SJS, here it is

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Hard to disagree, but the Mods might possibly be objecting to that.

Apologies to anyone offended (other than the ****** himself), but the guy is having a dig at weldone who is contributing something positive to the forum. In fact, weldone has contributed more to this forum in one line than Cre-tard has in his 800 worthless, vacuous posts.

 

[99*]

**** off and rot rather than pissing on other people you worthless ****.

 

[Richard]

Haha, can't remember the last time there was such ringing approval for a post that broke one of the most oft-enforced forum rules TBH.

 

[bond21]

no need to apologist to me, i wasnt offended.

Also I have 785 posts, not 800

 

[James]

Apologies to anyone offended (other than the ****** himself), but the guy is having a dig at weldone who is contributing something positive to the forum. In fact, weldone has contributed more to this forum in one line than Cre-tard has in his 800 worthless, vacuous posts.

Just a note for the future, try and retrain from those sorts of posts. Just report the post, and let a mod handle it.

bond21 - if you want to continue acting like this, you're not going to last long on the forums again. You were banned for seven days earlier, and if you want to see yourself banned again, you're certainly going the right way about it.

 

[bond21]

its not my problem HeathDavisSpeed didnt comprehend my comment.

Lillian has the right idea.

I was not "pissing on him" as Heath so charmingly stated, I was implying he should be curing cancer with his smarts, I duno how you managed to make people believe you by twisting my words so blatantly but whatever

 

[chasingthedon]

its not my problem HeathDavisSpeed didnt comprehend my comment.

Lillian has the right idea.

I was not "pissing on him" as Heath so charmingly stated, I was implying he should be curing cancer with his smarts, I duno how you managed to make people believe you by twisting my words so blatantly but whatever

From weldone's original post:-
"If any member doesn't like cricket statistics and/or proper in-depth analysis based on that he's kindly advised not to post in this thread as they'll find a lot other threads of their likings"

Weldone, I for one appreciate your efforts. Cricket is steeped in statistical information, there's no harm in analysing it. If you happen to find something otherwise not obvious, then more power to you. The fact that you chose three batsmen which other members felt were obvious in their ranking is down to SJS, correct? Besides, one of the tests of a good statistical analysis is that it recognises the obvious.

 

[chasingthedon]

Maybe run difference would be better to use?

After all, the batsman's greatness is based on how many more runs he scores for his team. Using the DF also means ranking is based on much smaller swings, i.e. the ratio. If you use the run differential it allows for easier assessment:-

Batting Average M.A. D.F.Run Diff
Garfield Sobers 57.78 31.5 1.834285714 26.28
Wally Hammond 58.45 33.86 1.726225635 24.59
Brian Lara 52.88 32.59 1.622583615 20.29

 

[chasingthedon]

One more thing

Batting average doesn't take into account unfinished innings, whereas bowling average takes into account all runs scored off a bowler, other than some extras. So there's a slight discrepancy using batting average against bowling average.

 

[Richard]

From weldone's original post:-
"If any member doesn't like cricket statistics and/or proper in-depth analysis based on that he's kindly advised not to post in this thread as they'll find a lot other threads of their likings"

Dave, seriously mate - just don't bother with bond21. Not worth an ounce of the effort.

 

[SJS]

Well SJS, we have a saying in merry old England..........be careful what you ask for.....

Actually this is exactly the kind of stuff I expected. Now I am just watching what others think of this analysis. What I think shall remain .... 'under the covers', if you please.

 

[SJS]

Reminds me of this

Hear, Hear, Hear : Lend me your Ear

SJS's Stats Factory

Providing Flexible Stats for the Inflexible Mind

Statsistics to fit all opinions !
Line up here for your turn !
Read on for more details !​

I am offering a unique new service here.

Here is how it works ?

Step 1. Decide which player you hate ? (say Ponting) or which player you love ? (say Afridi)

Step 2. Decide what you want to prove ?
- He is the best in the world (or worse than the worst).
- He is a great player of spin (or cant tell leg break from leg glance)
- He is a destroyer of fast bowling (or has the runs the moment he hears the words chin and music spoken without a gap between them)
- He is the greatest fielder of all time (or he is to Ganguly as Ganguly is to Jonty Rhodes)

Step 3. Contact the undersigned.

Step 4. I will provide you with statistics that will prove whatever you want me to prove.

Why I am the best ?

I know there are others here who do the same but, there is a difference. They have fixed opinions. They are biased. They lack objectivity. Once they decide Ponting is cra* they just stick to that and are incapable of changing that.

I am unbiased.

I can prove, with stats, that Ponting is the greatest AND/OR at the same time that he is is to Walsh as Walsh is Bradman !!

I am totally objective and have no fixed opinions whatsoever. Only flexible statistics !!

Come and get your favourite heroes and villains put in their places with statistics that just cant be disputed.......... except by myself with another set of equally undisputable statistics ​

 

[weldone]

Reminds me of this

OK if you can prove anything with statistics that I want you to prove, then prove that Sachin has a lower batting average in tests than Venkatesh Prasad...

 

[weldone]

From weldone's original post:-
"If any member doesn't like cricket statistics and/or proper in-depth analysis based on that he's kindly advised not to post in this thread as they'll find a lot other threads of their likings"

Weldone, I for one appreciate your efforts. Cricket is steeped in statistical information, there's no harm in analysing it. If you happen to find something otherwise not obvious, then more power to you. The fact that you chose three batsmen which other members felt were obvious in their ranking is down to SJS, correct? Besides, one of the tests of a good statistical analysis is that it recognises the obvious.

Thanks...

 

[SJS]

OK if you can prove anything with statistics that I want you to prove, then prove that Sachin has a lower batting average in tests than Venkatesh Prasad...

As usual with a 'statistician' you miss the forest for the woods - or is it the other way around?.... do tell me.

HERE, read on and maybe you will develop a sense of humour to go with your "analytical excellence"

 

[Flem274*]

Reminds me of this

Prove that Fleming is > Ponting. Then I'm going to go and find Kazo and start a fight about it.

 

[weldone]

As usual with a 'statistician' you miss the forest for the woods - or is it the other way around?.... do tell me.

HERE, read on and maybe you will develop a sense of humour to go with your "analytical excellence"

I would rather choose not to develop 'a sense of humour' if it demands running the dullest-ever thread for 25 pages...Rather the most researched branch of mathematics of late will keep me busy specially given the fact that none on this earth, let alone this forum, has ever been able to prove mathematics wrong...

Edit: But I must admit your thread proves 2 of my points quite well
1. Improper analysis of statistics is 'improper'.
2. Improper analysis of statistics is 'popular'.

 

[SJS]

Prove that Fleming is > Ponting. Then I'm going to go and find Kazo and start a fight about it.

I have been 'threatening' to restart the 'factory' for far too long without doing anything about it. So I am not going to make any more 'proclamations' of mere good intentions and then let our 'clients' down. We will try.

 

[SJS]

I must tell you, however, that to prove that Fleming is better than Ponting would be one of the easiest assignments we undertook if we did.

 

[SJS]

I would rather choose to not develop 'a sense of humour' if it demands running the dullest-ever thread for 25 pages...Rather the most researched branch of mathematics of late will keep me busy specially given the fact that none on this earth, let alone this forum, has ever been able to prove mathematics wrong...

Edit: But I must admit your thread proves 2 of my points quite well
1. Improper analysis of statistics is 'improper'.
2. Improper analysis of statistics is 'popular'.

I give up.

You are fantastic - par excellence.
Salutations.