Stats Arguments

[Shri]

Cricket Chat is better off without them as seen in recent times.

[Uppercut]

The recent reduction in stats arguments in cricket chat is actually extremely overstated. If one was to look at the following table...

[Top_Cat]

Members who post statistics in multiple threads instead of confining their stats postings to select threads are more consistent, and therefore better, posters.

[vic_orthdox]

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

Yup. Seeing the stats wars in CC reminds me of an old quote;

"An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than for illumination."

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

50 words
243 characters
50 spaces
1 paragraph

If I cbf I'd chop it up and get the individual letter counts, but I think I've made my point

[Isura]

Originally Posted by metallics2006

Cricket Chat is better off without them as seen in recent times.

I disagree strongly. I feel that anyone who takes such a strong stand against stats doesn't understand them well enough, and doesn't understand how cricket really works.

Using only stats as an argument = bad
Using stats incorrectly = bad
Stats used correctly, in context to support an argument = good.

[Isura]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

Fortunately, cricket isn't that complicated. We're talking about sequences of fairly independent events in an isolated environment. This isn't basketball, a game that's much much harder to quantify. Yet we have useful metrics to understand basketball. The problem is that very little statistical work has been done in cricket. Of course just quoting averages out of context doesn't add much to discussion..

[Shri]

Originally Posted by Isura

I disagree strongly. I feel that anyone who takes such a strong stand against stats doesn't understand them well enough, and doesn't understand how cricket really works.

Using only stats as an argument = bad
Using stats incorrectly = bad
Stats used correctly, in context to support an argument = good.

I challenge you to make Afridi look good as an ODI batsman with stats then. You might claim that he is a **** house player using stats but when it comes to match day, all stats go out the window. I grew out of rating players with their stats. Stats are only useful when rating players in the past or players who have played the game for a long time. Its absurd to analyse veteran players who are still playing the game unless you have a crystal ball.

Or for another example, CW's own blogger, Mattew Sinclair.

[Richard]

Wait wait wait... you're claiming Shahid Afridi isn't a terrible ODI (or Test, or anywhere else) batsman?

As for stats arguments, well without stats cricket is nothing so therefore if you want no stats arguments in CC then I suggest you attempt to bar arguments full-stop. And CC would be rather boring if a thread composed of an OP and 50 AWTAs.

If on the other hand you want to avoid the silly sort of things you see when KaZoH0lic and whoever-else get started, well it's pretty simple - just don't click on those threads once you know what's happening in them TBH.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

50 words
243 characters
50 spaces
1 paragraph

If I cbf I'd chop it up and get the individual letter counts, but I think I've made my point

On the face of it, your post is very strong on the number 50, GIMH. The competition, 243 and 1 only get one look-in each. However the first number 50 can be excluded due to the poor opposition and the second number 50 on the grounds that pitches are much more favourable for the number 50 in the last 8 years. And when you delete those two, there is not a single example of the number 50 in your post. None at all. You need more number 50s (continues...)

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by Isura

I disagree strongly. I feel that anyone who takes such a strong stand against stats doesn't understand them well enough, and doesn't understand how cricket really works.

Nonsense. It's the people who use them who don't understand how cricket works. Stats are useful as a factual account of what happened but when you see five pages of spreadsheets arguing that Warne was 0.000102 more effective than Murali if you remove "minnows" it's just completely spurious garbage. And not forgetting best of all the stats proving that Garry Sobers only took wickets because he bowled a lot.

Originally Posted by Isura

Fortunately, cricket isn't that complicated.

Cricket is precisely that complicated as every single delivery is totally unique. If you want uncomplicated stats use sales of Nurse McReedie's Home Made Lentil Soup which is only reliant on profit margins and cold weather.

[zaremba]

Loving this thread

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Loving this thread

Only because 2/13th of the posts are yours.

[zaremba]

You mean 2/14.

Oh bollocks, 3/15