Cricketing knowledge tells us batting is more difficult early in a player’s innings but becomes easier as a player familiarizes themselves with the conditions. In this paper, we develop a Bayesian survival analysis method to predict the Test Match batting abilities for international cricketers. The model is applied in two stages, firstly to individual players, allowing us to quantify players’ initial and equilibrium batting abilities, and the rate of transition between the two. This is followed by implementing the model using a hierarchical structure, providing us with more general inference concerning a selected group of opening batsmen from New Zealand. The results indicate most players begin their innings playing with between only a quarter and half of their potential batting ability. Using the hierarchical structure we are able to make predictions for the batting abilities of the next opening batsman to debut for New Zealand. Additionally, we compare and identify players who excel in the role of opening the batting, which has practical implications in terms of batting order and team selection policy.
The concept that disease rooted principally in chronic aberrant constitutive and reactive activation of mast cells (MCs), without the gross MC neoplasia in mastocytosis, first emerged in the 1980s, but only in the last decade has recognition of “mast cell activation syndrome” (MCAS) grown significantly. Two principal proposals for diagnostic criteria have emerged. One, originally published in 2012, is labeled by its authors as a “consensus” (re-termed here as “consensus-1”). Another sizable contingent of investigators and practitioners favor a different approach (originally published in 2011, newly termed here as “consensus-2”), resembling “consensus-1” in some respects but differing in others, leading to substantial differences between these proposals in the numbers of patients qualifying for diagnosis (and thus treatment). Overdiagnosis by “consensus-2” criteria has potential to be problematic, but underdiagnosis by “consensus-1” criteria seems the far larger problem given (1) increasing appreciation that MCAS is prevalent (up to 17% of the general population), and (2) most MCAS patients, regardless of illness duration prior to diagnosis, can eventually identify treatment yielding sustained improvement. We analyze these proposals (and others) and suggest that, until careful research provides more definitive answers, diagnosis by either proposal is valid, reasonable, and helpful.