Just goes to show...
That not everything can be solved purely by a computer.
Microsoft's attempt to re-write one of cricket's oddest rules has been rejected by its statistical guardian. This story starts with India's mania for cricket and especially one-day and Twenty20 cricket*. When matches in those abbreviated forms of the game are interrupted by weather, a formula called “The Duckworth Lewis Method …
It's more accurate to say that nothing can be solved purely by a computer.
Computers are needed to automate and accelerate the logical processing that people want done but the quality both of the data and of the logic the computer is given to process against are defining factors in the quality of the output you get.
AI efforts are working to try and add more layers of what we consider to be thought to the automated process but recent high profile booboos from Facebook and Google (in automated photo recognition) and Tesla (self-driving car) demonstrate that there's some way to go before letting the human reins off those.
All but guaranteed to be used in a betting capacity. Allows the controller of that data to figure out the betting odds before the revised targets are otherwise announced and effectively short other punters when the conditions are right.
Last summer some Indian guy was kicked out of various Aussie grounds after sitting there on his laptop working with the telecast delay (~10 seconds) to make bets about batsmen getting out after it was lollipoped but before it was caught. If it was an iPhone app, he could do it undetected.
It's a mugs game.
The problem isn't with the system per se. The problem is with the complete failure of any commentator or cricket show etc to seriously attempt to explain why the numbers fall the way they do. There are a myriad of factors that come together to decide the adjusted target, the scoring rate averages, wickets in hand, overs remaining, the price of cheese and Schrödinger's cat's life expectancy. It tries to balance out the reduced overs so that neither team is advantaged by the target but you are looking at a game where a few runs can matter a lot. For me, the confidence interval for likely scores has got to be too wide for this sort of protection to be reliably made.
When there's only a few overs truncated I am probably exaggerating the problem, but i would as an engineer like to see the relative weightings displayed in the stats rather than just be told that's the number because we're clever.
That Stern guy deserves applaud for resisting the current ever-present urge to put computers in charge of even more data and for doing it with rock-solid arguments to boot.
Indeed, it would seem that the suggestion to use Big Data for the DLS evaluation is just another shiny shiny that would excite the engineers but is useless to the real world since, apparently, DLS only takes the last 4 years of data into account.
And I like very much the point about not taking into account personal stats since it could skew a team's entire strategy. Very realistic.
Thumbs up for keeping a sport about the sport and resisting the siren song of borgification by engineer.
The point of cricket is to spend the day eating and drinking, whilst occasionally applauding a piece of skill or good judgement by one of the participants. These attempts at forcing results, like penalty shootouts in football, are essentially an Americanism: draws or non-results are perfectly acceptable outcomes.
"draws or non-results are perfectly acceptable outcomes."
You're slightly missing the point - Draws and no results are entirely possible when playing under DLS conditions. What DLS is for, is working out what the team batting second for are aiming for - i.e. it is to work out what the score is and keep the game fair. DLS doesn't *force* a result.
Your emphasis is really just pointing out that Test cricket is 'proper' cricket. For which I agree, T20 has a place but it shouldn't take over from Test cricket as the defining form of the game. (if anything, it should take over from 1 Day cricket which is an unsatisfactory halfway house between the two)
NB - penalty shootouts aren't simply an Americanism, they're necessary for the knockout stage of a tournament to work. Notice that football (even in America) doesn't force a winning result in a league structure.
> "Notice that football (even in America) doesn't force a winning result in a league structure."
The emotionally stunted players and fans of Rugby League in Australia demanded a "golden point" system (first to score the next point of any sort) to deal with draws in the NRL.
No other sport in Oz does that to my knowledge, as the rest of the sports players and fans have more that enough neurons to understand that sometimes teams can be equally good or equally shite.
@MrDamage - "The emotionally stunted players and fans of Rugby League in Australia demanded a "golden point" system (first to score the next point of any sort) to deal with draws in the NRL."
They tried 'Golden Goal' (first to score) and 'Silver Goal' (team in lead at halfway) in extra time in some international [Association] Football tournaments in the 90s/2000s, the intention was to make it 'more exciting', reduce the number of penalty shootouts and prevent teams having to play a whole half hour extra.
But what happened was a classic unintended consequence - it actually made the extra time *less* exciting and led to more shootouts as teams, already naturally risk adverse, became even more defensive as the risk/reward balance had shifted to greater risk.
I know your point was about allowing draws in a league but I think it's interesting when you see what happens with similar initiatives in knockout tournaments. Much like the drug user trying to keep the high going. Often trying to manufacture excitement consistently leads to less overall (look at the final minutes of a close basketball game for 'manufactured excitement'). I think it comes from the flawed idea that everything can be made equally brilliant but all that does is dull the excitement from the whole sport. You actually need the lows, the terrible games, to have the great games and moments in any sport.
This post has been deleted by its author
It has players who work within a set of chosen rules (or " laws") which are there to make the game work. All that matters is that everyone follows them. They don't have to be too reasonable, or even logical. They just have to be.
Most games have rules that are there for rules sake. In Tennis you have to win by two games, if I understand it right. And they count the scores in funny words. No sensible reason other than that "them's the rules".
And in footie there's the offside rule. But you don't need an offside rule. If the other side's players aren't up there, well tough.
Chess has that funny rule about the prawns going past each other. En Passant. Don't need it.
Cricket itself has things called "overs", which as I understand it means you've thrown six balls and it's someone else's turn, if I've understood it right. But why 6? And the names ( like with tennis) are surely just there to confuse anyone who isn't among the initiated. Last thing we want is silly buggers trying to make the rules reasonable.
"And in footie there's the offside rule. But you don't need an offside rule. If the other side's players aren't up there, well tough."
[Not sure which 'footie' you're referring to]
Offside is interesting - most team sports have a version, it's not so much a silly rule* but a device to give the game structure. A bit like saying that everyone should go clockwise in Monopoly is just a rule rather than a basic principle.
In Association Football, it's primarily to prevent 'goalhanging' and forces the strikers and midfielders to have to beat the defence in a more restricted space (also allows the ref to not be too far away from the action), without it the structure of the game would be very different. I notice that the same principle is in Rugby (both Union and League), American Football, Basketball (the '3 in the key' rule) even in 1 day Cricket there are laws regarding how many close/deep fielders are allowed.
* - although it can be written in a really silly way
Terry 6 - I think you're perhaps oversimplifying some of the laws and rules of games as all just silly things. Aspects of a games require rules/laws to make the game, the game.
"Most games have rules that are there for rules sake. In Tennis you have to win by two games, if I understand it right. And they count the scores in funny words. No sensible reason other than that "them's the rules"."
The scoring in funny words is basically there for the sake of it. However, if you didn't win a set by two clear games then most sets would be won by the person to serve the first game in that set (the toss of a coin), the rule isn't there for the sake of it, it's there to create the principle that a player needs to 'break' an opponent's serving game to win the set. That's not really a rule for the hell of it, that's a rule to define one of the basic elements of a tennis match.
DLS isn't just to be extra weird, it's also to allow both teams to know what the score is when rain interrupts play and is supposed to be a fair way of calculating that score.
This post has been deleted by its author
There's a reason why Google's Deep Mind will happily play Go but probably never tackle cricket.
Getting a computer to take on cricket would be like trying to automate making a good cup of tea…
Don't panic! Mine's the one with a copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in the pocket.