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 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.
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).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.
Very true...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.
but your flaws maybe elsewhere but the cricket..No brain is free of flaws though, which makes the point moot.
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 .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..
That's highly pretentious to say the least.but your flaws maybe elsewhere but the cricket..
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.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.
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...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.
Yeah... were it only so clued on about the cricket..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 .
Yeah, well honestbharani kicked my sick granny.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
Hey, I sent her flowers..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.
Which is exactly why your perception is useless, to be blunt.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...
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 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?
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.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...
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..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.