Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war

[Mr Miyagi]

Your conclusions are based purely on your hypothesis and have already been proved wrong with hard statistical data. Hypothesis =/= fact. But you clearly don't understand this so let's try a different route.

Why do you think McGrath has wpm of 4.5 and Hadlee has a wpm of 5 if playing in a weaker team leads to a higher wpm?

*sigh*


McGrath's team played at much nearer 20 wpm potential and Hadlee's team did not.

How many times have I said this to you now?

Sorry TJB, please read back through this thread, if you have any questions I will answer them. But if you don't understand my arguments and facts by now, when you say that you do, you never will.

You clearly still think that I am arguing something that I am not. And we have been over this for 2 pages now. But you keep telling me that you understand my reasoning and my points. But you clearly don't.

 

[Starfighter]

If my facts are accurate, and logic is agreeable, then accept my conclusions.

And for the record, in science, when a hypothesis fails, there is a reason for it, and this makes initial logic or facts proven wrong. :P

The trouble is despite the soundness or otherwise of your logic, the facts do not back up your conclusions.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The trouble is despite the soundness or otherwise of your logic, the facts do not back up your conclusions.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

How ironic this post is!

But the facts do. Hadlee could have potentially taken more than 5 wpm, like Murali did, with more second innings bowling.

It seems what people are struggling with here is potential limits from what actually occurred, and why.

But I will refrain from future posts that do not deal with the detail of my prior posts. I find it a bit cheap throw an unsupported assertion around

 

[Starfighter]

But the facts do. Hadlee could have potentially taken more than 5 wpm, like Murali did, with more second innings bowling.

That's not a fact, even if it is logically based. That's still a hypothesis, it's based on conjecture, hence your use of the phrases 'could have' and 'potentially'. And the actual fact that, as TJB is pointing, other bowlers stats show otherwise shows that despite the logical soundness in your premise it may not actually be true.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If my facts are accurate, and logic is agreeable, then accept my conclusions.

And for the record, in science, when a hypothesis fails, there is a reason for it, and this makes initial logic or facts proven wrong. :P

Which is exactly what has happened here. You're getting it.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

That's not a fact, even if it is logically based. That's still a hypothesis, it's based on conjecture, hence your use of the phrases 'could have' and 'potentially'. And the actual fact that, as TJB is pointing, other bowlers stats show otherwise shows that despite the logical soundness in your premise it may not actually be true.

Of course its not a fact based on what actually happened.

But even if you refuse to accept as a fact based on limits of team mate potentiality, it is nevertheless a damn persuasive argument that his wpm potential would have let alone could have increased with more opportunities to bowl in the second innings if his team batsmen scored more runs! The limit to bowling more 2nd opposition innings overs for Hadlee was by far more often the runs, not 20 wickets taken. This is the uncontroversial, undeniable, absolute fact. Hence the wicket taking potential has increased. Whether he takes them or not, doesn't change the real increase in potential.
*sigh*

He may have got a career ending injury with all those extra overs in games, but the career potential in the same games played for more wickets would have increased even if not occurring. Hadlee's chances in the second innings as against the first are disproportionate with those players of stronger teams.

So draw the line in the sand wherever you reasonably may want, I do not mind nor do I care. But if you don't fault the facts nor the reasoning, there is no point saying "it didn't happen so we'll never know" because it is all about potential.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Hadlee 289 and 142 - less than 33% or 34% variance

McGrath 329 and 234 - 42% or 16% variance

Lillee 208 and 147 - 41% - 18% variance

Marshall 200 and 176 (Wow this team was strong and got in a winning position a lot) - 47% a 6% variance

Murali 458 and 342 - 43% - 14% variance

A 50-50 split is 0%

Now if you need facts or proof - here you go.

Alternatively, ask yourself why do my posts accurately predict this outcome and work backwards.

And ftr - Hadlee's SR and average improve in the second innings. So why is he taking less wickets?

 

[jimmy101]

One of these days Miyagi is going to get it right first time around and not need to edit his posts.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're still talking about your hypothetical scenarios, and your reasoning, which nobody ever disagreed with. The stats you just posted are in support of your reasoning, not your conclusion. They in no way support that your reasoning leads to your conclusion being correct. Because there are always other factors. These other factors are why McGrath, who played in a strong team, had 4.5 wpm and Hadlee had 5 wpm.

Maybe your reasoning is correct, and they affected Hadlee's wpm, but it is an undeniable fact that the other factors related to playing in a weaker team more than outweighed your reasoning.

In this case the other factors result in your conclusion being undeniably false. As statistically proven.

No one's arguing about your specific "potential" scenario about your NZ hero Richard Hadlee, it's not relevant.

For a great bowler, playing in a weaker team = higher wpm. That is a statistical fact. No amount of trying to reason away the facts will change it.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

One of these days Miyagi is going to get it right first time around and not need to edit his posts.

Doubtful

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You're still talking about your hypothetical scenarios, and your reasoning, which nobody ever disagreed with. The stats you just posted are in support of your reasoning, not your conclusion. They in no way support that your reasoning leads to your conclusion being correct. Because there are always other factors. These other factors are why McGrath, who played in a strong team, had 4.5 wpm and Hadlee had 5 wpm.

Maybe your reasoning is correct, and they affected Hadlee's wpm, but it is an undeniable fact that the other factors related to playing in a weaker team more than outweighed your reasoning.

In this case the other factors result in your conclusion being undeniably false. As statistically proven.

No one's arguing about your specific "potential" scenario about your NZ hero Richard Hadlee, it's not relevant.

For a great bowler, playing in a weaker team = higher wpm. That is a statistical fact. No amount of trying to reason away the facts will change it.

I'm not going to confirm or disagree with your argument in bold, what I am going to say as I have been saying all along - it could be even higher if the weak team's batting was stronger!

So tell me, why was Hadlee taking so many less pro rata second innings wickets to Murali, Lillee, McGrath and Marshall?

Why is Marshall so much closer to matching his first innings?

 

[Burgey]

Hadlee 289 and 142 - less than 33% or 34% variance

McGrath 329 and 234 - 42% or 16% variance

Lillee 208 and 147 - 41% - 18% variance

Marshall 200 and 176 (Wow this team was strong) - 47% a 6% variance

Murali 458 and 342 - 43% - 14% variance

A 50-50 split is 0%

Now if you need facts or proof - here you go.

Alternatively, ask yourself why do my posts accurately predict this outcome and work backwards.

And ftr - Hadlee's SR and average improve in the second innings. So why is he taking less wickets?

Maybe he isn't as good as you think he is?

 

[Himannv]

Steyn, Ambrose, and Hadlee seem to really stand out in that ranking list.

 

[Starfighter]

I'm not going to confirm or disagree with your argument in bold, what I am going to say as I have been saying all along - it could be even higher if the weak team's batting was stronger!

No proof that's the case though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But it could be even higher if the weak team's batting was stronger!

No one's arguing otherwise. From 2 pages ago:

You can go and create your own specific scenarios about Hadlee, ie "If he had much better batsmen on his team, but the bowlers weren't any better, he'd have higher wpm" etc. and that's fine.

But the original hypothesis, that in general playing in a weaker team leads to a lower wpm, is already proven false. Clearly.

We can create all the random, manipulated hypothetical scenarios we want. Doesn't change the statistical trend.

 

[Burgey]

I wish the Hulkster was still here and could discuss this

 

[TheJediBrah]

The reasoning your hypothesis doesn't translate into a factual conclusion is because there are clearly other factors you're not taking into account. It's really that simple.

There's no point trying to argue against statistical certainty because you thought of a factor that should hypothetically affect said statistical certainty. That's insane. Because it's already statistical certainty!

 

[Mr Miyagi]

No proof that's the case though.

Errr - there's 20 possible wickets per match dude.

You want the mcc laws of cricket as proof? Or the games NZ failed to take 20 wickets. I will paste them for you if you need.

 

[Starfighter]

Errr - there's 20 possible wickets per match dude.

You want the mcc laws of cricket as proof? Or the games NZ failed to take 20 wickets. I will paste them for you if you need.

All theory, no practice from you. It checks out logically, but that doesn't mean it would actually happen.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The reasoning your hypothesis doesn't translate into a factual conclusion is because there are clearly other factors you're not taking into account. It's really that simple.

There's no point trying to argue against statistical certainty because you thought of a factor that should hypothetically affect said statistical certainty. That's insane. Because it's already statistical certainty!

Oh so now its a certainty that Hadlee could have potentially taken more wickets per match with better batting team mates? Cos that's what is being proved here.
That was my point all along!