How much can we justifiably use statistics

[JBMAC]

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.

That makes bloody sense. You must be an Aussie

[smalishah84]

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.

A very good point.

[Migara]

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

Self explanatory.

[Migara]

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.

The only gaping deficincy in that theory is that

1. You tend to watch more of your favored players. Hence bias.
2. All the cricket cannot be watched by one person. Hence the entire picture is extrapolated from what ever little they have seen.

[Spark]

What guarantees do you have that you won't subconsciously slant your statistical analysis in favour of your favourite players?

[Prince EWS]

The only gaping deficincy in that theory is that

1. You tend to watch more of your favored players. Hence bias.
2. All the cricket cannot be watched by one person. Hence the entire picture is extrapolated from what ever little they have seen.

Yeah, I'm quite interested in how one would analyse players' performances in matches one did not see, or failing that, watch every match ever.

To assume one's cricketing knowledge is of such grandeur as to outweigh human fallibility of analysis, performance variance and natural bias.. and all while only watching a tiny portion of the cricket played at that.. is the height of arrogance. To profess to know better than the game itself because statistics don't always tell the full story reminds me a lot of the argument that it's better to use the human eye than HawkEye even if the latter is more accurate because it's not 100% accurate. Blind faith in our own flawed instincts whenever a measure, however much better, isn't perfect is a widespread ideal throughout humanity that I will never really grasp.

Anyone who reads match threads here will know that I watch as much current cricket as anyone and love nothing more than to discuss a batsman's technique, a bowler's contribution to the attack as a whole, the weight of pressure a good field-set can mount on a team and all those other "beyond averages" aspects of cricket. This is the part of cricket I find most interesting and while I like to use these judgments to form opinions on the potential of players still playing, once someone retires their potential means nothing and all we're left with is what they actually did. And as much as I'd love for my opinion on Matthew Hayden's head position post 2004 to have any relevance to how good he was at scoring runs throughout his career, it doesn't. Determining how good someone could be, might be or probably will be is an exciting and interesting cricketing topic for me because you can use what you see and form judgments from that, but comparing two players who have since retired though (or even a here-and-now comparison) should really come down to what they've put on the board more than anything else. I have a lot of respect for robelinda's position on the matter that it's just fundamentally boring because the more I delve into it, the more it is. Its boring nature doesn't change what it is, though, and no attempt to make it more interesting and achievable will produce more accurate results.

----

Oh, and ignoring all that and addressing the OP for a second, I'm faaaaar from convinced that ICC rankings are the best statistical measure around, let alone a uniform one that can be applied to each player and all his career intricacies. Good post anyway though.

[Migara]

What guarantees do you have that you won't subconsciously slant your statistical analysis in favour of your favourite players?

Still the process has to be explained, and bias is obvious when used in statistics. In subjective assesment, it's not apparent, and worshippers of it, says that they are not biased at all as well.

[Jono]

In reply to the thread question, why would you want to do that?

lol

[Jono]

I just don't understand why ****s are so interested in stats.

Surely you don't need a set of figures to determine who's good and who's ****.

Stats are things ignorant pundits hide behind to make themselves sound knowledgeable.

The only reason you don't like talking about stats is because you can't add and subtract tbf

[kyear2]

Just to be clear as I said at the end of the OP, I did't write this, just wanted to share the information.

I dont beleive that stats can ever tell the whole strory, but what happens when we want to look back at history and examine how good Hobbs and Sutcliffe were, you can read about other people opinions, but the only objective benchmark is stats.
For modern players it is obviously less so, though there are time when there is somewhat of a gap between reputation, results and say the stated ratings system, then what do we do. And that works both ways, Viv and Lillee's stats are very good but not as good as some others, but they are both securely placed in the very upmost pantheon of cricketers. So you have to watch them and trust in what some people have to say, its a matter of choice.
Some one mentioned Hayden earlier as an example of the opposite, and that too is self explanatory.
But how about Akram, he is ranked up there with the Mcgraths, Marshalls, Hadlees, Lillees, ect., but both his stats and ratings tell us he is not quite there. His stats tell us he got a very high poportion of lower order wickets ect, but he was more effective with the older ball. Do we hold this againts him or do we marvel at his ability to reverse it.
Stas dont have all the answers, but it does make us wonder and ask the questions.

[flibbertyjibber]

In reply to the thread question, why would you want to do that?

To justify Sobers over Imran.

[kyear2]

That was the purpose for another thread. Just thought the stats were interesting and had never seen the ratings broken down like that and thought it was worth sharing.
My bad

[OMM!]

Cricket without stats is just rounders basically. And I ****ing hate rounders!

[smalishah84]

Yeah, I'm quite interested in how one would analyse players' performances in matches one did not see, or failing that, watch every match ever.

To assume one's cricketing knowledge is of such grandeur as to outweigh human fallibility of analysis, performance variance and natural bias.. and all while only watching a tiny portion of the cricket played at that.. is the height of arrogance. To profess to know better than the game itself because statistics don't always tell the full story reminds me a lot of the argument that it's better to use the human eye than HawkEye even if the latter is more accurate because it's not 100% accurate. Blind faith in our own flawed instincts whenever a measure, however much better, isn't perfect is a widespread ideal throughout humanity that I will never really grasp.

Anyone who reads match threads here will know that I watch as much current cricket as anyone and love nothing more than to discuss a batsman's technique, a bowler's contribution to the attack as a whole, the weight of pressure a good field-set can mount on a team and all those other "beyond averages" aspects of cricket. This is the part of cricket I find most interesting and while I like to use these judgments to form opinions on the potential of players still playing, once someone retires their potential means nothing and all we're left with is what they actually did. And as much as I'd love for my opinion on Matthew Hayden's head position post 2004 to have any relevance to how good he was at scoring runs throughout his career, it doesn't. Determining how good someone could be, might be or probably will be is an exciting and interesting cricketing topic for me because you can use what you see and form judgments from that, but comparing two players who have since retired though (or even a here-and-now comparison) should really come down to what they've put on the board more than anything else. I have a lot of respect for robelinda's position on the matter that it's just fundamentally boring because the more I delve into it, the more it is. Its boring nature doesn't change what it is, though, and no attempt to make it more interesting and achievable will produce more accurate results.

----

Oh, and ignoring all that and addressing the OP for a second, I'm faaaaar from convinced that ICC rankings are the best statistical measure around, let alone a uniform one that can be applied to each player and all his career intricacies. Good post anyway though.

To justify Sobers over Imran.

[sumantra]

not very much i guess...but at the same time can't say, that it's absolutely nothing...specially when it comes to judging a player from the past, to some extent it's important to see what his stats were (i am not saying that is the only criteria, but one of them) besides the stories u hear and the books u read, when u see a headley having a test average of 60 odd or a vijay merchant having a first class average of 70 odd after playing 150 matches, u got to take them with some kind of seriousness...the thing is, how far can u go with it, the problem for me comes, when u r trying to judge 2 players played in the whole different era, and trying to compare them in terms of stats...i can't take such attempts seriously, because u got to look at the other factors, the factors that have changed...not only in psyche or approach but in terms of actual playing condition as well...stats can be to some extent applied to players who played in the same era, faced same bowlers or batsman...but that too, only to some extent...how much can u apply is a subjective judgement...but any effort to wholeheartedly rely on stats is for me, not the right way of going about discussion on cricket...