How much can we justifiably use statistics

[benchmark00]

Knew some smoker was going to comment on that.


Let's take this out back ****.

[robelinda]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Inspire what though?

All they do is provide benchmarks and little records. They're so incredibly inconsequential to anything that matters.

1000% agree, you Cheeqs lover. Ive always hated stats. All they do is fuel endless ultimately worthless debate.

[Migara]

Originally Posted by JBMAC

An interesting set of stats. For me it's not about them though. Stats do not take into consideration pitch conditions etc etc etc They should be used cautiously as a guide only.

Batting and bowling stats may not. But ICC rating takes in to account the opposition batsmen/ bowlers and total runs scored in the match. Indirectly it assesses pitch condition IMO.

Still light years better than subjective blabberings.

[Arachnodouche]

Hate stats the way I hate music nazis. Both take the joy out of life.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Knew some smoker was going to comment on that.


Let's take this out back ****.

In a sec mate. Just having a cuppa.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Inspire what though?

All they do is provide benchmarks and little records. They're so incredibly inconsequential to anything that matters.

Originally Posted by Burgey

Most benchmarks are...

[JBMAC]

Originally Posted by Migara

Batting and bowling stats may not. But ICC rating takes in to account the opposition batsmen/ bowlers and total runs scored in the match. Indirectly it assesses pitch condition IMO.

Still light years better than subjective blabberings.

AND your implication is.....?????

[Spark]

Torn tbh between the two camps, always find myself shifting. Usually end up in favour of the "watching > stats" argument but there's a place for stats. In the end cricket is simply about weight of runs and wickets, and stats is the packaging.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Spark

Torn tbh between the two camps, always find myself shifting. Usually end up in favour of the "watching > stats" argument but there's a place for stats. In the end cricket is simply about weight of runs and wickets, and stats is the packaging.

Well kind of. But you can't accurately measure the inputs which bring about those runs and wickets.

Whether it be a bowler keeping it tight down one end and building the pressure, or a batsman giving the strike to his partner when he's hot... You can't measure that ****, and in essence that is cricket, not pure runs and wickets.

[Spark]

No, you can't, but in the end you have to make a subjective judgement call about the relative importance of each little factor.

Which is exactly the same thought process as in basic stat manipulation (not ridiculous nitpicky stat manipulation, that is).

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Spark

No, you can't, but in the end you have to make a subjective judgement call about the relative importance of each little factor.

Which is exactly the same thought process as in basic stat manipulation (not ridiculous nitpicky stat manipulation, that is).

There's nothing stats can show me that I can't already deduce from watching cricket myself. And watching cricket itself reveals way more to me than any detailed stats argument you can put up about the same issue.

Comes back to my point of stats having such an insignificant impact on cricket.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

There's nothing stats can show me that I can't already deduce from watching cricket myself. And watching cricket itself reveals way more to me than any detailed stats argument you can put up about the same issue.

Comes back to my point of stats having such an insignificant impact on cricket.

That's fair enough.

[robelinda]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

There's nothing stats can show me that I can't already deduce from watching cricket myself. And watching cricket itself reveals way more to me than any detailed stats argument you can put up about the same issue.

Comes back to my point of stats having such an insignificant impact on cricket.

See, thats why I can't for the life of me understand why you think Cheeqs was good. Maybe your eyes are infested with some strange disease that makes atrocious **** backyard batting techniques look good???

Like, seriously, like, ya know?

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by robelinda

See, thats why I can't for the life of me understand why you think Cheeqs was good. Maybe your eyes are infested with some strange disease that makes atrocious **** backyard batting techniques look good???

Like, seriously, like, ya know?

Run at me, ****.

[Ruckus]

I definately don't think this is the case, but let's just assume that stats can encompass every aspect of the game necessary to describe how good/bad a player is. By implication that means that there would be only one correct answer to any question that seeks to compare players - e.g. the question, "who is the better batsman out of Ponting or Kallis?" would only have one answer, and to find it all you would have to do is look up the appropriate stats. I think a fair few people believe that stats can get pretty close to being able cover all the necessary bases, and if that is the case, my question to them is, why are you even particularly interested in something like cricket? Any debate brought on by that belief inevitably revolves around fiddling with numbers - i.e. the goal is basically an attempt to completely remove any subjective qualities of cricket, which are the very things that make it enjoyable imo.

In any case, I don't even think something like cricket can ever be meaningfully described by stats alone, and even if it could, I can't think of many reasons why it should be.