wins the T20 most often.

Vaughan on BBC during the match, I think that's what he said.
Is there any truth in that? Was he being serious?

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 23:24:18 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>
>wins the T20 most often.
>
>Vaughan on BBC during the match, I think that's what he said.
>Is there any truth in that? Was he being serious?

It sounds plausible to me. Twos are an indication of how hard the
batsmen are prepared to run. Before the rain break this evening, I
noticed that Livingstone and Billings were running twos where the one
was comfortable and two needed speed.

Cheers,

Mike

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 23:53:02 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 23:24:18 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>>
>>wins the T20 most often.
>>
>>Vaughan on BBC during the match, I think that's what he said.
>>Is there any truth in that? Was he being serious?
>
>It sounds plausible to me. Twos are an indication of how hard the
>batsmen are prepared to run. Before the rain break this evening, I
>noticed that Livingstone and Billings were running twos where the one
>was comfortable and two needed speed.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

They batted well. Livingstone looks the smarter of the two, but there
was a plan in action that they both understood.
When you coach the wee lads they can't hit the rope, so you encourage
them to run well and always look to turn a one into a two.
This game hasn't changed much whatever the format.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 11:24:25 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> wins the T20 most often.
>
> Vaughan on BBC during the match, I think that's what he said.
> Is there any truth in that? Was he being serious?
>
> max.it
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Perhaps not exactly that but th e stat may have some force behind it. T20 batsmen often concentrate on hitting boundaries with the consequence that a good number of balls are scoreless. It could be that the cannier batsmen concentrate on getting ones and twos which can be got much more readily and at less risk than boundary hits. RH

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 3:55:59 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> T20 batsmen often concentrate on hitting boundaries with the consequence that a good number of balls are scoreless.

Your ability to do this amazes me.

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 8:07:49 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 3:55:59 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > T20 batsmen often concentrate on hitting boundaries with the consequence that a good number of balls are scoreless.
> Your ability to do this amazes me.

Oh dear, another one with the understanding of a cabbage.... r\h

On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 23:24:25 UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> wins the T20 most often.
>
> Vaughan on BBC during the match, I think that's what he said.
> Is there any truth in that? Was he being serious?

It seems likely that the team that scores the most of anything is likely to win most often, as long as the anything in question is reasonably common (and not something negative like shots direct to fielders).

Whether it is more true for twos than for other criteria is another matter.
--
David North

On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 05:36:13 -0700 (PDT), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 23:24:25 UTC+1, max.it wrote:
>> wins the T20 most often.
>>
>> Vaughan on BBC during the match, I think that's what he said.
>> Is there any truth in that? Was he being serious?
>
>It seems likely that the team that scores the most of anything is likely to win most often, as long as the anything in question is reasonably common (and not something negative like shots direct to fielders).

I doubt that's true for singles. A team which scores a lot of singles
and few boundaries is very likely to lose to a team which scores few
singles and a lot of boundaries because their batsmen are better at
piercing the field.

>Whether it is more true for twos than for other criteria is another matter.

The ability to score twos is a combination of hard running and good
shot placement. I'd have thought that the team which is better in
those departments is liable to win more often.

Cheers,

Mike

On 25/06/2021 13:54, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 05:36:13 -0700 (PDT), David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 23:24:25 UTC+1, max.it wrote:
>>> wins the T20 most often.
>>>
>>> Vaughan on BBC during the match, I think that's what he said.
>>> Is there any truth in that? Was he being serious?
>>
>> It seems likely that the team that scores the most of anything is likely to win most often, as long as the anything in question is reasonably common (and not something negative like shots direct to fielders).
>
> I doubt that's true for singles. A team which scores a lot of singles
> and few boundaries is very likely to lose to a team which scores few
> singles and a lot of boundaries because their batsmen are better at
> piercing the field.

Yes, but I wasn't suggesting that it would always be true for teams who
score more of one thing _and fewer of another_. ISTM that that could not
be true in all cases, as simple logic prevents it.

However, I doubt that there would be a negative correlation between the
numbers of singles and boundaries teams score (in terms of frequency at
least) over a reasonable number of matches.

--
David North

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 07:13:19 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/06/2021 13:54, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 05:36:13 -0700 (PDT), David North
>> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 23:24:25 UTC+1, max.it wrote:
>>>> wins the T20 most often.
>>>>
>>>> Vaughan on BBC during the match, I think that's what he said.
>>>> Is there any truth in that? Was he being serious?
>>>
>>> It seems likely that the team that scores the most of anything is likely to win most often, as long as the anything in question is reasonably common (and not something negative like shots direct to fielders).
>>
>> I doubt that's true for singles. A team which scores a lot of singles
>> and few boundaries is very likely to lose to a team which scores few
>> singles and a lot of boundaries because their batsmen are better at
>> piercing the field.
>
>Yes, but I wasn't suggesting that it would always be true for teams who
>score more of one thing _and fewer of another_. ISTM that that could not
>be true in all cases, as simple logic prevents it.
>
>However, I doubt that there would be a negative correlation between the
>numbers of singles and boundaries teams score (in terms of frequency at
>least) over a reasonable number of matches.

We aren't talking about a reasonable number of matches, though. In
each case, we are talking about one match. In the majority of cases,
the total scores are hardly different - in all wins by wickets and a
slice of wins by runs, the differences are no more than one boundary.

Given that a win by wickets is achieved in the same number of balls as
a maximum and usually some number less, the team batting second have
scored more per ball than the team batting first.

How likely is it that the team which scored the most singles in the
game is the team which has scored most per ball?

Cheers,

Mike

On 26/06/2021 12:23, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 07:13:19 +0100, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 25/06/2021 13:54, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 05:36:13 -0700 (PDT), David North
>>> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 23:24:25 UTC+1, max.it wrote:
>>>>> wins the T20 most often.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vaughan on BBC during the match, I think that's what he said.
>>>>> Is there any truth in that? Was he being serious?
>>>>
>>>> It seems likely that the team that scores the most of anything is likely to win most often, as long as the anything in question is reasonably common (and not something negative like shots direct to fielders).
>>>
>>> I doubt that's true for singles. A team which scores a lot of singles
>>> and few boundaries is very likely to lose to a team which scores few
>>> singles and a lot of boundaries because their batsmen are better at
>>> piercing the field.
>>
>> Yes, but I wasn't suggesting that it would always be true for teams who
>> score more of one thing _and fewer of another_. ISTM that that could not
>> be true in all cases, as simple logic prevents it.
>>
>> However, I doubt that there would be a negative correlation between the
>> numbers of singles and boundaries teams score (in terms of frequency at
>> least) over a reasonable number of matches.
>
> We aren't talking about a reasonable number of matches, though. In
> each case, we are talking about one match.

Fair enough.

> In the majority of cases,
> the total scores are hardly different - in all wins by wickets and a
> slice of wins by runs, the differences are no more than one boundary.

That's why I said "in terms of frequency at least". When the side
batting second wins, having been limited in the total number of runs
that they could score, and therefore usually faced fewer balls, the
comparison of the total number of singles the two sides score, rather
than their frequency, seems pretty meaningless.

When Vaughan said "the team that scores the most twos", did he actually
mean in total, regardless of how many overs they bat for, or did he
really mean the team that scores twos more often?

> Given that a win by wickets is achieved in the same number of balls as
> a maximum and usually some number less, the team batting second have
> scored more per ball than the team batting first.
>
> How likely is it that the team which scored the most singles in the
> game is the team which has scored most per ball?

When the team batting second wins, it usually won't be the case; when
the team batting first wins, I suspect that it usually will.

--
David North

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 15:32:26 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>When Vaughan said "the team that scores the most twos", did he actually
>mean in total, regardless of how many overs they bat for, or did he
>really mean the team that scores twos more often?
>

This won't be something that Vaughan has worked out for himself. It
will be a statistic that he has been informed of.

So what analysis is likely to have been performed by statisticians
serving T20 teams to come up with it? What would you do to crunch the
analysis of loads of games?

In any innings, teams will probably score a number of each possible
score, with 3s quite possibly as low as 0.

Even with the scores level at the end of 20 overs, it is probable
that, say, one team will have scored more 6s and 2s and the other will
have scored more 4s, 3s and 1s.

In matches where the scores aren't level but are still close,
something very similar will apply. Obviously where the totals aren't
close, it's not unlikely that the winning side will have scored most
of each possible score.

If you look at the results, you can derive figures such as that the
team which scores the most 6s wins, say, 68% of the time, the team
with the most 4s 47% of the time, 3s 38%, 2s 81%, and 1s 23% and
conclude that the team that scores the most 2s wins most often.

Listening to stats-obsessed IPL/BBL commentary and in-game interviews
with coaches and things, the above analysis seems highly plausible as
a methodology which analysts would use, and I'm guessing that it's
what Vaughan was quoting.

Cheers,

Mike

On 26/06/2021 15:55, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 15:32:26 +0100, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> When Vaughan said "the team that scores the most twos", did he actually
>> mean in total, regardless of how many overs they bat for, or did he
>> really mean the team that scores twos more often?
>>
>
> This won't be something that Vaughan has worked out for himself. It
> will be a statistic that he has been informed of.
>
> So what analysis is likely to have been performed by statisticians
> serving T20 teams to come up with it? What would you do to crunch the
> analysis of loads of games?
>
> In any innings, teams will probably score a number of each possible
> score, with 3s quite possibly as low as 0.
>
> Even with the scores level at the end of 20 overs, it is probable
> that, say, one team will have scored more 6s and 2s and the other will
> have scored more 4s, 3s and 1s.
>
> In matches where the scores aren't level but are still close,
> something very similar will apply. Obviously where the totals aren't
> close, it's not unlikely that the winning side will have scored most
> of each possible score.
>
> If you look at the results, you can derive figures such as that the
> team which scores the most 6s wins, say, 68% of the time, the team
> with the most 4s 47% of the time, 3s 38%, 2s 81%, and 1s 23% and
> conclude that the team that scores the most 2s wins most often.
>
> Listening to stats-obsessed IPL/BBL commentary and in-game interviews
> with coaches and things, the above analysis seems highly plausible as
> a methodology which analysts would use, and I'm guessing that it's
> what Vaughan was quoting.

Most likely something via Andy Zaltzman, who often mentions CricViz who
do lots of obscure analysis.

https://www.cricviz.com/

On 26/06/2021 15:55, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 15:32:26 +0100, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> When Vaughan said "the team that scores the most twos", did he actually
>> mean in total, regardless of how many overs they bat for, or did he
>> really mean the team that scores twos more often?
>>
>
> This won't be something that Vaughan has worked out for himself. It
> will be a statistic that he has been informed of.

I heard him say it. I'm pretty sure it was a theory, not something that
anyone had actually worked out.

--
David North