Re: Why don\'t coaches understand fundamental math?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you'd like another example. Consider a basketball game in the bonus with 30 seconds left on the clock. The team with possession of the ball is trailing by 4. Does anyone else on this forum think the best shot to take (given a team of standard skill distribution) is a 3-pointer?

[/ QUOTE ]

edit: pps is points per shot

there are players whose pps is high enough that they should be electing to take the best shot available, rather than shoot a 3.

Re: Why don\'t coaches understand fundamental math?
 

In one day cricket, the team to bat first makes their total in 50 overs, and the other team tries to reach it without losing 10 wickets (one innings each). The team batting second has a clear information advantage in knowing what sort of score they are aiming for (much like having positional advantage in poker).

The first team opens the batting behind a veil of ignorance (of how well they'll do), and thus must take a moderate approach in terms of aggression. Say they get off to a good start by losing only 1 wicket in the first 25 overs, they can then change their strategy and try and post a big total by taking more risks. However, a team batting second has a better chance of making a big total if they know the target from the start.

However, not once have I heard a commentator, captain, or coach speak of this - all that is discussed in considering whether the captain who wins the toss should bat first or second is the condition of the pitch, the weather, and the intimidation factor of a big total! And incidentally, teams will choose to bat first the majority of the time.

...

Similar information advantage applies to the follow-on in test matches (rejecting the follow-on defies logic IMO).

And one last thing that annoys me is the persistent talk of batsmen down the order having higher batting averages because they get a lot of not-outs.

Re: Why don\'t coaches understand fundamental math?
 

What coach made the decision to kick a FG when down by 19 with 7 minutes to go? That's such an unbelievably retarded decision that there is no reason he should employed.

I can understand that coaches have the habit of playing it safe, and frequently err on the side of caution by taking the "sure thing". But when you're down by 19 late in the 4th, you simply cannot do that. Did this actually happen, or is it just a hypothetical?

That coach is trading a ~5% chance to win, for a .000000001% chance to win. It's so stupid that I tried for 3 minutes to think of something to compare it to, but I couldn't think of anything that stupid.

Re: Why don\'t coaches understand fundamental math?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What coach made the decision to kick a FG when down by 19 with 7 minutes to go? That's such an unbelievably retarded decision that there is no reason he should employed.

I can understand that coaches have the habit of playing it safe, and frequently err on the side of caution by taking the "sure thing". But when you're down by 19 late in the 4th, you simply cannot do that. Did this actually happen, or is it just a hypothetical?

That coach is trading a ~5% chance to win, for a .000000001% chance to win. It's so stupid that I tried for 3 minutes to think of something to compare it to, but I couldn't think of anything that stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW this did happen...It was coach Dennis Francione of Texas A&M and he will almost definitely be fired after the season (this decision will have had nothing to do with it).

Re: Why don\'t coaches understand fundamental math?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In one day cricket, the team to bat first makes their total in 50 overs, and the other team tries to reach it without losing 10 wickets (one innings each). The team batting second has a clear information advantage in knowing what sort of score they are aiming for (much like having positional advantage in poker).

The first team opens the batting behind a veil of ignorance (of how well they'll do), and thus must take a moderate approach in terms of aggression. Say they get off to a good start by losing only 1 wicket in the first 25 overs, they can then change their strategy and try and post a big total by taking more risks. However, a team batting second has a better chance of making a big total if they know the target from the start.

However, not once have I heard a commentator, captain, or coach speak of this - all that is discussed in considering whether the captain who wins the toss should bat first or second is the condition of the pitch, the weather, and the intimidation factor of a big total! And incidentally, teams will choose to bat first the majority of the time.

...

Similar information advantage applies to the follow-on in test matches (rejecting the follow-on defies logic IMO).

And one last thing that annoys me is the persistent talk of batsmen down the order having higher batting averages because they get a lot of not-outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I agree with the premise. It was conventional wisdom 20 years ago that batting second was better in 50-over games because the batting team could accurately pace their scoring. It is only recently that there has been a trend towards batting first, with the Sri Lankans of the early 90s, and now the Aussies apparently attempting to exert maximum pressure on their opponents from the start of the match.

It could also just as reasonably be argued that the team bowling second might have an advantage, allowing the fielding captain to schedule his bowling changes with a pretty good idea of the path that the batting side have to take to get to the target.

Either way I'm not aware of any real statistical analysis on the subject.

PS Don't get me started on night watchmen.

Re: Why don\'t coaches understand fundamental math?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Similar information advantage applies to the follow-on in test matches (rejecting the follow-on defies logic IMO).


[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Depending on what day you are on, it is usually better to get in and 'blast'. While you are doing this you are also deteriorating the pitch and fatigueing your fielding opponents.

[ QUOTE ]
And one last thing that annoys me is the persistent talk of batsmen down the order having higher batting averages because they get a lot of not-outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see your point here. But to take it to the next level one could again argue that fatigue is not such a factor for lower order batsmen especially 8-11 because they will always be at their peak fitness during their innings (as they are out faster or its all over) i.e their averages will never be directly in line relative to the rest of teh team.

JT

Re: Why don\'t coaches understand fundamental math?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Similar information advantage applies to the follow-on in test matches (rejecting the follow-on defies logic IMO).


[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Depending on what day you are on, it is usually better to get in and 'blast'. While you are doing this you are also deteriorating the pitch and fatigueing your fielding opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

You completely disregarded informational advantage (my point). If rain had closed in on the final day of the Tassie test like it was threatening to do, Ponting could have ended up with a draw, which would most likely not have happened if he sent Sri Lanka in again, since we could have made whatever 4th innings total at an appropriate pace. And yes, obviously there are other considerations.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And one last thing that annoys me is the persistent talk of batsmen down the order having higher batting averages because they get a lot of not-outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see your point here. But to take it to the next level one could again argue that fatigue is not such a factor for lower order batsmen especially 8-11 because they will always be at their peak fitness during their innings (as they are out faster or its all over) i.e their averages will never be directly in line relative to the rest of teh team.



[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics. In fact, lower order batsmen more often have to bat in a more extreme fashion (aggressively or defensively) which would certainly have an average lowering effect.

Re: Why don\'t coaches understand fundamental math?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if I agree with the premise. It was conventional wisdom 20 years ago that batting second was better in 50-over games because the batting team could accurately pace their scoring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I was not aware of this.

[ QUOTE ]
It is only recently that there has been a trend towards batting first, with the Sri Lankans of the early 90s, and now the Aussies apparently attempting to exert maximum pressure on their opponents from the start of the match.

It could also just as reasonably be argued that the team bowling second might have an advantage, allowing the fielding captain to schedule his bowling changes with a pretty good idea of the path that the batting side have to take to get to the target.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair point, but I think that the batting team has much more control in this regard.

[ QUOTE ]
PS Don't get me started on night watchmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, I have a feeling I'll agree with you on this one.