Cherry Picking Stats

[Line and Length]

I have noticed a propensity for many CW posters to cherry pick stats and dissect players' careers to the nth degree. While there is some validity in looking at various aspects of a career, is it necessary to compare ATGs in the light of narrow criteria? (eg performances against one particular country or performances while in a particular age bracket.)
All sorts of cherry picked stats can be thrown around, but what do they mean?
For example:
If we discount Bradman's first and last Test matches, he averaged 104.13 with the bat. Or conversely, if we look at Bradman's first and last Test matches, he only averaged 6.33 with the bat.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

452 in 30 minutes is my record.

 

[subshakerz]

I have noticed a propensity for many CW posters to cherry pick stats and dissect players' careers to the nth degree. While there is some validity in looking at various aspects of a career, is it necessary to compare ATGs in the light of narrow criteria? (eg performances against one particular country or performances while in a particular age bracket.)
All sorts of cherry picked stats can be thrown around, but what do they mean?
For example:
If we discount Bradman's first and last Test matches, he averaged 104.13 with the bat. Or conversely, if we look at Bradman's first and last Test matches, he only averaged 6.33 with the bat.

Yes it is justified to look at narrow perimeters when comparing ATGs who have very small differences between them.

It depends on what we consider cherry picking. The example you gave is clearly not an important stat.

 

[Line and Length]

Yes it is justified to look at narrow perimeters when comparing ATGs who have very small differences between them.

It depends on what we consider cherry picking. The example you gave is clearly not an important stat.

My example was definitely tongue in cheek.
Regarding your first point, this is done too frequently to justify an opinion when comparing ATGs.

 

[Bolo.]

I respect what you are trying to do here. But you are missing out on the big picture, like how good Kapil was between 2.17 PM November 6 1980 and 11.27 AM October 1989. These are the important numbers, no cherrypicking involved.

Seriously, do yourself a favour, and tune out the most obvious cherrypicking. You arent going to fix it. Even the least biased of us cherry pick, and if we dont, we arguably should. See WG.

Everyone has a different opinion on appropiate lengths of time. Its seldom worth arguing if Bothams 5 year peak or Sachins 18 year peak is better. There isnt an answer. You arent changing any minds. Generally though, just ignore anyone who references a peak without acknowledging it as a peak. We all do it to some extent, and you can't ignore everyone, but there are degrees.

 

[Son Of Coco]

There's already a thread for this:

Cricketweb's Greatest Ever Thread

 

[Line and Length]

There's already a thread for this:

Cricketweb's Greatest Ever Thread

Before my time, but entertaining and I accept your point.

 

[Starfighter]

Meaningless and stupid cricket statistics

I alluded to this in one of the Australia-India threads last night. In cricket there are certain figures that people love to use to prove how good or bad a player is that, if you think about it, don't really prove or tell you anything. My least favourite is the old 'player x only averages y if...

www.cricketweb.net

 

[Bolo.]

There's already a thread for this:

Cricketweb's Greatest Ever Thread

This thread needs to never be forgotten. It is possibly the best thing ever on CW. And yes, I know the fame of Ponting.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Before my time, but entertaining and I accept your point.

To be fair, I really just seized on an opportunity to link to that thread. You have to take it when it comes.

 

[Shady Slim]

i think the most egregious one i'm seeing lately is the three hundred wicket minimum to be considered ATG

there'll come a bowler who takes 270 odd at 20 who gets done through injury who these people would stubbornly insist is artificially precluded from being considered a top bowler

 

[Starfighter]

i think the most egregious one i'm seeing lately is the three hundred wicket minimum to be considered ATG

Which idiots are promulgating that one?

 

[Shady Slim]

Which idiots are promulgating that one?

I tend to not rate Donald as highly as others but I don't see how Garner is a better bowler. Donald was SA's premier strike bowler at a time when even Pollock was averaging 19. He was around the late 90s considered the best bowler in the world, has a great all round record and has unlike Garner has at least 300 wickets which for me is a minimum to be among the best of the best. I don't see how less than 300 wickets and no tenfer can get you into possibly in the top ten of all time unless it's just a raw stats case.

Was Garner ever spoke of being up there with Lillee and Marshall? He was the mop up bowler in his side after Marshall and Holding did the real damage.

 

[Shady Slim]

i think the most egregious one i'm seeing lately is the three hundred wicket minimum to be considered ATG

there'll come a bowler who takes 270 odd at 20 who gets done through injury who these people would stubbornly insist is artificially precluded from being considered a top bowler

in fact in this post i basically just described joel garner as it turns out

 

[Starfighter]

(quote)

FML that's dire.

 

[Midwinter]

I , for one, would like to see more cherry picking of stats to justify ridiculous assertions than is currently being done.

Just to brighten my day

 

[subshakerz]

i think the most egregious one i'm seeing lately is the three hundred wicket minimum to be considered ATG

there'll come a bowler who takes 270 odd at 20 who gets done through injury who these people would stubbornly insist is artificially precluded from being considered a top bowler

Well, 300 wickets is more of a longevity milestone for modern day bowlers for me. Obviously its not written in stone, so if you have 280 odd wickets at an insane average you would still be up there.

I dont underatand why its so silly. You wouldnt consider Shoaib or Asif as ATGs with around 150 wickets. So there is a benchmark even for you, maybe its 200, 250 or 300, but each of us would have them.

 

[Shady Slim]

Well, 300 wickets is more of a longevity milestone for modern day bowlers for me. Obviously its not written in stone, so if you have 280 odd wickets at an insane average you would still be up there.

I dont underatand why its so silly. You wouldnt consider Shoaib or Asif as ATGs with around 150 wickets. So there is a benchmark even for you, maybe its 200, 250 or 300, but each of us would have them.

it's qualitative and quantitative though is the thing - a bowler who takes 250, body leaves before he can take more, but he does it at 19 - as we are people, and we can take account of these things, we are not robots, it's silly to say there's a hard bar and then create some exceptions like you have there with your mr 280. it's fine to say in your personal criteria you value longevity more than others - but to say there's an absolute bar set at 300, that's the more problematic bit

bc like the existence of the twilight doesn't invalidate the distinction between the night and the day right? the fact that there are borderline guys who have taken less than 300 doesn't mean a system's bunk

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

 

[subshakerz]

it's qualitative and quantitative though is the thing - a bowler who takes 250, body leaves before he can take more, but he does it at 19 - as we are people, and we can take account of these things, we are not robots, it's silly to say there's a hard bar and then create some exceptions like you have there with your mr 280. it's fine to say in your personal criteria you value longevity more than others - but to say there's an absolute bar set at 300, that's the more problematic bit

bc like the existence of the twilight doesn't invalidate the distinction between the night and the day right? the fact that there are borderline guys who have taken less than 300 doesn't mean a system's bunk

300 isn't an absolute bar. But part of being an ATG (in the modern era) to me is displaying excellence over a significant period. 300 wickets is normally the expectation for being in the ATG clubs. Part of greatness is scaling these heights. All things being equal, you would opt for the bowler who scaled heights over the other who did not.