|Photos||Video & Audio||Blogs||Statistics||Archive||Games||Mobile|
As you can see, the first few regression lines are all pretty close to each other.
To get a run-value of wickets based only on balls remaining, I went through each first innings wicket and found the run-value of that wicket and all subsequent wickets. Then for each wicket, I plotted that total run-value of wickets against the balls remaining after the first wicket (Fig. 2).
The regression line is forced through the origin.
Now let's move onto the short-term dip (Fig. 3). Plotted below is the difference in average run rate in the two overs after a wicket (compared to the overall average), at each over:
I've called it flat (with variations from random noise) until 15 overs before decreasing to zero, though there's room for debate there. The dip to zero makes cricketing sense.
The above gives us the run-value of wickets. Here is how I used them to tweak the economy rates.
The long-term credit (= 0.0277 * (balls remaining)) is either drowned out completely by the short-term credit, or includes it. If it is less in value than the short-term dip, then it gets completely ignored. If it is greater, then only the difference between the two is considered.
Now, each bowler bowls on average around 20% of the team's overs, so I gave the 80% of the long-term credit to the bowler. The remaining 20% would be incorporated into his actual economy rate anyway.
For the short-term credit, I gave the bowler 62.5%. The dip in scoring lasts about two overs. Let's say that on average, the wicket falls with three balls to go*. That leaves the next over (bowled by someone else), and three remaining balls. I guessed that the bowler has a 50% chance of bowling those balls (something to check), so half the time 50% of the dip benefits other bowlers, and the other half of the time it's 75%. Split the two, 62.5%. Plenty of work to sharpen those numbers is possible, but it shouldn't make too much difference to the overall results.
*But check this out. 122 wickets on ball 1 of the over, 131 on ball 2, 104 on ball 3, 104 on ball 4, 104 on ball 5, 124 on ball 6. Possibly random, possibly something there — perhaps batsmen take a ball or two to get their eye in against a new bowler.
© ESPN EMEA Ltd.
Sreesanth wasn't the most likeable team-mate or opponent, but he had skill beyond doubt, which we might have seen the last of
Out of the shattered lives of three young men caught up in allegations of fraud, newer and stronger players must emerge
Plays of the day from the IPL qualifier between Chennai Super Kings and Mumbai Indians in Delhi
Sunrisers began this tournament as one of the underdogs, but fought impressively to reach as far as the Eliminator
None of the other three England bowlers with 300 Test wickets - or many other of the game's finest swing merchants - could have bowled better than James Anderson at Lord's
Royal Challengers began the season in full steam, but failed to replicate their consistency away from home
Safe & simple online money transfer. Apply Now!
Available now at Cricshop