@nocricketingview.bsky.social
batting is irrelevant in a sport of batting and bowling
The graphics in the IPL broadcast show Kohli as the bowler instead of Hazlewood. This further emphasizes the fact that in T20s, the bowler and, therefore, by extension, bowling is irrelevant.
Refreshing to see that the cricket community is finally coming to terms with this.
Bumrah so far has conceded 13 runs and hasn't taken a wicket. His average in Australia is ~18 runs.
He should focus on conceding 5 more runs as soon as possible.
Variables such as the pitch, ball, or the "conditions" are immaterial to any wicket-taking ability a bowler has.
"Setup" is a post-facto invention thrown around by commentators, pundits, players, and basically everyone who has played cricket about how preceding deliveries can affect the "mindset" of a batter for the incoming ball.
If "setup" is real, why doesn't appear as a variable on one of my SQL tables?
However, P(X) for the toss is 0.5 or 50%. This supports the conclusion that the most important factor in a game of cricket is the toss. Selections are a secondary and unimportant part of the game, contributing to only 1/5th part of what happens at the toss.
(2/2)
Suppose a bowler wants outcome X, for which the bowler aims to perform action A, and the batter will respond with action B
The probability of X is P(A)*P(B). P(X) on any delivery is almost 10%.
That's a complete description of cricket.
(1/2)
Too much of cricket commentary discourse revolves around who the best fielder in a team is or about a "good dive" that saved a couple of runs. This is pure psychobabble.
Fielding is inherently irrelevant because it saves runs. Which in turn is irrelevant because batting is irrelevant in cricket.
Cricket is just an SQL query with too many variables.
19.11.2024 13:35 — 👍 3 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0
