Progression of the 'best fast bowler' title post war

[Starfighter]

No - that's a mere part of it. This is my concept:

It's the relevant part of it. The statement doesn't mean anything different in context.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I said with more runs, Hadlee could have potentially bowled more and taken more second innings wickets.

Ok so you have given up on trying to insist that playing in a weaker team = lower wpm?

And you're just focusing on your contrived hypothetical Richard Hadlee scenario which no one really cared about in the first place?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

For refreshing:

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?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Ok so you have given up on trying to insist that playing in a weaker team = lower wpm?

And you're just focusing on your contrived hypothetical Richard Hadlee scenario which no one really cared about in the first place?

Huh? I've not wavered. If Hadlee had more runs to play with, he could have potentially taken more second innings wickets.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

TJB, take the evening, read my post (just the one I pasted to Starfighter is sufficient) and that table. Pick it apart and tell me where its wrong. Or agree with it. Or leave the topic.

 

[TheJediBrah]

TJB, take the evening, read my post (just the one I pasted to Starfighter is sufficient) and that table. Pick it apart and tell me where its wrong. Or agree with it. Or leave the topic.

M8 it's been explained and very clearly to you, and demonstrated statistically thoroughly, why it's wrong by several people npw, and it's not at all complicated. Your attitude doesn't help things either. You have no leg to stand on in this debate.

 

[Starfighter]

TJB, take the evening, read my post (just the one I pasted to Starfighter is sufficient) and that table. Pick it apart and tell me where its wrong. Or agree with it. Or leave the topic.

It doesn't take into account the total balls bowled in a match, which is more important.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

It doesn't take into account the total balls bowled in a match, which is more important.

Add them in. I'm sure you'll find that although the second innings results for a bowler improve, they will remain fairly proportionate in terms or wickets taken per balls bowled for the second innings split.

Heck - you can put in both, the disproportionate pattern will remain. Hadlee bowled twice as many balls in the first innings than the second. Noone else will have that level of variance in that table.

And as for your physical limit - Hadlee bowls far more in draws, (incl NZ batting twice and the opposition once) than he does in wins or losses - its really not going to succeed.

 

[cnerd123]

This thread has become peak CW.

Not enough food talk

 

[Burgey]

Having Lebanese this evening. Can’t wait.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Add them in. I'm sure you'll find that although the second innings results for a bowler improve, they will remain fairly proportionate in terms or wickets taken per balls bowled for the second innings split.

Heck - you can put in both, the disproportionate pattern will remain. Hadlee bowled twice as many balls in the first innings than the second. Noone else will have that level of variance in that table.

More Irrelevancies. His average in the 2nd innings is only like 1 run lower than 1st innings. Your premise that bowling in the 2nd innings is soooo much easier than the 1st is just not true. Your entire argument (which is itself not particularly relevant anyway) is based on a bunch of false assumptions and logical fallacies.

Why do you think McGrath had a lower wpm despite having a better average? If playing in a stronger team should make the wpm higher then there must be something seriously weird going on with McGrath's career hey?

 

[Starfighter]

Here's the deal Mr Miyagi:

You have been consistently condescending, obfuscatory and insulting even, while being unable to support your arguments statistically.

Now, your argument seems to distill down to bowlers in strong batting teams will have a higher WpM (as more runs will give them a better opportunity to take second innings wickets).

Now, we have been doing all the statistical lifting for you. I think it's time you did it yourself.
What I want you do do is find out the WpM of some great bowlers, including Hadlee. Stick to averages under 26, and over 100 wickets. Once you've done this, you should normalise these in a way that accounts for their teammates. I don't know how you do this, you could use proportions or deviations of averages or WpM and so on. There are a few fine posters here who have done complex statistical analyses that I couldn't even understand, so you may wish to ask one of them. Then you should plot these against the batting averages of the teams that they played in. Last of all you can do some kind of statistical test to find out if the trend, if there is one, is in fact significant. Then we can discuss the results.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

More Irrelevancies.

Starfighter asked for it. Take up relevance with him. You can actually use either or both in my opinion, makes no significant difference.

His average in the 2nd innings is only like 1 run lower than 1st innings. Your premise that bowling in the 2nd innings is soooo much easier than the 1st is just not true. Your entire argument (which is itself not particularly relevant anyway) is based on a bunch of false assumptions and logical fallacies.

Why do you think McGrath had a lower wpm despite having a better average? If playing in a stronger team should make the wpm higher then there must be something seriously weird going on with McGrath's career hey?

Actually, it is more like 1.4 iirc. Which is over 5% difference. But it is consistent for almost all players, just like batsmen first innings averages are typically higher than their second. Not all. Not sure why you want to debate this now.

If you want to talk assumptions or fallacies, you have to give me details.

McGrath/Warne is explained, as is Marshall, as is Murali, as is Hadlee. They all fit.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Starfighter asked for it. Take up relevance with him. You can actually use either or both in my opinion, makes no significant difference.



Actually, it is more like 1.4 iirc. Which is over 5% difference. But it is consistent foralmost all players, just like batsmen first innings averages are typically higher than their second. Not sure why you want to debate this.

. . .

Why do you think McGrath had a lower wpm despite having a better average? If playing in a stronger team should make the wpm higher then there must be something seriously weird going on with McGrath's career hey?

Asked you this a couple times now. Would be curious to hear your logic.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Here's the deal Mr Miyagi:

You have been consistently condescending, obfuscatory and insulting even, while being unable to support your arguments statistically.

Actually I have not. Quote me. But I will quote Jedi using "crazy" "moronic" and many more words. He's just so polite to debate with :P

Now, your argument seems to distill down to bowlers in strong batting teams will have a higher WpM (as more runs will give them a better opportunity to take second innings wickets).

Now, we have been doing all the statistical lifting for you. I think it's time you did it yourself.
What I want you do do is find out the WpM of some great bowlers, including Hadlee. Stick to averages under 26, and over 100 wickets. Once you've done this, you should normalise these in a way that accounts for their teammates. I don't know how you do this, you could use proportions or deviations of averages or WpM and so on. There are a few fine posters here who have done complex statistical analyses that I couldn't even understand, so you may wish to ask one of them. Then you should plot these against the batting averages of the teams that they played in. Last of all you can do some kind of statistical test to find out if the trend, if there is one, is in fact significant. Then we can discuss the results.

I gave you my table and my conclusions. Either disagree with the detail. Or supply your own counter table and show me that bowlers of weak batting teams get just as many opportunities pro rata as they do the first to bowl in the second innings as the great team's bowlers.

Or you could just keep it simple and deal specifically with Hadlee. Which is really what is causing all the fuss it would appear.

Good luck

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you want to talk assumptions or fallacies, you have to give me details.

You keep asking for details that have already been thoroughly explained to you, even when they shouldn't have to have been, many times. This discussion will literally go on forever if you repeatedly ignore all facts that are thrown your way.

McGrath/Warne is explained

And no it hasn't. McGrath and Hadlee are statistically very similar bowlers, with a statistically large difference in wpm being their biggest difference. Clearly because McGrath played in a stronger team and had more competition for wickets, which you keep trying to insist should make his wpm higher.

Stronger team = lower wpm. It's a statistical fact. You don't want to be referred to as "crazy" yet you keep denying statistical facts because of your irrelevant reasoning. That's crazy m8

 

[cnerd123]

Having Lebanese this evening. Can’t wait.

Great food. No doubt that you'll be eating a mediocre attempt at it given you're in Australia, but bad Lebanese food > authentic Australian cuisine (whatever that is)

Enjoy yourself

 

[Starfighter]

Actually I have not. Quote me. But I will quote Jedi using "crazy" "moronic" and many more words.

Demeanour is contained in more than just individual quotes. But you asking for 'details' when they have already been provided, rather than defending your arguments with facts, your dismissal without reason of all our points, your consistent insinuations that we somehow don't get what you seem to think is a self evident truth when proven otherwise is our problem, and so on.

I gave you my table and my conclusions. Either disagree with the detail. Or supply your own counter table.

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I've pointed out you table contains fundamental flaws that mean it cannot prove that your argument applies in the real world. It is not on me to prove your point. You are the one arguing for it, not me. Yet you've asked me to provide my own. My not providing a table does not refute there being problems with yours. I've asked you to provide a robust case, you have simply obfuscated.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You keep asking for details that have already been thoroughly explained to you, even when they shouldn't have to have been, many times. This discussion will literally go on forever if you repeatedly ignore all facts that are thrown your way.

details please

And no it hasn't. McGrath and Hadlee are statistically very similar bowlers, with a statistically large difference in wpm being their biggest difference. Clearly because McGrath played in a stronger team and had more competition for wickets, which you keep trying to insist should make his wpm higher.

Stronger team = lower wpm. It's a statistical fact. You don't want to be referred to as "crazy" yet you keep denying statistical facts because of your irrelevant reasoning. That's crazy m8

But Hadlee bowled twice as much and took twice as many wickets in the first innings than in the second. That makes them quite different in that statistic. It is pretty simple.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Demeanour is contained in more than just individual quotes. But you asking for 'details' when they have already been provided, rather than defending your arguments with facts, your dismissal without reason of all our points, your consistent insinuations that we somehow don't get what you seem to think is a self evident truth when proven otherwise is our problem, and so on.


Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I've pointed out you table contains fundamental flaws that mean it cannot prove that your argument applies in the real world. It is not on me to prove your point. You are the one arguing for it, not me. Yet you've asked me to provide my own. My not providing a table does not refute there being problems with yours. I've asked you to provide a robust case, you have simply obfuscated.

You may think you have pointed out flaws, but if you cannot point to a flaw in the detail, beyond "physical limit" which is largely disproven anyway in that Hadlee bowled more in draws actually and prorata than he did in losses (and this includes NZ batting twice and opposition once and vice versa), it just doesn't go anywhere without further details.