Message Board Archives

Sudden, you suggested that I start this thread complimenting Shai's SR today.

Shai Hope increased his SR by leaps and bounds (95) but with West Indies requiring an overall 130 SR off 300 balls...you get the picture...only 285 would have been scored if all all the batsmen contributed at this rate.

Don't just look at Shai Hope's performance in isolation (Crazy Glue role). Please look at it from the perspective of what the remaining batters have to achieve to bring the victories. Shai Hope's shortfall has to be met somewhere.

It meant all batsmen needed to score at a SR of 144 (309 off 215 balls) to make up for Shai's shortfall.

Try scoring at a Strike Rate of 144 off 215 balls in an ODI.

I am afraid to put a title to this thread for fear of openning attacking me and holding me "responsible for producing Saint Lucian World class players."

In reply to Courtesy

how did you work that out?

In reply to sudden

If all batsmen scored at this Strike Rate (95) which is in fact very close to the mean SR of the the top 10 batsmen in ODI 285 runs would have been the score = mean SR x no. of balls allowable (300).

Teams have to target 300 plus if they are to have any realistic chance of winning an ODI.

Fellas, this is really kindergarten stuff you know.

In reply to Courtesy

but that is not reality. some batsmen will have higher strike rates and some lower strike rates chasing the win if they do win

In reply to sudden

That's why we do a mean. We don't expect linearity.

In reply to Courtesy

How do you account for Rahul with a Sr of 98 and India making 387.

In reply to Courtesy

Is the mean the best measure of central tendency in this scenario? What is the standard deviation?

In reply to tc1

I will engage you only once on this matter. Do you think India's batting today is a normal occurrence?

In reply to culpepperboy

It's a crude measurement of the centrality of the data set and its important in these non precise calculations but nonetheless useful enough.

In reply to Courtesy

The mean, according to you, represents the top 10 batsmen in ODI...not sure why that is remotely appropriate.

In reply to Courtesy

exactly so you ought to qualify your openning remarks

In reply to sudden

Edited. I assumed everyone was on my wavelength. Next time I will cater for lesser mortals like openning.

In reply to Courtesy

...which by itself means nothing.

In reply to culpepperboy

No need making blanket statements here just post your methodology...just give me your scientific formula I'll take it from there.

In reply to Courtesy

Listen you don’t have to engage me, you are not making sense in your argument period.

In reply to Courtesy

Just justify a mean of the top 10 batsmen...

In reply to tc1

Expose the fallacy of what I posted. please, please, I am waiting.

Hope's innings was much better today. I'll take this from him most days.

My only issue today is that with these sort of high scoring games, when you start get near to facing 80+ deliveries, your scoring tempo have to change. Hope basically scores the same pace from start to end. Rohit innings today was the perfect example. Hope isn't a power player like Rohit, so even more important that he keeps closer to a run a ball through and when he get's closer to 100, he doesn't have to make as big a push.

I'll maintain though, we will always be shown up in high scoring games as you basically playing with 4 batsmen. Let's be honest, Pollard isn't the most consistent nor is Roston Chase gonna hurt teams much in such games. Holder's white ball batting isn't as good as his test form.

So once Hetmyer nor Pooran score in these games, we lose!

In reply to jen

Once again an excellent post. You have a feel for the statistical issues which are brought to bear on the LO game.

Have the mouthers disappeared?

Hehehehehehehe!!!!

In reply to jen

I would say if 3 of my FAB FOUR fyres, we will win more than we lose. 2 sputtered today, and the others failed. Hence...

In reply to Courtesy

I would like to hear more about your model: your assumptions, the data set that you are using and your definition of terms.

Next time allyuh suckers will learn.

In reply to culpepperboy

Critique what I have done so far by reading the fucking thread. This is all I am asking you to do. I'll take it from there.

In reply to Courtesy

Here lies your fallacy.

In reply to culpepperboy

Why is it a fallacy?

In reply to Courtesy

You're doubling down on shite when a graceful withdrawal of a flawed thesis would be apropos.

In reply to Courtesy

Google it

In reply to Courtesy

Jennifer's post was more about human resources in achieving an outcome than purely about stats, wasnt it?

In reply to culpepperboy

Post what you google or better yet tell this MB what is the average ODI score.

In reply to Courtesy

Let us see them on a lively pitch not that slow batting pitch made for them.

In reply to sudden

Go to Jens' "Rohit Anchoring thread for all the nuances."

In reply to rillo

I will not read too much into today's game. It's also an anomaly.

In reply to Courtesy

You're an incredibly disingenuous fella...you referenced mean SR, not mean ODI score...and refuse to support the use of a mean SR of the top 10 ODI batsmen.

In reply to Courtesy

there are no nuances there. that is retrospective of India's innings. if there is any correlation, it is that it is better to have an openers making runs than not.

quantification and stats should help in qualifying an objective and not be the sole determinant

but i get your drift.

In reply to Courtesy

ok

In reply to sudden

It's very simple... the 10 top ODI batsmen at the moment have a mean SR of 95. This metric is crude but close enough to centrality and not throw out outliers ]. This SR (Strike Rate) x by the number of allowable balls (300) will give you somewhere between 285-300 runs (mean ODI score for the last two years).

So in any planning, a score of 285-300 +/- 5% gives a team a realistic chance of winning. Of course there will be other variables. I am not disputing this.

In reply to rillo

Dude, India played Aus on a fast bouncy ODI pitch and beat the crap out of them not once, but three times.

India has a very strong batting team. You just cannot take that away from them.

BTW, Aus had a very strong team for the three encounters.

Now Monday's match: Shai scored 102 at a SR of 67 off 151 balls.

It meant that the rest of the team had to score 187 off 149 ball striking at 124. This 124 SR is way above the mean SR for ODI...and this is why Hety at 157 SR was a boss SR. One of the finest OD innings I have seen.

In reply to Courtesy

that is cut and dry and doesnt take into account how the game is actually played (variables)

there needs to be stability whilst an innings is being developed and whilst a partnership is establishing.

more often than not at the beginning of a batsman's innings he is cautious and after he plays himself in his strike rate goes up. there was stability at the top of the innings for India coupled with an above average strike rate.

notwithstanding your stats and Jennifer's so called nuances, the key to scoring is stickability first and scoring collectively to outpace your opponents in the end

In reply to sudden

Cricket is a team sport, it is not Tennis or Golf.

In reply to Courtesy

Game Set and Match.

In reply to sudden

Mate, I have already indicated that the variables are to be plugged in for every match (pitch conditions, ground size etc). But at the very least these calculations gives you something to aim at. No team has a paid professional stats man on their rooster.

In reply to culpepperboy

Show me your methodology. You have not done so.

You are just latching on things which to you sound right. Argue your points...don't parrot or regurgitate what others have said. For the very last time let's see your methodology.

In reply to Courtesy

There are too many variables (known and unknown) for you to use extrapolation.

In reply to Courtesy

As you should have seen today, Hope's SR is NOT static throughout the innings. Same as Sunday, when Hety got out, and Pooran was new at the crease, he stepped up the scoring.

Hope goes out to bat as much of the 50 overs as possible. He wouldn't be successful if he just goes out and swing at everything.

In reply to Courtesy

ok Sah


i thought Oz and Eng had such a service

In reply to Larr Pullo

Larr, my argument and point being made is very simply: Shai Hope should focus on reducing his dot ball percentage and in so doing his SR will go up to acceptable international standards. He is not an out and power hitter therefore it is of utmost importance for him to so do. There is no magic or risk to this approach.

How can anyone argue against this is beyond me?

We have all the data to do a comparative analysis at international level. And it just requires a cursory analysis...no big effort.

In reply to Courtesy

whlist sounding true that might be a fallacy. running singles may cause Hope to get tired thereby losing concentration. it may cause him or the other batsman to get out. and that is not all but those are some of the variables that we tend to discount when just looking at stats

In reply to sudden

I believe in the past CA employed a stats man who was previously on the staff UOM.

In reply to sudden

I don't spend time dealing with consequences of problems tell Shai get the fuck fit for his roles on the side.

In reply to Larr Pullo

Bingo

In reply to Courtesy

Beyond just looking at "dot ball percentage" Shai Hope has displayed the unique ability (for most current WI players) to assess the state of the game and the conditions, and adjust accordingly in keeping with the overall team goal of him batting out the full fifty overs. As could be seen today, when the situation warranted it, he increased the rate of his scoring.

In reply to Larr Pullo

It would be interesting having made this statement above to have a look at West Indies win/loss ratio since Shai has joined the ODI team and batted deep? Do you care to provide it.

Btw, I am not this gullible and I'll never look beyond the dot ball percentage and SR. These are key indicators.

Larr, I'll give you time to provide the data...i'll be back later.

In reply to Courtesy

Let one of them stats gurus look at his runs contribution in wins vs losses as a start...i'm not a stats guru. Now let me continue working on this R data model that im building.

In reply to Larr Pullo

There are 3 kinds of lies...

In reply to Larr Pullo

ODI Matches. SR
AB de Villiers. 228. 101.09
Virat Kohli 241. 93.20
Steven Smith. 118 86.31
David Warner. 116 95.55
Joe Root. 143 87.37
Ben Stokes. 95 93.94
Chris Gayle. 301. 87.19
Kieron Pollard. 106. 93.10
Shai Hope. 71 73.19
What was the above players SR, after 80 ODI?

Give it up, man. The guy can bat, and bat very well.

Even the great Brian Lara said recently he is one of the few players in the West Indies who can play all formats, and play really well.

I'd imagine he's a better judge of batsmanship than you

In reply to openning

Explain to me in the simplest possible manner, what you discern as the main argument on this thread. I dare you.

In reply to brians_da_best

No wonder you doz post so much shit here. Like openning, you must get a feel of what's being argued,

NEXT.

In reply to Larr Pullo

You should have told Culpepper this before he endorsed your post.

Whaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!!

NEXT.

I tort I had more posts to respond to.

In reply to Courtesy

Shai SR today was 95, the team needed a sr of 129, therefore someone would had to score at a rate of 163, to make up the shortfall.
I've done the three M's, since my U of C days.
I 've done plenty costing, forecasting over the years.

In reply to openning

you have nothing to prove you know

Ohho!!!...and do you think it would have been reasonable to ask the other batters to score at this rate in this ODI?

That's the general point being made that escapes most posters...if West Indies need to score 300 (by today's standards this is considered normal) Shai batting at a SR at 67 places undue pressure on all other batsmen. They would each have to score a over 130 SR. This is why Hety innings was so vital but this innings was an oddity.

The rest of the team in whatever combination of SR would have to score at a rate of 1.30 times the normal asking rate to win.

In reply to Courtesy

India strike the ball close to 144 today as Rahul was at 95, the big difference was the opening partnership and the aggressive batting from the middle order.
I must agree with you that a strike rate of 144 is an high achievement , in fact any RSR above a 100 is hard.
The problem to day was not Shai alone, if he can strike at 90 plus on a regular basis , WI would win more matches.
The big difference today was the impact of India’s middle order whose avg SR or mean was 189 .

In reply to sudden

In reply to tc1

Mate, I have said I would disregard today's match. It's an outlier. Let's deal with slightly over 300 run scores.

Anyone who thinks that achieving scores of 300 plus consistently with Shai batting thru the innings at a strike rate of 67 is dealing in irrational optimism.

Other batters will have to achieve SR of 130 plus all the time in ODI not T20.

A high dot ball percentage coupled with a low SR is a recipe for disaster in any ODI.

Conclusion: A SR of 67 and a 55 dot ball percentage chasing average scores of 300+ (normal in today's ODI world) even batting thru the innings will not win you many games.

Anyway, I cannot bring this down to any lower denominator. Deal with allyuh own vodoo maths.

Bye.

In reply to openning

No, the overall team has to score 163 required Sr, if it was that easy we would have won the game, look at the score sheet, Pooran score at 160

In reply to tc1

The team actually needed a SR of 144 to make up for the shortfall...in this ODI. This high Strike Rate has to be sustained over a long period of time.

It is virtually impossible to have all batters scoring at this rate.

This is not T20.

P.S. I entered Shai's SR as 95...it's actually 91. And I am saying this is where it should be if we are to increase our winning percentage with him fulfilling his role of "glue" on the side.

In reply to natty_forever

Who is the Fab Four that you speak of?

In reply to tc1

I missed a night sleep to watch these games, living in MST.
The scoreboard pressure of having to score 7.76 runs per over, was like climbing the Rockies.
It is easier to score 10 RPO in a T 20 game, than doing 7.76 RPO. in 50 over

It was a flogging, and not any of the pacers, was mean enough, to bowl bouncers at the batsman.

In reply to Courtesy

Agreed,

In reply to tc1

You did not say specifically what issue we synced on or what you agreed with.

In reply to Courtesy

Ok, when chasing totals greater than 300 , Shai SR should be equal to or greater than .95. He must form partnerships with Hety, Pooran and Lewis in order to have a higher % in wining games.
We need some drama from the specialize captain.
As the glue , he must bat deep and score above SR of 95.

Let me go and take a shot of Chairman’s reserve

In reply to tc1

Hahahahahahaha!!!

At least you understand it now. Think of the myriad of jackasses who are still trying to get their brains around this simple exercise. And further, they think that I am attacking Shai Hope.

The 300 balls are a finite resource which is invested in runs...invest them badly and you decrease your chances of winning. It's as simple as that.

In reply to Courtesy

Wasn't St Lucia world hopscotch champions once, my friend?

Given the context that cricket is a team sport, the premise of your thesis is wrong from all angles!

Why should the burden be placed on Hope to bring home the victory?

The remaining batters must up the ante!

The highest strike rate in ODI is 130.22 and the highest strike rate average for the top 5 players is a little over 121

Now, no one is arguing that the strike rate is not important and the higher the more effective but it cannot and must not be divorced from the context of the game.

Hope is just developing his craft and in the fullness of time will give you a SR of 95 - 117 or thereabout.