Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war

[TheJediBrah]

Details please.

You've been metaphorically beaten over the head with it a dozen times already, if you were paying attention. If you don't understand now you probably never will.

You're literally arguing against hard data on the basis of your one little factor, which is proven not to be decisive, because we know the result --> The statistical data. The logic and reasoning that lead to your hypothesis has never been relevant, nor necessary. Because we know the result already.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You've been metaphorically beaten over the head with it a dozen times already, if you were paying attention. If you don't understand now you probably never will.

You're literally arguing against hard data on the basis of your one little factor, which is proven not to be decisive, because we know the result --> The statistical data. The logic and reasoning that lead to your hypothesis has never been relevant, nor necessary. Because we know the result already.

These are not details.

 

[Starfighter]

Please elaborate (with details).

Your premise is the conjecture that Hadlee had potential to take more wickets per match if he played in a stronger batting team as it would provided greater potential to take 20 wickets in a match. Your conclusion is that bowlers who play in stronger batting teams may have a greater wpm because they have a greater opportunity to take 20 wickets.

You haven't provided any other causal or statistical evidence to support the truth of your assertion (and there is substantial evidence that it is untrue). Your premise and your conclusion are the same thing.

 

[Starfighter]

The correct way to go about it would be to show that there is a direct relationship between team batting strength and wickets per match (to a point, there being only 20 wickets), adjusted for competition with teammates.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Your premise is the conjecture that Hadlee had potential to take more wickets per match if he played in a stronger batting team as it would provided greater potential to take 20 wickets in a match. Your conclusion is that bowlers who play in stronger batting teams may have a greater wpm because they have a greater opportunity to take 20 wickets.

You haven't provided any other causal or statistical evidence to support the truth of your assertion (and there is substantial evidence that it is untrue). Your premise and your conclusion are the same thing.

Not quite true on my premise, nor on my conclusion, but I did offer statistical evidence that he bowled far less and took less wickets in the second innings than in the first. So you get one part right, I do say if Hadlee had more runs to play with, he would have potentially bowled more and taken more second innings wickets. But I have confirmed this with facts and stats.

I have told you before what my conclusions are. It shouldn't be that hard to find them. There are 3 unavoidable limits to a bowler taking wickets, 1 not bowling, 2 20 wickets falling (or declaration), 3 not enough runs to defend. The first does not apply to the best bowlers in a team as much.

The question is not why are great bowlers in great teams more limited in wpm per match than in weaker teams, I think we can see from Marshall at 4.6 if there is sufficient batting (and with Greendige, Hayne, Richards and Richardson there more often was than not and they won) it is the competition for wickets limit hits them at the 20 wicket point far more readily than it does for a great bowler in a weaker team but with good batting like Murali, who ends up with 6 wpm or an even weaker without good batting team like Hadlee at 5 wpm who is being limited not by the 20 wickets taken, but by the team running out runs.

What factor [actually] limiting wpm potential effecting Warne and Marshall, do not effect Murali and Hadlee [the same]. And Murali had more runs to play in the second innings and bowl more hence has a higher wpm than Hadlee.

But I also accept that competition for wickets in reducing wpm also typically reduces bowling averages of the bowlers involved, as there are more chances at bowling to new non set batsmen. So all these dynamics are interrelated.

So even though NZ's Hadlee was a weaker team than the great WI or Aus, he still could have taken more wickets per game if the batting was better. Same for Imran whose 4.6 wpm per match, is not at all like Marshall's! But still better than split than Hadlee's.

Its not just the bowling that matters, its the runs the bowlers have to play with. It is that simple.

 

[Starfighter]

Your supposed statistical evidence isn't sufficient to support you cause, and the circularity is exactly as I have described it.

You're simply arguing on bald assertion.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Your supposed statistical evidence isn't sufficient to support you cause, and the circularity is exactly as I have described it.

You're simply arguing on bald assertion.

Why does the statistical evidence of Hadlee bowling far less and taking far less second innings winnings not support my cause?

Are you suggesting he didn't want to bowl in second innings? Or that the NZ captain thought it would be a good idea to take a break from bowling in the second innings?

Because I can prove unlike Marshall's WI team, NZ was not winning nor taking twenty in the second innings anywhere near as often.

So it appears one of us is indeed in a position of bare assertion. But I don't think its me.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not quite true on my premise, nor on my conclusion, but I did offer statistical evidence that he bowled far less and took less wickets in the second innings than in the first. So you get one part right, I do say if Hadlee had more runs to play with, he would have potentially bowled more and taken more second innings wickets. But I have confirmed this with facts and stats.

You've "confirmed" your premise with facts and stats. Not your conclusion. This has been explained to you already. You're just undertaking the same fallacy over and over.

The better the team the bowler plays in, the lower the wpm. That's the fact we know. An intellectually stimulating discussion could be to speculate as to why that is the case. This has not been an intellectually stimulating discussion. It's been denial of statistical fact and repeated logical fallacy.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You've "confirmed" your premise with facts and stats. Not your conclusion. This has been explained to you already. You're just undertaking the same fallacy over and over.

The better the team the bowler plays in, the lower the wpm. That's the fact we know. An intellectually stimulating discussion could be to speculate as to why that is the case. This has not been an intellectually stimulating discussion. It's been denial of statistical fact and repeated logical fallacy.

details please.

 

[Starfighter]

Why does the statistical evidence of Hadlee bowling far less and taking far less second innings winnings not support my cause?

Are you suggesting he didn't want to bowl in second innings? Or the NZ captain thought it would be a good idea to take a break from bowling in the second innings? I can prove unlike Marshall's WI team, NZ was not winning nor taking twenty in the second innings as often.

Hadlee having less bowling in the second innings by itself is not good enough to prove your conclusion unless it can be adjusted against other factors. As TJB said, your stats support your reasoning but not your conclusion, which on available evidence (Hadlee having a higher wpm than comparable bowlers) is incorrect.

You compare Hadlee with Murali but forget that one has much greater physical limitations than the other. That in itself is an important factor - Hadlee would be limited by not being physically capable of bowling more than a certain number of overs. That may be more important than the team batting.

Show that there is an direct relationship between team batting strength and wickets per match for a bowler, adjusted for competition with teammates, and I'll accept that your conclusion is correct.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Well, let's pull up some stats:

Player/Team	Matches	Lost by inns.	ditto 6+ wkts	Tot. won	Tot. drawn	Tot. tied	Tot. lost
R. J. Hadlee	86	3 (3.5%)	13 (15.1%)	22	36	0	28
Australia	166	15 (9.0%)	18 (10.8%)	53	59	1	53
England	185	12 (6.5%)	18 (9.7%)	48	78	0	57
G. D. McGrath	124	0	9 (7.25%)	84	20	0	20
M. Muralitharan	133	14 (10.5%)	10 (7.5%)	54	37	0	41

'Australia' and 'England' are for matches played by those teams during Hadlee's career.


For WPM, Hadlee: 5.01; McGrath: 4.54; Murali: 6.02

For WPI, we get: Hadlee: 2.87; McGrath: 2.32; Murali: 3.48

By innings, we get: Hadlee: 3.36 1st, 2.22 2nd; McGrath: 2.65 1st, 1.95 2nd; Murali: 3.50 1st, 3.35 2nd.


I hope some of these may be useful.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Show that there is an inverse relationship between team batting strength and wickets per match for a bowler, adjusted for competition with teammates, and I'll accept that your conclusion is correct.

I don't even necessarily disagree with his premise that if Hadlee's NZ had stronger batsmen, but not stronger bowlers then he would have a higher wpm. I'm not disputing that. It's just a very contrived, specific hypothetical scenario designed to provide a state where Hadlee could have a higher wpm. It has no value as an argument or discussion. We could contrive scenarios for any player to change any of their stats, it's worthless.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Well, let's pull up some stats:

Player/Team	Matches	Lost by inns.	ditto 6+ wkts	Tot. won	Tot. drawn	Tot. tied	Tot. lost
R. J. Hadlee	86	3 (3.5%)	13 (15.1%)	22	36	0	28
Australia	166	15 (9.0%)	18 (10.8%)	53	59	1	53
England	185	12 (6.5%)	18 (9.7%)	48	78	0	57
G. D. McGrath	124	0	9 (7.25%)	84	20	0	20
M. Muralitharan	133	14 (10.5%)	10 (7.5%)	54	37	0	41

'Australia' and 'England' are for matches played by those teams during Hadlee's career.


For WPM, Hadlee: 5.01; McGrath: 4.54; Murali: 6.02

For WPI, we get: Hadlee: 2.87; McGrath: 2.32; Murali: 3.48

By innings, we get: Hadlee: 3.36 1st, 2.22 2nd; McGrath: 2.65 1st, 1.95 2nd; Murali: 3.50 1st, 3.35 2nd.


I hope some of these may be useful.

Please include Marshall too - I'd appreciate it.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Please include Marshall too - I'd appreciate it.

I should say it took waaaaaaaaaay too much effort, but here y'go:

M. D. Marshall

81

1 (1.23%)

3 (3.70%)

43

29

0

9

WPM: 4.64
WPI: 2.49
WPI: 2.50 1st, 2.44 2nd

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Hadlee having less bowling in the second innings by itself is not good enough to prove your conclusion unless it can be adjusted against other factors.

Which factors, details please.

As TJB said, your stats support your reasoning but not your conclusion, which on available evidence (Hadlee having a higher wpm than comparable bowlers) is incorrect.

But this isn't the issue. The issue is if he had bowled more in the second innings, he would have potentially had an even higher wpm.

You compare Hadlee with Murali but forget that one has much greater physical limitations than the other. That in itself is an important factor - Hadlee would be limited by not being physically capable of bowling more than a certain number of overs. That may be more important than the team batting.

And boom. You beg the question, if it is physical - why is Hadlee so much less than McGrath, Lillee, Marshall and Murali. And do you have any support for it being physical? Hadlee always kept himself in pretty good shape, and didn't even have a long run up. And then you have all those games he did bowl in the second innings, at 39 years of age. I think you're on a bare assertion path here.

Show that there is an inverse relationship between team batting strength and wickets per match for a bowler, adjusted for competition with teammates, and I'll accept that your conclusion is correct.

You want to see more runs on the board, gives bowlers more chances to take wickets via the second innings going longer? Dude, its the same table.

There's two main questions as long as the bowler was prepared to bowl,

i did they have enough runs for long second innings efforts?
ii was there competition for wickets?

It isn't rocket science.

 

[cnerd123]

I should say it took waaaaaaaaaay too much effort, but here y'go:

M. D. Marshall

81

1 (1.23%)

3 (3.70%)

43

29

0

9

WPM: 4.64
WPI: 2.49
WPI: 2.50 1st, 2.44 2nd

Why are you being Mr Miyagi's bitch

He's so smart. He can use statsguru himself.

You even formatted it for him.

Don't be a walkover NotMcKenzie

 

[NotMcKenzie]

The takeaway I get is that compared to other teams of his era that are not the West Indies, Hadlee was not all too deprived of 2nd innings to bowl in (although this does not take the disposition of draws into account). It is about the same as Sri Lanka had during Murali's career as well. Given the respective strengths of their teams, I think it is possible to conclude that being deprived of 2nd innings by weak batting is unimportant compared to the presence of other strong bowlers in the team.

McGrath also shows quite a drop in the 2nd innings; perhaps his wickets were pinched by others* in the 2nd innings



*Incidentally, a certain S. K. Warne took his wickets at WPI's of 2.42 in the 1st innings and and 2.78 in the 2nd. Given that they played 105 tests together, maybe this influenced McGrath's WPI somewhat.

 

[Starfighter]

Which factors, details please.

I explained one. I would say ability to take workload, competition with teammates for wickets, strength of the opposition batting and so on are more important factors than the strength of one's own batting.

But this isn't the issue. The issue is if he had bowled more in the second innings, he would have potentially had an even higher wpm.

And nobodies disputing that. That's your premise. What you haven't done is proven that this is an actual effect in the real world. This is not very hard to understand, and I think by now you must be deliberately ignoring it because you can't produce the evidence.

And boom. You beg the question, if it is physical - why is Hadlee so much less than McGrath, Lillee, Marshall and Murali.

You're the one begging the question. Is Hadlee so much less what? WPM? Nope, he isn't. Opportunity created by bowling workload? Hadlee bowled 255 balls per match, Marshall 217 bpm, McGrath 235 and Murali 331. Hadlee could not possibly bowl as much as Murali because fast bowlers can't bowl as much as spin bowlers as fast bowling is much more stressful and enervating.

You want to see more runs on the board, gives bowlers more chances to take wickets via the second innings going longer? Dude, its the same table.

Is this effect significant? Take a look at the bpm figures I posted. Where was Hadlee denied a go because of the lack of second innings opportunity? It appears that despite your premise being logically true your conclusion is in fact not.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Given the respective strengths of their teams, I think it is possible to conclude that being deprived of 2nd innings by weak batting is unimportant compared to the presence of other strong bowlers in the team.

McGrath also shows quite a drop in the 2nd innings; perhaps his wickets were pinched by others* in the 2nd

Spot on. This was already somewhat evident purely from looking at McGrath and Hadlee's wpm as we did earlier. But this more in depth look at it definitely displays it in more detail.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The takeaway I get is that compared to other teams of his era that are not the West Indies, Hadlee was not all too deprived of 2nd innings to bowl in (although this does not take the disposition of draws into account). It is about the same as Sri Lanka had during Murali's career as well. Given the respective strengths of their teams, I think it is possible to conclude that being deprived of 2nd innings by weak batting is unimportant compared to the presence of other strong bowlers in the team.

McGrath also shows quite a drop in the 2nd innings; perhaps his wickets were pinched by others* in the 2nd innings



*Incidentally, a certain S. K. Warne took his wickets at WPI's of 2.42 in the 1st innings and and 2.78 in the 2nd. Given that they played 105 tests together, maybe this influenced McGrath's WPI somewhat.

I disagree.

Hadlee bowls literally more than twice as many balls in the first innings than the second and played in more losses than wins.

His pro rata is way out of proportion with the rest of the greats. The closest to him is Imran. Which is ready explicable.