If you can control the bat that well at the MLB level, you wouldn’t need to.
In the NFL they have a stat called completion probability.
You’ll often see it mentioned during football games where a really impressive catch is made. The entire stat is based on whether or not the receiver should be able to catch the ball. So this seems to fit the OP’s request.
There’s a similar system for MLB. Route efficiency and catch probability for outfielders (if I’m remembering it correctly).
A distinction between the OP and the case for DLS in cricket is that while DLS has an impact on the game result, there is no impact on individual player stats.
In addition to the NFL examples above, hockey and soccer both have the concept of expected goals. Here’s a writeup of one specific version for soccer; depending on how many variables you use, you can get significantly different results (the link above mentions a goal that can range from 0.5 to 0.97 xG because the shooter’s the only player from either side in the penalty area and other models might only consider where the ball was shot from).
Of course, neither of those are “official” stats.
Similarly, in ice hockey a goal is automatically awarded in empty net situations, when the team with the extra attacker commits a penalty in the attempt of preventing the other team from scoring on the empty net.
Thanks! I don’t watch football much but I would find this interesting to hear about during games.
Also a dropped third strike (with a runner on first base, or no runner on first but two outs) is counted as both a strikeout for the pitcher and batsman.
I can think of a couple situations in curling that might apply.
In large tournaments, spotters evaluate what shot a team is trying to play, and compare the actual result. Curlers have a percentage indicating how well they are performing. However, there are occasions where a team will deliberately throw a stone the length of the sheet and essentially waste the shot. Those don’t count for the players’ percentages.
When sweeping, your broom is not allowed to touch the stone. If it does, the stone is stopped and that shot is forfeited. However, if it happens after the hog line, the players are supposed to let the stone keep going. Then the other team has an option; they can let the result of the shot stand as is, return the stones to where they were before the shot, or they can place the stones where they think they would have ended up if the illegal touch hadn’t happened.
Par in golf is pretty much the definition of an expected outcome.
There’s a big one. The whole game is based on expected outcome, the expected outcome of pros playing golf. Pretty high standard to work for.
And welcome back.
Wait-- isn’t billiards the one with the bank shots, where you have to contact certain balls in a certain order? Pool is the one where you want to sink shots.
Are you concerned with how statistics are kept, or actual in-game results. I’ve been approaching this with respect to officials seeing what happened, what should have happened, and adjusting the results of the play accordingly. Goaltending in basketball, catcher interference in baseball, defensive pass interference in football; they all rely on the officials seeing what happened and changing the result based on what “should have happened” had it not been a penalty.
Interference calls in horse racing, speed skating, cycling, etc. all require the officials to determine what “should have” happened and adjust the results accordingly.
A player’s batting average as a result of a walk, HBP, or error doesn’t seem to be the same thing.
I agree there’s a distinction.
All of the former are examples of ensuring that cheating is not advantageous to the cheater. Which is not only a good thing but an essential thing if the rules are to have any meaning at all.
The OP seems more interested in individual stats that in effect assume typical highly skilled play by the opposing team, even on those occasions the opposing team goofs or cheats.
Pool, Snooker, and the games without pockets are all forms of billiards. Some versions like 3-Carom Billiards which doesn’t have pockets have ‘billiards’ in the name.
I guess the concept of an own goal would be relevant for this. When Steve Smith famously caromed the puck into his own net in the NHL playoffs, the goal was credited to Perry Berezan, who had been the last opposing player to touch it. An equivalent soccer play would go down as an own goal, reflecting that no offensive player was directly responsible for it.
Doesn’t football make a distinction between incomplete passes that were aimed at a receiver, but not caught, and throws made to nowhere in particular, with no intended receiver? And unlike the example of baseball errors, that’s a distinction that can have an effect on who wins the game.
Not in the commonly-used stats. Throwing the ball away, a pass that sails over a receiver’s head (but was clearly targeted at him), and a pass that bounces off of a receiver’s hands, all look exactly the same in the stat sheet: the quarterback is charged with an incomplete pass.
There may well be some manner of advanced stat which differentiates between those, but it’s not something you see in the standard stats, and it’s not something I remember seeing.
Whether or not a receiver is in the area where the ball is thrown does matter in the NFL if you are determining whether there is an intentional grounding penalty against the quarterback.
And any pass that turns out to be a foul won’t count in passing stats.