2nd best ODI side?

[TheJediBrah]

KV isn't the only person on CW with a certain level of national bias though. In fact I quite enjoy reading what he has to say for most part, even if I rarely agree, because he has a certain perspective on the game. He also seeks to question the CW status quo and ruffle some feathers. That is great and needs to be done more on this forum. It's just that he picks the wrong fights.

The Australian test team is quite overrated on this forum by the status quo (this is a regular phenomena after Australia has a solid summer season smashing massive centuries on roads) and KV could easily have made arguments against that using their away record, and there would have been plenty of data to back him up.

The Australian ODI team is one of the rare occasions when the status quo is actually right, and you don't really have a lot of grounds to make an argument against that.

The same data that shows that Aus have been comfortably the 2nd successful touring team in recent times after South Africa? Wouldn't really back him up tbh

just saying

 

[Prince EWS]

Seems to be a common theme in threads I post in lately where after I stop posting, ***** appears and delivers a C+ performance in trying to explain my point.

I think I like it tbh.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

-> Believe KW is the best batsman in the world and that NZ are underrated

For one thing, I must have written 100 times here that I think ABdV is a better batsman than KW. Let's assume my "best batsman across all formats" thread is evidence that I've changed my mind. Did I decide upon this with no evidence?

I'd like to see you mount an argument that I decided KW was the best batsman in the world "without evidence".

Regarding NZ being underrated, well we just convincingly beat the recently crowned World Champions in an ODI series. Neither CW nor the betting markets predicted an NZ series win. So maybe I was one of the first to realise how good this NZ team actually is?

I made a chunk of money in the 3rd ODI when NZ defended 246, mostly because I thought the market underrated the ability of the NZ bowlers to take 10 wickets. Maybe you should listen to me more?

-> Create threads... using... evidence you have found.

I think this is the opposite of intellectual dishonesty.

-> Feel the need to make people agree with you

I've long given up on this, I promise you. No-one is ever wrong on the Internet. Fact.

-> Devise method and seek evidence to support your belief

You have no way of knowing if I did this or if I did it the other way around.

I'll give you this. If someone started a thread that said "Martin Guptill is a spud" I'd probably go in and argue about it. If someone started a thread that said "Steve Smith is a spud" I'd probably go in and have a good laugh. If that's "intellectual dishonesty" then I stand guilty of the charge.

 

[cnerd123]

Seems to be a common theme in threads I post in lately where after I stop posting, ***** appears and delivers a C+ performance in trying to explain my point.

I think I like it tbh.

Only a C+?

 

[cnerd123]

For one thing...

---

...of the charge.

Missing the point. I was just explaining why this:

I had a hunch that KW was the best batsman in the world and then found evidence to support it

Is intellectual dishonesty.

I wasn't accusing you of actually acting in this manner.

PEWS has noticed how all your ideas and theories seem to revolve around KW and New Zealand being underrated (or indeed, Aus players being overrated). He thinks that acts as evidence to suggest you may be working with an agenda in mind, rather than actually trying to come up with new theories and ideas.

 

[Flem274*]

I'd definitely enjoy KVs odd theories more if I didn't know he was really biased.

His variations in career records of atgs over several sets of 1000 simmed odis for example are an underrated gem and actually give support to the eyes over stats guys but because KV posted it it was forgotten

 

[indiaholic]

I'd definitely enjoy KVs odd theories more if I didn't know he was really biased.

His variations in career records of atgs over several sets of 1000 simmed odis for example are an underrated gem and actually give support to the eyes over stats guys but because KV posted it it was forgotten

Link please?

 

[cnerd123]

I'd definitely enjoy KVs odd theories more if I didn't know he was really biased.

His variations in career records of atgs over several sets of 1000 simmed odis for example are an underrated gem and actually give support to the eyes over stats guys but because KV posted it it was forgotten

I vaguely remember this. Showed how much % fluctuation there can be over even a large sample size. Was pretty cool, never really looked into it much though. I didn't know (still don't) how his sim worked, and so didn't know how seriously I should take the results.

 

[cnerd123]

I mean this was the same sim that allowed him and CaptainGrumpy legitimise the idea of Crowe being the 5th bowler for an NZ ATG XI, so...

 

[SteveNZ]

I would've said NZ is comfortably 2nd now, but with the retirement of the 45 (20) specialist at the top of the order, I think you can remove the 'comfortably' bit.

I agree, but not exclusively because of the 45 (20) bit - although that is pretty important. Without Brendon allowing Gup to play at his own comfort early in his innings and taking the heat off him to be the pace maker, I don't think he (Gup) scores the weight of runs he has in the WC and subsequently. I think Brendon allowed Gup to play into form, and he's contributed to a hell of a lot of our victories. I don't want that to take anything away from what Gup has achieved. Just that if he'd been batting with Latham, different story.

And we're going to see over the next 12-24 months what difference Brendon's leadership means as well. Kane is a brilliant cricket person, but is he an effective ODI leader? I'm pretty confident about his Test captaincy abilities but not so (yet) in ODIs. Kane isn't a divergent thinker. He's never left anything to chance in his life, and that's worked for him. He's not a selfish guy at all, but he's very focused. There's more than one way to skin a cat I get that, but I see what Brendon has done for our belief, his ability as a stand up in front of the room leader, a powerful personality, a guy who backs you to the bitter end etc. Guys like Henry, McClenaghan and Boult (not so much Southee) have produced insane ODI strike rates because of the environment, fields and backing given to them. Maybe Kane has sat back, seen how Brendon did it and is prepared to take some of that into his leadership and put his own spin on it. I'm not sure. And I don't want to seem like I'm not backing him to be an effective ODI captain..I'm just saying we might not know how brilliant Brendon was as a leader particularly in this arena until he's gone for a couple of years.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Missing the point. I was just explaining why this:



Is intellectual dishonesty.

I wasn't accusing you of actually acting in this manner.

PEWS has noticed how all your ideas and theories seem to revolve around KW and New Zealand being underrated (or indeed, Aus players being overrated). He thinks that acts as evidence to suggest you may be working with an agenda in mind, rather than actually trying to come up with new theories and ideas.

First thing, top down logic is not "intellectual dishonesty". It's fine to extrapolate from general to specific principles. I understand that this forum has a preponderance of left-brain dominant thinkers (as opposed to the drugs forum that I also post on a lot). This tells me that bottom up logic is going to be much more highly accepted than top down logic. That's cool, probably I should take that into account more so that I'm better understood here. But don't tell me top down logic is intellectual dishonesty.

Secondly, there's no agenda in play, but there may be a filtering mechanism. If I had looked at the all format rankings and seen that they supported the idea that Steve Smith was the best batsman across all formats, well that's not very interesting to me because I'm not a Steve Smith fan. So I probably wouldn't post about it. It's no more an "agenda" than me not posting about soccer here, for the reason that soccer is not interesting to me.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I vaguely remember this. Showed how much % fluctuation there can be over even a large sample size. Was pretty cool, never really looked into it much though. I didn't know (still don't) how his sim worked, and so didn't know how seriously I should take the results.

Basically the sim works by choosing a random number from 1 to 1000 and determining the outcome, for each ball, based on player stats (1 is better for the bowler, 1000 is better for the batsman). It just keeps choosing random numbers for each ball until a match is completed.

You can set it to run thousands of matches in one go. When I did, I discovered that the natural variance in batsman averages, even over a sample size of 1,000, was pretty big. Even with all the factors being equal, KW's average (for example) over 1,000 matches varied between 44 and 50 in one simulation.

So even for a career of 300 odd matches, there is still a fair bit of randomness when it comes to how a player's average ends up.

 

[indiaholic]

Basically the sim works by choosing a random number from 1 to 1000 and determining the outcome, for each ball, based on player stats (1 is better for the bowler, 1000 is better for the batsman). It just keeps choosing random numbers for each ball until a match is completed.

You can set it to run thousands of matches in one go. When I did, I discovered that the natural variance in batsman averages, even over a sample size of 1,000, was pretty big. Even with all the factors being equal, KW's average (for example) over 1,000 matches varied between 44 and 50 in one simulation.

So even for a career of 300 odd matches, there is still a fair bit of randomness when it comes to how a player's average ends up.

Can you give me a link to the original post?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

There were quite a few different posts, but all of them pretty much said the same thing, which is that over a career of 300 matches there's a surprisingly large variation in batting averages because of sheer randomness. You can't really say with much confidence that a player averaging 45 is better than a player averaging 42 (unless you have other reasons).

 

[Howe_zat]

It's not that I think you're wrong necessarily. It's that I cbf having the debate either way if I don't even really know what you think about it. We've all got limited time available to us and I'd definitely rather spend mine discussing things with people who argue honestly than with people who reach the conclusion first and then make up the theory to justify it afterwards, even if the theory is interesting.

Was the bit where you couldn't be bothered debating the bit where you made your fourth or fifth post in response, or the bit where you started to break up KV's posts into separate quotes to better argue with him

 

[TheJediBrah]

There were quite a few different posts, but all of them pretty much said the same thing, which is that over a career of 300 matches there's a surprisingly large variation in batting averages because of sheer randomness. You can't really say with much confidence that a player averaging 45 is better than a player averaging 42 (unless you have other reasons).

and that's not even taking into account that the 2 different players would have played different opposition, different conditions etc.

That's just random variation from the same innings against the same opposition, same conditions etc, unless I'm mistaken

 

[Prince EWS]

Secondly, there's no agenda in play, but there may be a filtering mechanism. If I had looked at the all format rankings and seen that they supported the idea that Steve Smith was the best batsman across all formats, well that's not very interesting to me because I'm not a Steve Smith fan. So I probably wouldn't post about it. It's no more an "agenda" than me not posting about soccer here, for the reason that soccer is not interesting to me.

Ultimately I suppose I don't care all that much about whether you would have posted it, but if your findings wouldn't have actually influenced (not necessarily changed completely, but influenced) your opinion as to who the best batsman in the world across all formats was, then your theory is contrived and arguing it is intellectually dishonest. Should this be the case and you justify it anyway by calling it "top down" or "right brained", then I have absolutely no interest in engaging with your theories ever again, honestly. Suggesting methodologies and theories to be considered only when they support a pre-determined conclusion is straight up intellectually dishonest. Your post suggests that you have no interest the pursuit of truth or the validity of the theories and methodologies you suggest, and instead have an interest only in finding supporting evidence for what you already believe. I haven't got much going on in my life but I think even I have better things to do than seriously engage people who are presenting their ideas in such a manner.

This position of mine probably extends beyond me having unorthodox views on things to me having unorthodox views about my unorthodox views, but my position on this is essentially Jilletian. Reading and listening to lots of Penn Jillette completely changed the way I look at discussions and arguments. He puts forwards the case that not only should everyone always be arguing in the pursuit of truth, but an argument is intellectually dishonest and manipulative if you don't leave open the minute possibility that you may be wrong. Crucially, that can't be satisfied if the point you're debating couldn't actually change your mind about the larger argument. To give an example, it'd be intellectually dishonest for me to go around making the argument that legalising drugs would decrease usage rates, because my position is based entirely on individual autonomy and therefore, if I was proven wrong about usage rates, it wouldn't actually influence my opinion on the issue at all. People shouldn't have to waste their time arguing with me on an sub-issue that won't influence the opinion of either of us. Of course it wouldn't be intellectually dishonest to contradict someone who made the opposite claim as long as I actually believed what I was saying, but making it a key part of my argument would be intellectually dishonest as far as I'm concerned.

If you're arguing your position then you should argue your reasoning and argue against your arguing partner's reasoning; not concoct contrived criteria which, even if debunked, wouldn't influence your stance in any way.

 

[Prince EWS]

Was the bit where you couldn't be bothered debating the bit where you made your fourth or fifth post in response, or the bit where you started to break up KV's posts into separate quotes to better argue with him

Oh, I can't be bothered engaging his cricket theories. I can be bothered engaging the debate about why I can't be bothered engaging his cricket theories though. I don't think he's being intellectually dishonest in the discussion about that.

 

[Prince EWS]

I feel like I have said "intellectually dishonest" way too much in this thread. It's beginning to lose all meaning even inside my head.

 

[Flem274*]

what the **** are you on about?