The claim in the piece follows from the Laws. The fact that a six is not attempted on ball X and that it is attempted on ball Y are equally significant competitively. I don't see how it can be otherwise.
Teams generally try to get ahead as much as possible as early as possible in ODI matches. The thrilling denoument is the exception, not the rule.
In ODI fixtures in the current century, the average successful chasing team has won with 55 balls to spare; 87% of ODI chases are completed with at least an over to spare. The majority of successful ODI chases are completed with at least 32 balls to spare. The average successful target-setting team wins by 74 runs on average. The majority of successful target defences are completed with at least 63 runs to spare, and 91% are completed with at least ten runs to spare. The norm in ODI cricket is not that games build up to a thrilling end game. It is that teams contest every ball and want to get ahead as much as they can, as early as they can. [This is taken from a recent article https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/kartikeya-date-do-india-choke-in-high-profile-odis-here-s-what-the-numbers-say-1360877]
But doesn't the value of wicket change based on how many balls remain? If that's the case then wouldn't particular overs (in combination with in game situation) be higher leverage? Obviously, the over in it of itself doesn't out weigh any other, but the stakes of a particular over in a particular game changes based on things like wickets and run-rate. I guess what you're saying is that in terms of cause-effect each event prior was equally important in arriving at this moment, but particular moments themselves do seem to carry higher stakes especially when we add in that not all batters wickets are valued the same (getting out a very productive batter early in the game might have greater outcome than getting out a poor batter with 2 balls left in the innings)
Even if you develop a measurement which evaluates some notion of a value of a wicket after X balls in an ODI match, that change in value only occurs because of what happened on earlier deliveries. It follows from these that the earlier deliveries have to be as competitively significant as the one you are observing.
For example, suppose a team is chasing 280 in 50 overs. And reached 155/3 in 35 overs. The fifth bowler has two overs left and will bowl the 36th and 38th. 125 are needed in 15 overs (8.33 rpo). This equation exists only because of what happened in the first 35 overs. So, the outcome of the first 35 overs created these stakes. As far as the outcome of the match is concerned, each of the first 35 overs (which contribute exactly equally to the score at 35 overs) is as significant as the 36th.
This makes sense to me on the back end but what about the start?
Teams may change how they approach an innings based on losing early wickets, and so the value of those wickets might be higher.
Consider a team who bats first goes 30/7 in the first 10 overs. Is it wrong to say that balls thrown during that 10 over stretch are more significant than those bowled in the following 10 overs when the next two play conservative for 20? Or do we just accept that even though the 8 and 9 batters stuck around for 10 overs at 3rpo , they had the potential to go at 11 and thus those moments were equally valuable?
I'm ready to agree that each over has the potential to be of equal competitive import but I think there are moments in a game (based on match up, run rate, wickets in hand, lineup, etc.) in which the outcome causes a greater wake than others.
btw appreciate all your excellent work, both on the pod and in print (online).
There's all sorts of such things, tactics, mind-games, limitations of resources (for eg. one side might have a genuine all rounder, the other side might not, and might have to rely on a couple of part-timers to bowl the 5th bowler's quota). None of this change the competitive significance of each delivery.
In other words, how important a delivery is, is not in the hands of the contestants.
Let me add another 'biasing'factor, especially in T20. Nobody will speak about it, but it is my strong private suspicion that teams, especially top IPL teams, manoeuvre to stretch a game to the last over to increase betting exponentially. They might lose the occasional match, but top teams will still make the last four comfortably.
Agree to point that ODI is all about building an innings
But there is also risk-to-reward-ratio. It gets skewed towards end of 1st innigs to post a big target or towards end of 2nd innings to chase and win a match
It also gives clarity of the match-situation to all (players & audience) and make ODIs thoroughly enjoyable post 35-overs in either innings, unless something significant happens in early overs
True example why Dhoni got MOM in 2011 WC final and Dhoni, Yuvraj, Bevan considered top ODI stars delivering under pressure
I do find your assumption of a uniform distribution too rigid, more so in ODIs.
I don't follow.
The claim in the piece follows from the Laws. The fact that a six is not attempted on ball X and that it is attempted on ball Y are equally significant competitively. I don't see how it can be otherwise.
Teams generally try to get ahead as much as possible as early as possible in ODI matches. The thrilling denoument is the exception, not the rule.
In ODI fixtures in the current century, the average successful chasing team has won with 55 balls to spare; 87% of ODI chases are completed with at least an over to spare. The majority of successful ODI chases are completed with at least 32 balls to spare. The average successful target-setting team wins by 74 runs on average. The majority of successful target defences are completed with at least 63 runs to spare, and 91% are completed with at least ten runs to spare. The norm in ODI cricket is not that games build up to a thrilling end game. It is that teams contest every ball and want to get ahead as much as they can, as early as they can. [This is taken from a recent article https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/kartikeya-date-do-india-choke-in-high-profile-odis-here-s-what-the-numbers-say-1360877]
But doesn't the value of wicket change based on how many balls remain? If that's the case then wouldn't particular overs (in combination with in game situation) be higher leverage? Obviously, the over in it of itself doesn't out weigh any other, but the stakes of a particular over in a particular game changes based on things like wickets and run-rate. I guess what you're saying is that in terms of cause-effect each event prior was equally important in arriving at this moment, but particular moments themselves do seem to carry higher stakes especially when we add in that not all batters wickets are valued the same (getting out a very productive batter early in the game might have greater outcome than getting out a poor batter with 2 balls left in the innings)
Even if you develop a measurement which evaluates some notion of a value of a wicket after X balls in an ODI match, that change in value only occurs because of what happened on earlier deliveries. It follows from these that the earlier deliveries have to be as competitively significant as the one you are observing.
For example, suppose a team is chasing 280 in 50 overs. And reached 155/3 in 35 overs. The fifth bowler has two overs left and will bowl the 36th and 38th. 125 are needed in 15 overs (8.33 rpo). This equation exists only because of what happened in the first 35 overs. So, the outcome of the first 35 overs created these stakes. As far as the outcome of the match is concerned, each of the first 35 overs (which contribute exactly equally to the score at 35 overs) is as significant as the 36th.
This makes sense to me on the back end but what about the start?
Teams may change how they approach an innings based on losing early wickets, and so the value of those wickets might be higher.
Consider a team who bats first goes 30/7 in the first 10 overs. Is it wrong to say that balls thrown during that 10 over stretch are more significant than those bowled in the following 10 overs when the next two play conservative for 20? Or do we just accept that even though the 8 and 9 batters stuck around for 10 overs at 3rpo , they had the potential to go at 11 and thus those moments were equally valuable?
I'm ready to agree that each over has the potential to be of equal competitive import but I think there are moments in a game (based on match up, run rate, wickets in hand, lineup, etc.) in which the outcome causes a greater wake than others.
btw appreciate all your excellent work, both on the pod and in print (online).
Not sure how the score changes the significance.
There are mind games all the time in an ODI, and these introduce nonlinearity
There's all sorts of such things, tactics, mind-games, limitations of resources (for eg. one side might have a genuine all rounder, the other side might not, and might have to rely on a couple of part-timers to bowl the 5th bowler's quota). None of this change the competitive significance of each delivery.
In other words, how important a delivery is, is not in the hands of the contestants.
Let me add another 'biasing'factor, especially in T20. Nobody will speak about it, but it is my strong private suspicion that teams, especially top IPL teams, manoeuvre to stretch a game to the last over to increase betting exponentially. They might lose the occasional match, but top teams will still make the last four comfortably.
Agree to point that ODI is all about building an innings
But there is also risk-to-reward-ratio. It gets skewed towards end of 1st innigs to post a big target or towards end of 2nd innings to chase and win a match
It also gives clarity of the match-situation to all (players & audience) and make ODIs thoroughly enjoyable post 35-overs in either innings, unless something significant happens in early overs
True example why Dhoni got MOM in 2011 WC final and Dhoni, Yuvraj, Bevan considered top ODI stars delivering under pressure