Who's Done the Most Damage?

[TheJediBrah]

The real answer is to look at context for both cases.

Precisely. And with context, the vast majority of cases WPM is a bad metric

 

[ataraxia]

Johan has probably done the most damage to his already pretty minor standing in this community tbh.

By continuing to post in it.

I never thought it would be possible that someone could reach 100,000 posts at a lower average quality than yours. But it looks like it might happen if he keeps up the biblical pace of 16,000 in the last 10–11 months.

 

[Burgey]

Not sure how you can get to 100K without 90% of them being complete dross tbh. I've hit my KPIs in that regard.

 

[subshakerz]

Precisely. And with context, the vast majority of cases WPM is a bad metric

No the vast majority of cases we use WPM to separate bowlers whether we like to admit it or not.

We don't rate Philander with Steyn because of it.

Or Pollock with Donald.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No the vast majority of cases we use WPM to separate bowlers whether we like to admit it or not.

Maybe you do that, wouldn't surprise me. "We" don't

 

[subshakerz]

Maybe you do that, wouldn't surprise me. "We" don't

Its a first reflex to see if someone is in the same statistical weight class as a bowler, assuming same era.

You look at average and output. Then of course you go into finer details of their record.

You want pretend the vast majority here don't do that, fine.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You want pretend the vast majority here don't do that, fine.

No one sensible does that

It's only extreme cases where WPM would be a meaningful metric to differentiate 2 bowlers

 

[honestbharani]

Not sure how you can get to 100K without 90% of them being complete dross tbh. I've hit my KPIs in that regard.

But what about the OKRs?

 

[subshakerz]

No one sensible does that

It's only extreme cases where WPM would be a meaningful metric to differentiate 2 bowlers

So if it's a bowler you aren't familiar with, what are the first things you check in his record?

You're telling me you don't notice the tally of wickets compared to games played just as a reflex?

I find that hard to believe.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So if it's a bowler you aren't familiar with, what are the first things you check in his record?

Average will always be the gold standard

Strike-rate/economy-rate are inexplicably linked and the value of each depends more on context than anything else

WPM is, if anything, an anti-factor, whose consideration in combination with average can lead to a less accurate analysis than just average alone

 

[Burgey]

But what about the OKRs?

Ok

 

[Thala_0710]

WPM is, if anything, an anti-factor, whose consideration in combination with average can lead to a less accurate analysis than just average alone

Not really no. When you're talking about great bowlers, having a higher WPM simply indicates the higher impact you're having on the game. All great bowlers ofc have lower avgs than their teammates to varying degrees. The more WPM you have, the cheaper the opposition you have to take.
And ofc teammate strength affects both avg and WPM. WPM more so directly simply because of higher competition for wkts, which ofc needs to be factored in. It also affects though, historically most bowlers with good teammates have lower avgs, because you can build pressure from both sides, + the opposing partnerships keep getting broken quicker, so you have to bowl to set batsmen less often.
Overall avg is definitely more imp, but WPM is up there for impact, more so than SR and definitely eco imo

 

[subshakerz]

Average will always be the gold standard

Strike-rate/economy-rate are inexplicably linked and the value of each depends more on context than anything else

WPM is, if anything, an anti-factor, whose consideration in combination with average can lead to a less accurate analysis than just average alone

You didn't answer my question. Isn't it a reflex to look at the ratio of wickets to games? It obviously is.

Yes average is important but I won't look at that in isolation without SR and WPM. Otherwise I would consider Philander a bowler in the Steyn class.

 

[subshakerz]

Not really no. When you're talking about great bowlers, having a higher WPM simply indicates the higher impact you're having on the game. All great bowlers ofc have lower avgs than their teammates to varying degrees. The more WPM you have, the cheaper the opposition you have to take.
And ofc teammate strength affects both avg and WPM. WPM more so directly simply because of higher competition for wkts, which ofc needs to be factored in. It also affects though, historically most bowlers with good teammates have lower avgs, because you can build pressure from both sides, + the opposing partnerships keep getting broken quicker, so you have to bowl to set batsmen less often.
Overall avg is definitely more imp, but WPM is up there for impact, more so than SR and definitely eco imo

Thala, the thing is that WPM has become such an obvious metric that the tendency now is to look completely the other way at it for ATGs. It's an overreaction.

 

[sayon basak]

So if it's a bowler you aren't familiar with, what are the first things you check in his record?

I go through his performances. I don't just go to his cricinfo page and divide his number of wickets by the number of matches he played.

 

[Thala_0710]

If you assume similar conditions and level of teammates for 2 pacers with numbers like:
23 avg 4 WPM
24 avg 5 WPM
I'm going to ofc pick the second option, the extra wicket per game for 1 run more on avg is going to be much more impactful. The rest of bowlers, in general, would be avging 30+, so my best bowler picking an extra wicket is just much better practically

 

[subshakerz]

My impression is many Ambrose supporters are more easily impressed by the difference in average between him and Lillee and assume their wicker taking rates are comparable.

And also they tend to read his list of away average and look at low averages in Pak and NZ and get easily impressed without caring about the wicket column.

I have yet to see a convincing argument for why a 2-3 point average difference matters (as long as you are in the worldclass category) more than a big gulf in wickets.

 

[subshakerz]

I go through his performances. I don't just go to his cricinfo page and divide his number of wickets by the number of matches he played.

I also go through performances but my first impression is looking at wicket tally, matches and average.

Isn't that yours? Come on now.

 

[subshakerz]

the extra wicket per game for 1 run more on avg is going to be much more impactful.

This is what I argue those attacking me don't want to admit, that there is net match effect by just more wickets in the same games that has to be weighed against a better average.

 

[sayon basak]

I also go through performances but my first impression is looking at wicket tally, matches and average.

Isn't that yours? Come on now.

First impression is not a part of judging a player's record, at least for me. As it can be very misleading.