• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

A different way to rate bowlers

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I was referring to Lostman's suggestion as well.

Don't agree with that as a statistician myself. Good and logical statistical analyses are sometimes complicated (the calculation part, not the rationale part).

I think over-simplification is more often a problem with statistical analysis than over-complicating things.
Not sure about whether you work on cricket stats but there is a very simple reasn why cricket stats are unreliable in nature.. And that's in my sig. :)


I do agree that there are other areas where they are vastly useful though.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Not sure about whether you work on cricket stats but there is a very simple reasn why cricket stats are unreliable in nature.. And that's in my sig. :)


I do agree that there are other areas where they are vastly useful though.
Cricket stats, on face value, is not at all reliable; good statistical analysis is, however. Good statistical analysis is important and necessary because of what you've stated in your sig, precisely. But the sad part is that because this field isn't rewarding (unlike investment banking, market research, quality control etc etc and etc), there aren't many good statistical analysts on cricket around the world. What you get as statistical analysis on cricket usually is a lot of **** (because most of them don't know **** about statistics, and others don't have much idea about cricket), and that's the sole reason true cricket-lovers have lost faith on it. Good statistical analysis needs a little common sense and understanding and a lot of hard work in terms of calculation procedures. No good statistician, therefore, is willing to spend so much effort for nothing (especially when ICC, espn or cricinfo are very happy with regular ****s in the name of statistical analysis).

We can have a detailed discussion on this later, when I'll be in good mood to put an effort (without any rewards :( ) to show you how good statistical analysis can make a lot of sense to someone who understands and loves cricket, if you are one of them :p .
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The first stage is realising that cricketing stats are a pretty bad way of judging a player. The second stage is realising that using your own perceptions usually sucks even harder.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
The first stage is realising that cricketing stats maybe a pretty bad way of judging a player (it sucks if used to measure their talent, their inspirational nature, their *** appeal, their drawing room temperature, the no. of hairs on their scalps etc.), but it is a not-so-bad way of judging performances of players, and the best among the available ways to judge a collection of performances of players. The second stage is realising that this world is all about perceptions.
 
Last edited:

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Stats can tell you anything if you really want them to. Some people look at the stats, examine them, then form the opinions (me); some just look at the stats and jump to conclusions; some form opinions and then look for stats to find them.

If two people have conflicting opinions then they will always believe the other is "manipulating the stats" when in reality the both of them are - they're just forming different conclusions based on different meanings of the same stats.

Because at the end of the day every number in cricket history is set in stone once the delivery has been bowled. There can be no manipulation. It's just about the proper & correct interpretation.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Stats can tell you anything if you really want them to. Some people look at the stats, examine them, then form the opinions (me); some just look at the stats and jump to conclusions; some form opinions and then look for stats to find them.

If two people have conflicting opinions then they will always believe the other is "manipulating the stats" when in reality the both of them are - they're just forming different conclusions based on different meanings of the same stats.

Because at the end of the day every number in cricket history is set in stone once the delivery has been bowled. There can be no manipulation. It's just about the proper & correct interpretation.
Very true...

I would also like to add at the end of your first para...'and there are some who form opinions, then look at the stats to find them, and if they don't find them then they change their opinion'.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
see.. I said between guys who have similar stats.. I am not saying you can find through stats that Walsh was a better batsman than Sachin but beyond a certain level, stats alone will never tell you the true story and there is no way you can quantify the number of factors that affect each and every ball in any form of cricket.


And UC, just for you, if the brain is not flawed, the perceptions are often correct. You just need to have a good enough mind though.. :p
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
No brain is free of flaws though, which makes the point moot.
but your flaws maybe elsewhere but the cricket.. :)


And the stats are just as flawed as the brain. Which makes both of them equally worthess or worthy, depending on your PoV.. To embellish cricket stats as some kind of final answer on who is better than whom (no matter what manipulations you do to it) generally to me, shows a flawed mind. :p
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
And UC, just for you, if the brain is not flawed, the perceptions are often correct. You just need to have a good enough mind though.. :p
Just like everyone else, my mind is far too flawed to see how flawed it is. So is yours, but at least mine's screwed on well enough to know it :p.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
but your flaws maybe elsewhere but the cricket.. :)
That's highly pretentious to say the least.


And the stats are just as flawed as the brain. Which makes both of them equally worthess or worthy, depending on your PoV.. To embellish cricket stats as some kind of final answer on who is better than whom (no matter what manipulations you do to it) generally to me, shows a flawed mind. :p
What is flawed is assuming that people who make use of statistics do not possess the faculties to place them in context. To use the extreme as an argument against the use of statistics is highly irrational.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
That's highly pretentious to say the least.




What is flawed is assuming that people who make use of statistics do not possess the faculties to place them in context. To use the extreme as an argument against the use of statistics is highly irrational.
Its not extreme... Trust me, 5 years in this forum and I have seen statistical evidence of Lara > Sachin AND Sachin > Lara.. Warne > Murali AND Murali > Warne... And that is from this forum alone... Leaving UC's snub aside (and you seriously think he knows where to place stats when he said Lara made his runs in boring draws and losses? ) the point is that between guys in the same statistical ball park, the diff. of 2 or 3 or 4 points does NOT necessarily show you who is better. And at that level, your own perception is as likely to be right ( or wrong, if you wanna be negative about it) as concluded based on the 2 or 3 point statistical superiority. All you need to know is that no two deliveries have ever been exactly the same in cricket, given the amount of variables involved... And when it is not the same situation, comparison of stats for the most part become meaningless in certain contexts. And you seriously need stats to tell you Walsh is a worse batsman than Sachin? For me, perception and stats are equally fallible and it is just stupid to be taking some kind of a high horse approach that stats tell you everything and that perceptions and judgement are always flawed due to bias or whatever...
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Leaving UC's snub aside (and you seriously think he knows where to place stats when he said Lara made his runs in boring draws and losses
Yeah, well honestbharani kicked my sick granny.

Are we done making **** up? I don't even know where you got the idea that I don't rate Lara from. I've never said anything like that. It doesn't even sound like something I would say.
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Yeah, well honestbharani kicked my sick granny.

Are we done making **** up? I don't even know where you got the idea that I don't rate Lara from. I've never said anything like that. It doesn't even sound like something I would say.
Hey, I sent her flowers.. :(



And I don't have that kind of time or cash to dig among the CW archives right now, but I will pull it up when I do get the time...
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Its not extreme... Trust me, 5 years in this forum and I have seen statistical evidence of Lara > Sachin AND Sachin > Lara.. Warne > Murali AND Murali > Warne... And that is from this forum alone... Leaving UC's snub aside (and you seriously think he knows where to place stats when he said Lara made his runs in boring draws and losses? ) the point is that between guys in the same statistical ball park, the diff. of 2 or 3 or 4 points does NOT necessarily show you who is better. And at that level, your own perception is as likely to be right ( or wrong, if you wanna be negative about it) as concluded based on the 2 or 3 point statistical superiority. All you need to know is that no two deliveries have ever been exactly the same in cricket, given the amount of variables involved...
Which is exactly why your perception is useless, to be blunt.


And when it is not the same situation, comparison of stats for the most part become meaningless in certain contexts. And you seriously need stats to tell you Walsh is a worse batsman than Sachin?
I do need stats to tell me that Ricky Ponting is a better batsman to Mark Waugh. Once again, you're trying to buttress your argument by citing extreme examples, which is a poor way of arguing your point.

For me, perception and stats are equally fallible and it is just stupid to be taking some kind of a high horse approach that stats tell you everything and that perceptions and judgement are always flawed due to bias or whatever...
And it is also just stupid to be taking some kind of a high horse approach that perception tells you everything and that stats and judgement are always flawed.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Which is exactly why your perception is useless, to be blunt.




I do need stats to tell me that Ricky Ponting is a better batsman to Mark Waugh. Once again, you're trying to buttress your argument by citing extreme examples, which is a poor way of arguing your point.



And it is also just stupid to be taking some kind of a high horse approach that perception tells you everything and that stats and judgement are always flawed.
Nice work making up stuff I never told, Joe.. :) I did mention we are taking about guys who are in the same "ball park " statistically. I am no expert, but I would assume your ball park has to be pretty big like the MCG or the Eden Gardens, if you consider Ricky Ponting and Mark Waugh within them.. :laugh:


And I never said perceptions > stats.. My point all along is that at best or worst, perceptions = stats and the degrees may vary slightly depending on who is doing the stats or the perceptions but the fact remains that between reasonably close greats, the stats and perceptions are equally useful or useless. And for every man you say who thinks perception > stats, we have 20 here who think stats > perception and so yeah, get used to me saying this...
 

Top