Cherry Picking Stats

[Line and Length]

I notice, in another thread, how there is a debate about Ricky Ponting's ranking among Australian Post-Bradman batsmen. Some are arguing that the latter portion of his career should be overlooked as he played on past his peak. While it is interesting to look at players' peaks, I believe their careers need to be considered in their entirety. Discussion regarding strengths/weaknesses of opposition teams, home vs away records and pitch conditions are valid when comparing players, but to dismiss or disregard portions of a career is less so.
To illustrate my point, how would you rank a bowler who, over a number of years, took over 500 wickets at an average of around 23? Most would have them in the ATG category. However, these figures are presented without the figures from the first 7 years of their career. I am obviously referring to James Anderson whose career figures, when dissected, are:
2003-2009: 148 wickets @ 34.86
2010-2022: 519 wickets @ 23.76
If I were to suggest that, when comparing bowlers, we should only look at the latter portion of Anderson's career I would be duly criticised and fair enough.
By all means look at portions of players' careers but, when making overall comparisons, a career needs to be looked at as a whole.

 

[Daemon]

I think in certain cases if a player is playing through a natural decline towards the end of his career to help the team because his past it is still decent enough, then it should only add to that players record.

Tendulkars 18 year stretch averaging 60 and then a natural decline at the end shouldn't mean he should be docked points for that decline.

It's only when the decline comes early (age wise) or goes on for a prolonged period where you may question whether the dude was just in a longish purple patch and eventually reverted to the mean. Same could be said if a player goes on for like half a decade to the detriment of the team (Dhoni in ODIs for example).

It's all very subjective and comes down to where you draw the line between a player having played for long enough for you to know how 'good' they were, and how you value longevity.

 

[honestbharani]

Cherry Picking Stats is basically all of CC in CW.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

It's all about Wins Above Replacement

 

[subshakerz]

You judge players based on their overall records I think 90 percent of the time.

10 percent can be more extenuating circumstances that require more context to explain why a phase of a career should be re-assesed. Like injuries, perhaps.

For example, in Wasim's case, I think his record is a bit worse than the overall player he actually was because he debuted very very young and took longer to develop into full maturity as a fast bowler. So compared to most fast bowlers who hit their strides in their 10th to 15th test, Wasim hit his in his 30th test onwards when he was in his early 20s and the usual physical age a fast bowler can reach worldclass levels. In a proper cricket set up, he wouldnt have had to be plucked so soon and could have debuted much later. That factor and his high peer rating is enough for me to justify him over guys like Donald with better overall records but started international cricket near their physical prime.

Even though the early career phases of Wasim and Tendulkar are not great statswise, I give them credit rather than de-merit them for still producing terrific performances at such a young age.

 

[mr_mister]

I often see Crowe held up as a player who "deserved" to average 50

Started off as a baby in a piss weak NZ batting line-up and arguably spent a decade as the best bat in the world once he matured

 

[subshakerz]

To illustrate my point, how would you rank a bowler who, over a number of years, took over 500 wickets at an average of around 23? Most would have them in the ATG category. However, these figures are presented without the figures from the first 7 years of their career. I am obviously referring to James Anderson whose career figures, when dissected, are:
2003-2009: 148 wickets @ 34.86
2010-2022: 519 wickets @ 23.76
If I were to suggest that, when comparing bowlers, we should only look at the latter portion of Anderson's career I would be duly criticised and fair enough.
By all means look at portions of players' careers but, when making overall comparisons, a career needs to be looked at as a whole.

The thing is 2010 onwards Anderson wasn't really as penetrative as that average suggests, otherwise he would be rated higher. He is seen as more or less Pollock/Walsh level or just below where he should be.

 

[Kirkut]

You judge players based on their overall records I think 90 percent of the time.

10 percent can be more extenuating circumstances that require more context to explain why a phase of a career should be re-assesed. Like injuries, perhaps.

For example, in Wasim's case, I think his record is a bit worse than the overall player he actually was because he debuted very very young and took longer to develop into full maturity as a fast bowler. So compared to most fast bowlers who hit their strides in their 10th to 15th test, Wasim hit his in his 30th test onwards when he was in his early 20s and the usual physical age a fast bowler can reach worldclass levels. In a proper cricket set up, he wouldnt have had to be plucked so soon and could have debuted much later. That factor and his high peer rating is enough for me to justify him over guys like Donald with better overall records but started international cricket near their physical prime.

Even though the early career phases of Wasim and Tendulkar are not great statswise, I give them credit rather than de-merit them for still producing terrific performances at such a young age.

Likewise the same can be said for Donald who missed playing in his early 20s due apartheid and had to debut at around 26 - 27 years of age.

From what I've heard about Donald who played a lot of county cricket in the 80s, he was too fast to handle.

 

[subshakerz]

Likewise the same can be said for Donald who missed playing in his early 20s due apartheid and had to debut at around 26 - 27 years of age.

From what I've heard about Donald who played a lot of county cricket in the 80s, he was too fast to handle.

Fair enough. In Donald's case you can argue he might have taken more wickets if he was allowed to debut earlier which is definitely true. By all accounts he could have been part of the 400 club.

But I don't think it calls his existing record into question the way it is for Wasim.

 

[CricAddict]

Just do whatever helps your case.

 

[Shady Slim]

i think it's more justifiable to give less weight to x tests at the end of a career than x tests at the start of a career though, but in either case when judging players the peak, if extended for long enough, is obviously what's most important

not sure i'm ready to put the "why" into words yet, as i'd have to think of a precise way to articulate it, but on a preliminary vibe check it feels more just holding a player's early career against them than their late career speaking as a general rule; contextual factors can always change it

 

[Starfighter]

@SJS used to offer a service in this:

Hear, Hear, Hear : Lend me your Ear

Hear, Hear, Hear : Lend me your Ear SJS's Stats Factory Providing Flexible Stats for the Inflexible Mind Statsistics to fit all opinions ! Line up here for your turn ! Read on for more details ! I am offering a unique new service here. Here is how it works ? Step 1. Decide which...

www.cricketweb.net

 

[Burgey]

One poster’s “cherry picking” is often another’s “careful analysis.”

 

[subshakerz]

i think it's more justifiable to give less weight to x tests at the end of a career than x tests at the start of a career though, but in either case when judging players the peak, if extended for long enough, is obviously what's most important

not sure i'm ready to put the "why" into words yet, as i'd have to think of a precise way to articulate it, but on a preliminary vibe check it feels more just holding a player's early career against them than their late career speaking as a general rule; contextual factors can always change it

Possibly because towards end of the career, players have less to prove so you can argue their not 100% in their performances?

 

[ankitj]

In Ponting's case, he has very ordinary 3rd innings average so I don't rate him so high.

 

[ankitj]

On Anderson, his record while playing under captainship of Pietersen and Flintoff puts a big question mark on how good he really is.

 

[trundler]

Overall averages aren't holy. It's only fair to compare cricketers of a similar calibre up to similar durations.

 

[Victor Ian]

,
2003-2009: 148 wickets @ 34.86
2010-2022: 519 wickets @ 23.76
If I were to suggest that, when comparing bowlers, we should only look at the latter portion of Anderson's career I would be duly criticised and fair enough.
By all means look at portions of players' careers but, when making overall comparisons, a career needs to be looked at as a whole.

This is how I think of Anderson. It still leaves me room enough to cherry pick his cherries when I don't want to acknowledge him.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

One former poster claimed that if you remove the fact that he was picked before he was ready, played too much with a serious back condition and was selected past his prime, Mike Atherton would have averaged 60.
More exotic mandarin than cherry.
There was also another poster who calculated that Richard Hadlee should have batted at 3 for New Zealand. I know it somehow involved John Parker and Brian Hastings.
More recently someone claimed that Kapil Dev was inferior to about a dozen New Zealand fast bowlers.
Bring on the cherries.

 

[Coronis]

To illustrate my point, how would you rank a bowler who, over a number of years, took over 500 wickets at an average of around 23? Most would have them in the ATG category. However, these figures are presented without the figures from the first 7 years of their career.

Depends if they can take wickets when the sun is shining.