We can all debate the meaning of word par, but I tend to think the Cricketing experts in the commentary box don't feel to be quite so pedantic over a wording. Fact remains you need to score 300 fairly regularly to win ODI matches consistently these days, and you HAVE to be able to score it consistently if you want to win a major tornament. That;s already being proven fact. England don't select a side which can comfortably score 300 hence why we're abysmal at limited overs stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
It was Michelle who got more wound up at the subsequent mickey taking though. However I am sure that we all realise that it isn't just derogatory comments towards Anderson or Bell that result in her foaming at the mouth/shaking with rage unnecessarily!
Was the shaking of rage MM or MF? Nevertheless, the furore in defence of a handsome player by fan girls was comedic genius at times.
__________________
ENGLAND; Ashes holders, World Champions and the Number One cricket team in World Cricket.
beefy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2015, 08:32   #38
Long Off
World Class
 
Long Off's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 5,747
Quote:

Was the shaking of rage MM or MF? Nevertheless, the furore in defence of a handsome player by fan girls was comedic genius at times.
Or just sub-par commentary?
Long Off is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2015, 21:25   #39
elven highlord
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
There are a number of problems with this though, even beyond the ones you mention. There has been enough ODI cricket to provide quite a lot of material to analyse but for practical purposes almost all of it is of no use at all, because the game has changed so much over time. Even worse, not only don't we especially want to know the par score for the history of ODI cricket but we don't even get terribly far by asking what it is for the last year or two, because the ground the we're watching the game on is probably not an entirely average one. Alternatively we could pull stats for the ground but then our sample size is small and again, most of it tells us nothing that useful, even if the ground hasn't changed in character. Moneyball it isn't, perhaps sadly, perhaps happily, depending on view point.
Sorry, late back to this. I think my only initial point was that the 50% win probability yardstick is irrelevant to what a par score is - unless we assume all teams are identical - which is obviously a silly assumption.

But the concept of a par score still has value, even if it is highly subjective, because it allows us to gauge performance. As you suggest, there are almost certainly just too many variables and too little relevant data to be able to model what a par score with any degree of accuracy. A 'wisdom of crowds' approach is probably the best way to determine a par score, and we have that in the form of exchange betting markets. I highly doubt teams/commentators ever use data from betting exchanges in their analysis, but really they should.
elven highlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2015, 07:44   #40
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,630
England impressively have conceded most runs while bowling first and also scored fewest runs when batting first. Well done, clowns!
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org