Are Players Overly Concerned with their Stats?

[GIMH]

Pragmatism isn't welcome round here Gelman, take it elsewhere

 

[Richard]

No, not a chance. Maybe he retired because he was a few days away from 40 and had been playing for 20 years?

Bradman's exact words at his famous retirement dinner - for those who don't know them, I presume yourself not amongst them, Zachary - were:

"I think there comes a time in every man's life... irrespective of whether he may still be good enough to carry on or not... that he should make way for a younger man. I feel that... in my own case..."

(I actually can't remember the rest but that's the important part)

 

[_Ed_]

btw, I have heard that Imran Khan used to play mostly against strong team like WI, Aus & Eng, along with the traditional rival India ..... hardly played games against SL & NZ, which I guess were weak teams of his time

http://nz.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1980S/1985-86/NZ_IN_AUS/NZ_AUS_T1_08-12NOV1985.html

The NZ team of the 1980s was comfortably the strongest we've ever had.

 

[Richard]

Beaten to it, namesake.

Happen to think I did a rather better job of it too. AND I'm not even a Kiwi.

 

[_Ed_]

Damn, you did too.

 

[Googenheim]

Strike rates need to be taken with a pinch of salt. While they point to the general pace of the innings' played by a batsman, to use them as conclusive evidence of the batsman being detrimental to his teams' interest in case of declarations is incorrect. What matters is the ability of a batsman to alter his SR based on the requirements of the situation.

For example, a batsman could score 50(100), 50(100), 50(100) and 50(50)....with the last innings being played in a situation requiring quick scoring for the purpose of a declaration. Another batsman could score 50(80), 50(80), 50(80) and 50(70) under similar circumstances. But the statistician blindly obsessed with strike rates would deem the first batsman inferior to the second in placing the teams interests at heart, even though the former has done a far better job of adjusting to the situation and playing for the team than the latter.

A prime example of a victim of simplistic appraisal is Rahul Dravid. People tend to look at his career SR and rate him lower than others with higher SR's, even though he possesses the ability to play both the anchor and quick-scorer depending on his team needs from him.

 

[honestbharani]

Truth is, if you help your career stats, you help your team.

Exceptionally, exceptionally rare is the personal goal that runs counter to the team goal. Don Bradman put it best: "I always try to do the best I can for the team that I'm playing for. If they want me to go in there and lose my wicket so they can win the game, well, I'll be very happy to do so. If, on the other hand, they want me to get runs, then I try and get as many runs as I can."

That could just as easily be Sydney Barnes saying "I always try to do the best I can for the team that I'm playing for. If they want me to go out and give away runs without trying to take wickets so they can win the game, well, I'll be very happy to do so. If, on the other hand, they want me to as many wickets for as few runs as possible, then I try to do that."

The better the batsman's batting-average, the more use he is to his team. The better the bowler's bowling-average (and strike-rate, and economy-rate), the more use he is to his team.

that is a very simplistic way of putting it and it doesn't always work out like that. That is why cricket can never ever be judged from numbers alone....... I believe, amongst all the games/sports that I have seen, cricket has the most variables and intangibles and that is why most of the X Vs Y arguments seem never ending.........

 

[Son Of Coco]

Truth is, if you help your career stats, you help your team.

Exceptionally, exceptionally rare is the personal goal that runs counter to the team goal. Don Bradman put it best: "I always try to do the best I can for the team that I'm playing for. If they want me to go in there and lose my wicket so they can win the game, well, I'll be very happy to do so. If, on the other hand, they want me to get runs, then I try and get as many runs as I can."

That could just as easily be Sydney Barnes saying "I always try to do the best I can for the team that I'm playing for. If they want me to go out and give away runs without trying to take wickets so they can win the game, well, I'll be very happy to do so. If, on the other hand, they want me to as many wickets for as few runs as possible, then I try to do that."

The better the batsman's batting-average, the more use he is to his team. The better the bowler's bowling-average (and strike-rate, and economy-rate), the more use he is to his team.

I'd argue that a number 6 averaging 200 with 35 not outs and a strike rate of 6 wouldn't be that much use.

 

[Ikki]

heck .... isn't it common sense that it could either go up or down

after 51s test 101.xx, after 52nd test 99.xx .... 53rd test ? .... there can be no 'would', only 'could'

No, there is more likely a 'would' than a 'could'. As Bradman was scoring centuries continuously till his retirement. If he had played on he would have regained that average based on his record and based on common sense.

Based on the balance of probabilities, Bradman 'would' get his record back and, regarding possibilities, he surely 'could'.

The funny thing about the whole scenario and your assertion is that the fact Bradman retired on 99.94 is what contributes to his legacy and the lack of importance he placed on stats.

 

[Ikki]

Strike rates need to be taken with a pinch of salt. While they point to the general pace of the innings' played by a batsman, to use them as conclusive evidence of the batsman being detrimental to his teams' interest in case of declarations is incorrect. What matters is the ability of a batsman to alter his SR based on the requirements of the situation.

For example, a batsman could score 50(100), 50(100), 50(100) and 50(50)....with the last innings being played in a situation requiring quick scoring for the purpose of a declaration. Another batsman could score 50(80), 50(80), 50(80) and 50(70) under similar circumstances. But the statistician blindly obsessed with strike rates would deem the first batsman inferior to the second in placing the teams interests at heart, even though the former has done a far better job of adjusting to the situation and playing for the team than the latter.

A prime example of a victim of simplistic appraisal is Rahul Dravid. People tend to look at his career SR and rate him lower than others with higher SR's, even though he possesses the ability to play both the anchor and quick-scorer depending on his team needs from him.

But if the first batsman didn't waste some 60 balls in the earlier innings he wouldn't have had to play rashly in the rest. Whilst it could be said the second batsman is still striking very highly earlier and also helps his team out in the crunch too.

In summation, there'd be no need for that last desperate innings if the first batsmen could have batted faster.

But I do agree that batsmen should adjust there scoring rate when it counts for their team. Most great batsmen do. But if you have 2 batsmen that are equal in everything but one strikes 10 points faster then yes, that one that scores faster is better.

 

[Googenheim]

But if the first batsman didn't waste some 60 balls in the earlier innings he wouldn't have had to play rashly in the rest. Whilst it could be said the second batsman is still striking very highly earlier and also helps his team out in the crunch too.

In summation, there'd be no need for that last desperate innings if the first batsmen could have batted faster.

But I do agree that batsmen should adjust there scoring rate when it counts for their team. Most great batsmen do. But if you have 2 batsmen that are equal in everything but one strikes 10 points faster then yes, that one that scores faster is better.

Not necessarily. Given that the second batsman scored his first innings runs quicker than the first batsman, it means he allowed the opposition more time to score their runs. What the first batsman did was give the opposition less time to score their runs and also himself changed gear in the second innings as the situation demanded, thus showing himself to be more adaptable than the second batsman in the various scenarios test cricket has to offer.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Geoff Boycott said on radio commentary this week, in a discussion arising from the poor conversion rate of Fleming, that a true Test quality batsman makes a century on average every five Test Matches. By a strange coincidence that's just about what he did himself.

 

[Ikki]

Not necessarily. Given that the second batsman scored his first innings runs quicker than the first batsman, it means he allowed the opposition more time to score their runs. What the first batsman did was give the opposition less time to score their runs and also himself changed gear in the second innings as the situation demanded, thus showing himself to be more adaptable than the second batsman in the various scenarios test cricket has to offer.

LOL, okay, that's a situational thing. In some situations stemming the run-rate is better than taking wickets.

But as a rule, the more runs (when the game is competitive) the better. The best way to make more runs is to strike higher - not wasting balls. You don't not score runs, as a rule, so that the opposition doesn't have enough time.

 

[James_W]

Sehwag clerly does, average now near 54, selfish lad.

 

[Richard]

that is a very simplistic way of putting it and it doesn't always work out like that.

Not always, of course not. But exceptions are far rarer than many people would have you believe.

That is why cricket can never ever be judged from numbers alone....... I believe, amongst all the games/sports that I have seen, cricket has the most variables and intangibles and that is why most of the X Vs Y arguments seem never ending.........

Oh, it does, unquestionably. But tangibles still outnumber intangibles.

 

[Richard]

I'd argue that a number 6 averaging 200 with 35 not outs and a strike rate of 6 wouldn't be that much use.

35 not-outs out of how many?

37? Sure.

113? No.

 

[Richard]

The funny thing about the whole scenario and your assertion is that the fact Bradman retired on 99.94 is what contributes to his legacy and the lack of importance he placed on stats.

Bradman's almost certainly far more famous for averaging 99.94 than he would be had he averaged, say, 100.13.

 

[Prince EWS]

But if you have 2 batsmen that are equal in everything but one strikes 10 points faster then yes, that one that scores faster is better.

I disagree strongly. However, I've had this argument with you before and I believe it dragged on for about 7 pages, so I have no intention of going through all that again. I just needed to make my presence felt on the issue, really.

 

[Engle]

AFAIC, Bradman's average is 100

Seriously, does anyone consider decimal points when discussing averages ?

 

[Prince EWS]

No, there is more likely a 'would' than a 'could'. As Bradman was scoring centuries continuously till his retirement. If he had played on he would have regained that average based on his record and based on common sense.

That is a very strange call, IMO. Given Bradman's stats suggest he was in slight decline and the fact that he was 40 odd, what makes you think his average would have gone up? It wouldn't just be a matter of him batting well, but averaging over 100 - something he didn't even manage throughout his entire career which included his prime as a cricketer.