butlee
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by butlee on Mar 9, 2011 18:25:49 GMT -5
*grins at ensuing arguments with Rob*
What's everyone's thoughts on Version 128, mostly the "intelligence" model change that affects how batsmen chase in an innings?
On face value it looks like a no-brainer, but I put this to you - now that your top order is considering your lower-order all rounders to be useful against any attack (no matter how strong), what will you do when you want your top order to stick around more? Against expert bowlers, having your top order hit out more (thinking that your lower order bats can still chip in) would work perfectly, but against world class bowlers you need your top order to defend more - which won't be the case because they'll still assume your lower order bats can chip in.
So now, is it logical that against stronger teams I have to "drop" my all rounders, just to force my top order to bat a little bit more sensibly while chasing?
|
|
|
Post by fitzy on Mar 10, 2011 4:50:05 GMT -5
So now, is it logical that against stronger teams I have to "drop" my all rounders, just to force my top order to bat a little bit more sensibly while chasing? I would've thought it would come down to experience. Any experienced batsman knows that they have to do their bit and not rely on other players to make the runs. I'm still going to be playing my best XI for the conditions either way.
|
|
|
Post by r0b1et on Mar 10, 2011 7:07:50 GMT -5
*grins at ensuing arguments with Rob* Grins back. I think our arguements will be that it doesn't work as weel as it should, but for different reasons. What's everyone's thoughts on Version 128, mostly the "intelligence" model change that affects how batsmen chase in an innings? On face value it looks like a no-brainer, but I put this to you - now that your top order is considering your lower-order all rounders to be useful against any attack (no matter how strong), what will you do when you want your top order to stick around more? Against expert bowlers, having your top order hit out more (thinking that your lower order bats can still chip in) would work perfectly, but against world class bowlers you need your top order to defend more - which won't be the case because they'll still assume your lower order bats can chip in. So now, is it logical that against stronger teams I have to "drop" my all rounders, just to force my top order to bat a little bit more sensibly while chasing? You know he didn't implement it how I think he should. I think late innings collapses will to too common now as his method puts too much emphasis on rubbish bats that average essentially nothing. Given the graph you've seen, I'm not convinced it's as non-linear as you think.
|
|
|
Post by r0b1et on Mar 10, 2011 7:10:56 GMT -5
So now, is it logical that against stronger teams I have to "drop" my all rounders, just to force my top order to bat a little bit more sensibly while chasing? I would've thought it would come down to experience. Any experienced batsman knows that they have to do their bit and not rely on other players to make the runs. I'm still going to be playing my best XI for the conditions either way. Experience is simply a skill modifer in all aspects bar strike farming.
|
|
|
Post by r0b1et on Mar 10, 2011 10:10:24 GMT -5
You know he didn't implement it how I think he should. I think late innings collapses will to too common now as his method puts too much emphasis on rubbish bats that average essentially nothing. Given the graph you've seen, I'm not convinced it's as non-linear as you think. ME analysis thread already has the first epic collapse: www.fromthepavilion.org/commentary.htm?gameId=996984That has happened almost precisely as I'd anticipated in the relevent admin thread.
|
|
butlee
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by butlee on Mar 24, 2011 0:33:16 GMT -5
Yeah, props to Rob here. He's probably had this discussion about 4 times now (couple of times with admin, general forum, and in here) and he's still passionate about it!
I can't see that commentary but it looks like both sides has massive collapses.
I guess I see another problem with this now, other then the one I initially didn't like. It's probably exactly what Rob is talking about, except from the other angle.
This is going to make top order bats seemingly invincible if your tail is useless. Because the top order will defend-up majorly to accommodate for a pathetic tail. Then when your tail comes in it'll just collapse because they'll be thinking "its ok, I can hit out because the next guy in bats as well as I do"
So that's a failure on both parts.
And that just cummulates my inital worry that now THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP THIS.
How soon until I can re-open my complaints against this change?
|
|
|
Post by r0b1et on Mar 24, 2011 9:28:14 GMT -5
I maintain the problem is the weighting, not the theory.
|
|
|
Post by smiddie on Mar 27, 2011 0:16:08 GMT -5
This change is only for friendlies atm right? butlee - you say that if you have bowlers who cant bat your top 5 batsmen + keeper (if a batsmen) will be invincible cause they know the bottom 5 cant bat so they need to stick around longer, (hope i got this right) the thing is your batsmen might stick around longer but bat at a much slower RR and when the game gets close to the end a collapse of like 8+ wickets could happen (probably often) cause your batsmen need to try and score big to get a par score and once they are gone you got no bats at the end to chip in. and another thing if you do play 2-3 true all-rounders the top order is thinking they can relax cause they have other batsmen to chip in, well IMO they should bat better cause they are more relaxed and just thinking about the game not worried they need to last 50 overs cause no one else can bat. @rob - can you explain why you think this will cause more late inning collapses?
|
|
|
Post by r0b1et on Mar 28, 2011 15:14:42 GMT -5
consider this batting line up (batting summaries with numeric version)
outs (10) outs (10) spect (11) spect (11) spect (11) outs (10) reli (7) ave (4) ord (3) poor (2) dread (1)
if we get nos 5&6 in, 42 points are back in the hutch, of 80 available. The par time for this to happen is in the 27th over. But 1 wicket later and we have a reliable in, who's much weaker and will struggle to last as effectively, but we now have 52/3 points back in the shed (par time 33rd over), I'd not want my 6&7 in at the 33rd! Especially as in the next 17 overs, 1 wicket will likely remove the rest of the order.
I suggested that the solution was to not weight batsmen like that, but weights more like: outs (7) outs (7) spect (8) spect (8) spect (8) outs (7) reli (4) ave (1) ord (0) poor (0) dread (0) So our ratio points from the story above would be 30/50 and 38/50... which delay's the problem.
Initially I'd suggested the solution was non-linear, but Ash was very against that (he's usually anti-clever maths tricks), but then didn't seem concerned that his chosen linear fit doesn't weight the batsmen as they perform.
|
|
butlee
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by butlee on Mar 28, 2011 19:10:23 GMT -5
@ Smiddie, the thing is - it should be my decision on how this happens (through aggression settings probably). If I stack my top order and have a long tail, then I should be the one balancing my top 6 with defensive orders. If I choose to play my all rounders (and deem that they're a handy contribution with the bat), then it's my decision if I want to play more aggressive in the top order. At the moment, I don't get that option. In fact, I have to use my aggression in a non-intuitive way to counter-act the change to get what I want. How fair is that?
|
|
butlee
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by butlee on Mar 28, 2011 19:14:02 GMT -5
@ Rob, it's interesting now that I'm thinking about it more. Does FTP use summaries to determine who the better batsman is? In which case, it's even worse then I thought! Summaries don't mean anything, they don't do anything. I'm sure you as much as anyone just realises that they're simply a weighted sum of the relevant skills. So let's not even think about talents.
|
|
butlee
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by butlee on Mar 28, 2011 19:21:43 GMT -5
Let's try run this one... and see what we think. Say I have a finisher bat - that's fairly common.
If this is the lineup:
outs (10) outs (10) spect (11) spect (11) spect (11) reli (7) outs (10) - Finisher ave (4) ord (3) poor (2) dread (1)
That's fairly common - tuck the finisher below the all rounder, to ensure the finisher comes in a bit later. This tactic is fairly well null and void now. With 20 points out of 80 left "below" my all rounder, my a/r would still try and push the scoring a bit, likely getting out quickley and not holding out for my finisher. Then my finisher comes in, and realises he's only got 10/80 points below him, so he holds back a bit until really late in the innings as well.
Whereas if I flip them two:
outs (10) outs (10) spect (11) spect (11) spect (11) outs (10) - Finisher reli (7) ave (4) ord (3) poor (2) dread (1)
The finisher comes in and realises that there's only 17 points below him, and so he'll preserve his wicket a little bit, and hang around - and as the innings comes nearer to closing, he'll hit out a bit more knowing there's still a little bit more below him then the previous scenario.
So why would I ever put a finisher at 7 below a lesser bat? This change is meant to balance the lineups out - let you move weaker bats around in your lineup, and still make the batting work intuitively. Here, it's doing the exact opposite.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by smiddie on Mar 28, 2011 19:57:24 GMT -5
butlee ah i see your point now, you cant put your all-rounders up the order due to them playing to aggressive (considering your batsmen to come in) and you cant put your finisher below your bowlers unless you actually want him to bat slowly (even at the end) glad its only in friendlies atm. this will hurt my accumulator opener with lowish power as he will play more aggressive with all the batting to come, i dont like that at all. might have to start playing on flat/hard pitches.
|
|
butlee
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by butlee on Mar 29, 2011 0:51:20 GMT -5
butlee ah i see your point now, you cant put your all-rounders up the order due to them playing to aggressive (considering your batsmen to come in) and you cant put your finisher below your bowlers unless you actually want him to bat slowly (even at the end) glad its only in friendlies atm. this will hurt my accumulator opener with lowish power as he will play more aggressive with all the batting to come, i dont like that at all. might have to start playing on flat/hard pitches. Well to be fair, there are advantages too. Teams may chase a bit better then usual which is a good thing. And the changes won't completely determine the way your guys play... but they'll definitely be "tweaked" to play a little different to what they do now. But I'm just trying to highlight more and more (common) situations where this change makes those scenario's worse. The all rounder one is a great example, as the whole premise for this change was so that people could "not just stack their best 6 batsmen in the top 6" and instead use more tactics to mix up their batting lineup (such as using pinch hitter all rounders up the order etc...). But as I'm showing, it's just as often now "worse" to move all rounders up the order.... so the intent of the change fails. Anyway, I'm just annoyed at it. I think the implementation was much a "PR" exercise, and Ash was overwhelmed by the support of the under-informed, near-sighted masses.
|
|
|
Post by smiddie on Mar 29, 2011 3:35:31 GMT -5
I use all-rounder up the order 90% of the time when playing on extremely bowler friendly wickets and against a decent opponent, it just bys the little extra time to have true batsmen in at the last 10 and with a few to come in. i found it to work ok now but not great but would not like to see it get worse.
but i do place my all-rounders on (N) as i dont want them in for 20 overs, so i guess a (D) orders might work the same, have to test it in friendlies.
whos up for a friendly match this Thursday? i pull about 170 and have a long batting line-up
|
|