Significance of the 'second innings denial' effect.

[TheJediBrah]

All you seem to care about is explaining why McGrath is lower than Hadlee. I know the answer here.

It's the most relevant comparison that came up because they have such similar stats over a similar time period, we've been over this as well.

What you don't seem to care about is why Streak is lower than Broad and Anderson. :P Not why Hadlee is lower than Murali. Etc etc.

Been over this plenty of times too. Why you're still trying to compare Hadlee and Murali is beyond me.

The world is not Australia. Not everyone played for a superstar team.

That's the whole point of the comparison. Strong team v weak team. That's literally what we are discussing. It's why McGrath and Hadlee are such a perfect comparison. Again, we've been over this.

I couldn't give two hoots about bowlers who bowled so many 4th innings overs that their averages are drastically reduced to look better than real ATG :P

. . .

Ave E/R S/R

McGrath:

1st match innings 22.92 2.58 53.1
2nd match innings 21.20 2.49 50.9
3rd match innings 22.57 2.52 53.6
4th match innings 19.49 2.34 49.8

Yeah no way McGrath would be ATG without 4th innings . . . If you take away 4th innings from both McGrath and Hadlee then McGrath's stats are even more superior to Hadlee's. Dumb comment m8.

 

[Starfighter]

He knows he can't actually prove his points so he's just going to repeat the same thing over again and mince words without actually addressing anything while immaturely using emojis and emoticons as if he's being real slick. How about we discuss the points that Bolo and NotMcKenzie have raised? Put the postmodernism on ignore.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He knows he can't actually prove his points so he's just going to repeat the same thing over again and mince words without actually addressing anything while immaturely using emojis and emoticons as if he's being real slick. How about we discuss the points that Bolo and NotMcKenzie have raised? Put the postmodernism on ignore.

The rest of you guys actually seem to be having an interesting discussion tbh

 

[Mr Miyagi]

He knows he can't actually prove his points so he's just going to repeat the same thing over again

So you need to deny or accept my theory. Either I'm right and can explain all leading bowlers whoever bowled or I'm wrong.

But I guess if I can just keep proving my points, I am right :P

 

[Mr Miyagi]

It's the most relevant comparison that came up because they have such similar stats over a similar time period, we've been over this as well.



Been over this plenty of times too. Why you're still trying to compare Hadlee and Murali is beyond me.



That's the whole point of the comparison. Strong team v weak team. That's literally what we are discussing. It's why McGrath and Hadlee are such a perfect comparison. Again, we've been over this.



. . .



Yeah no way McGrath would be ATG without 4th innings . . . If you take away 4th innings from both McGrath and Hadlee then McGrath's stats are even more superior to Hadlee's. Dumb comment m8.

No. I did not make a dumb comment. You' re still not differentiating between batting and bowling weaknesses making a team weak which most the thread gets by now.

Lets now look at who bowled more 4th innings overs.

Hadlee getsthe benefit of 6% of his total overs in the 4th at just 15 runs per wicket.

McGrath gets the benefit of 18% of his overs in the 4th at just 19 runs per wicket.

That is 3 times as many. Which innings would you rather bowl in?

Good luck

 

[TheJediBrah]

No. I did not make a dumb comment.

Lets now look at who bowled more 4th innings overs.

Hadlee getsthe benefit of 6% of his total overs in the 4th at just 15 runs per wicket.

McGrath gets the benefit of 18% of his overs in the 4th at just 19 runs per wicket.

That is 3 times as many. Which innings would you rather bowl in?

Good luck

All that shows is that Hadlee relied more an dodgy conditions to take wickets and McGrath was a better bowler in innings 1-3

It doesn't mean anything other than what we have already established 100x before and that you've been clearly explained to just as many times that no one disagrees with or really cares about because it's not relevant to the actual premise that we're talking about.

You're literally still going on about the same irrelevant factor that you were 2 days ago. It's mind blowing.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

All that shows is that Hadlee relied more an dodgy conditions to take wickets and McGrath was a better bowler in innings 1-3

1st innings Hadlee

1st match innings 22.17 2.69 49.3

Ist innings McGrath
1st match innings 22.92 2.58 53.1

Please explain.

It doesn't mean anything other than what we have already established 100x before and that you've been clearly explained to just as many times that no one disagrees with or really cares about because it's not relevant to the actual premise that we're talking about.

You're literally still going on about the same irrelevant factor that you were 2 days ago. It's mind blowing.

I have never wavered, yet this thread is dedicated to testing my theory. That is truth. I didn't even start this thread. I already knew that I was understanding the phenomenon. So stop insulting those in this thread that this is new to.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No. I did not make a dumb comment

Lol just because you went back and deleted it doesn't mean you didn't make it

btw you should take more time thinking about your posts than you do because going back and editing everything half a dozen times just means your comments are going to get missed

 

[Starfighter]

All that shows is that Hadlee relied more an dodgy conditions to take wickets and McGrath was a better bowler in innings 1-3

It doesn't mean anything other than what we have already established 100x before and that you've been clearly explained to just as many times that no one disagrees with or really cares about because it's not relevant to the actual premise that we're talking about.

You're literally still going on about the same irrelevant factor that you were 2 days ago. It's mind blowing.

People can't be convinced if they don't want to be.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Lol just because you went back and deleted it doesn't mean you didn't make it

btw you should take more time thinking about your posts than you do because going back and editing everything half a dozen times just means your comments are going to get missed

I edit for clarity of the reader. I am courteous.

Perhaps, if you want to point to some inconsistency - you should just do it. But I will paste my original position from the last thread here, and trust me, it has never wavered. No many how posts I edit.

I understand this like I know the back of my hand

 

[TheJediBrah]

1st innings Hadlee

1st match innings 22.17 2.69 49.3

Ist innings McGrath
1st match innings 22.92 2.58 53.1

Please explain.

M8 this isn't a competition. No one cares about "Hadlee v McGrath, who was better". You just picked 1st innings because Hadlee happens to have superior stats. 2nd and 3rd innings are a very different story.

You've been blinded by patriotism

I have never wavered

lol no ****, that's the problem. You've made absolutely no progress and been arguing the same irrelevant point the whole time

 

[Mr Miyagi]

People can't be convinced if they don't want to be.

The only person left denying the second innings effect is yourself.

So why are you not convinced yet if I can prove it? Your words. Not mine

 

[Mr Miyagi]

M8 this isn't a competition. No one cares about "Hadlee v McGrath, who was better". You just picked 1st innings because Hadlee happens to have superior stats. 2nd and 3rd innings are a very different story.

You've been blinded by patriotism

If my theory is the one that was articulated and is now accepted, how on earth have I been the one blinded?

lol no ****, that's the problem. You've made absolutely no progress and been arguing the same irrelevant point the whole time

I disagree. Bolo now gets it. Burgey gets it. Daemon gets it. Borges seems to get it. Even you on occasion now get it. Seems like progress to me. :P

Lets finally move onto the fourth innings and pack hunting of bowlers to new unset batsmen already. Its been days now.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If my theory is the one that was articulated and is now accepted, how on earth have I been the one blinded?





I disagree. Bolo now gets it. Burgey gets it. Daemon gets it. Borges seems to get it. Even you on occasion now get it. Seems like progress to me. :P

Lets finally move onto the fourth innings and pack hunting of bowlers to new unset batsmen already. Its been days now.

Your theory was never something that people didn't get. Everyone got it. It's not complicated. It's just not wven close to being a decisive factor in what we are actually discussing. Your theory is the "10 steps forward", and you're still ignoring the "50 steps back"

 

[Starfighter]

You've been blinded by patriotism

I don't think it's just this. He seems to genuinely think he's stumbled onto some effect that explains... something. I don't know what it explains considering most of the trends run against the effect. After all he said that he'd been considering it even before he joined CricketWeb.

Maybe he should contact Charles Davis or some of the guys who do stats for Cricinfo or some other people who have an actual background in (cricket) statistics (he sure as heck doesn't) and ask them about it, or prove to them that it's significant.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I don't think it's just this. He seems to genuinely think he's stumbled onto some effect that explains... something. I don't know what it explains considering most of the trends run against the effect. After all he said that he'd been considering it even before he joined CricketWeb.

Maybe he should contact Charles Davis or some of the guys who do stats for Cricinfo or some other people who have an actual background in (cricket) statistics (he sure as heck doesn't) and ask them about it, or prove to them that it's significant.

Go for it. Ask any statistician who is familiar with cricket.

But I don't think it does. I have proved that it does. Your words. Not mine.

Heck send it to cricinfo and make me famous

For me it is pretty simple logic and not at all novel. But that's just me.

And lol at "stumbled" :P I saw it forwards from logic and backwards from data from the outset :P

 

[Starfighter]

Go for it. Ask any statistician who is familiar with cricket.

But I don't think it does. I have proved that it does. Your words. Not mine.

Heck send it to cricinfo and make me famous

For me it is pretty simple logic and not at all novel. But that's just me.

You're the one insisting on it, so you go ask, or better yet, write an article yourself and submit it. You thought of it so the fame should be all yours. A genius mind like yours deserves it.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Your theory was never something that people didn't get. Everyone got it. It's not complicated. It's just not wven close to being a decisive factor in what we are actually discussing. Your theory is the "10 steps forward", and you're still ignoring the "50 steps back"

Show me its 50 steps back :P

There's 20 wickets afterall.

#oops :P

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You're the one insisting on it, so you go ask, or better yet, write an article yourself and submit it. You thought of it so the fame should be all yours. A genius mind like yours deserves it.

My "genius mind" as you put it has already got a fair share of accolades and awards. To be quite sincere with you, this wouldn't compare with what I already have achieved.

This may strike you as arrogant. This may strike you as conceited. But it is genuine and authentic. I am not a "dumb" person. No matter how much you think I ought to be.

But I couldn't care less about discussing me. I'm not that interesting. Discuss the theory. Deny it or accept it. Over to you.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Show me its 50 steps back :P

There's 20 wickets afterall.

#oops :P

The stats are right there. You've been shown this dozens of times already.

3 bowlers with similar stats, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee. The 2 from stronger teams have lower wpm. It's not a coincidence. It's the facts. That's the proof that it's 50 steps back.

Trying to quantify every single potential factor affecting wpm that's related to team strength, even if possible, would be an exceedingly stupid, and pointless, waste of time. Because we already know the answer. We need to know every single factor that leads to it.

My "genius mind" as you put it has already got a fair share of accolades and awards. To be quite sincere with you, this wouldn't compare with what I already have achieved.

No offence, but you don't even understand grade school scientific theory. Whatever you've got a "genius mind" for is seriously letting you down here.