Fixated on facts and figures!

[DanielFullard]

Stats, at the end of the day, are all that matters

Idiotic point.

So cricket is a sport that can be played on paper then? Why even bother watching it if stats are all that matter because after all if thats all that matters to you you will surely get more pleasure out of looking at a scorecard than watching an actual game?

As Robertinho said......Im not sure why you posted that as it makes no sense whatsoever, unless you're a complete moron

 

[Dasa]

I think stats are all-important when it comes to results, but they don't matter at all when it comes to the enjoyment of the game.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think stats are all-important when it comes to results, but they don't matter at all when it comes to the enjoyment of the game.

They give people something to talk about - and idiots something to rely on.

 

[Richard]

That has to be one of the most pointless posts ever. Stats, at the end of the day, are clearly not all that matters. How many Australian batsmen averaged over 50 leading into the Ashes? How many English batsmen also managed to? And what was the result? If you'd tried to predict the result of the Ashes using these statistics, you would've been completely wrong.

Yet you could probably find some stats (eg Hayden's average when facing decent swing-bowling) that gave a much better demonstration, and DID predict a result with better accuracy.

 

[Richard]

I think stats are all-important when it comes to results, but they don't matter at all when it comes to the enjoyment of the game.

Exactly.

 

[Robertinho]

Yet you could probably find some stats (eg Hayden's average when facing decent swing-bowling) that gave a much better demonstration, and DID predict a result with better accuracy.

How do stats define "decent swing-bowling"? See Richard, that sort of analysis could never come from statistics, unless someone comes up with a numerical system that decides what is "decent swing-bowling" (which is quite absurd).

 

[Jono]

What he doesn't realise is stats are supposed to be objective (ideally), they just state what happened.

However a stat based on 'swing bowling conditions' would be subjective because you'd have to define that.

 

[Richard]

How do stats define "decent swing-bowling"? See Richard, that sort of analysis could never come from statistics, unless someone comes up with a numerical system that decides what is "decent swing-bowling" (which is quite absurd).

You watch the bowling, you see what's "decent swing-bowling", then you look at Hayden's average in said circumstances.
Clearly there's no numbers that can show swing-bowling - and that's why numbers alone can't completely sum-up cricket.

 

[Richard]

What he doesn't realise is stats are supposed to be objective (ideally), they just state what happened.

However a stat based on 'swing bowling conditions' would be subjective because you'd have to define that.

All stats are objective - the meaning of those stats is subjective.

 

[Beleg]

I think stats are all-important when it comes to results, but they don't matter at all when it comes to the enjoyment of the game.

Nicely put. I agree completely.

 

[a massive zebra]

I think stats are all-important when it comes to results, but they don't matter at all when it comes to the enjoyment of the game.

Spot on.

 

[DanielFullard]

Eddies comment that "Stats can enhance knowledge, but all too often they are a substitute" is still the most intelligent and correct way of adressing this.

After all, whats more boring than reading a post in which a CW users tries to argue his case using nothing but stats and no insight?

 

[sideshowtim]

I love statistics. Yet statistics don't tell the only picture, for example, Mark Boucher made a 50 in the VB series off not too many balls...it included a few sixes...people will look back and say "Good innings, hit a couple of sixes" when in reality they were enormous top edges and he looked incredibly vulnerable throughout the innings.

 

[shankar]

Obviously statistics don't give the complete picture and can be manipulated. But, IMO stats are far less easily manipulated than something like a personal impression of a player which are very easily manipulated due to bias (not just towards favourite players but towards certain styles of playing - defensive vs attacking,etc..., aesthetics etc..). But stats alone are not enough to judge a player since cricket is too complicated to be summed up by simple stats. So the best way to judge would be a combination of personal impression, as a guide, and statistics as the bottomline (keeping in mind, their limitations).

 

[Ikki]

Stats can enhance knowledge, but all too often they are a substitute

Genius.

 

[DanielFullard]

a personal impression of a player which are very easily manipulated due to bias

Interesting point. I for one don't fall prey to this no matter what the case.

 

[shankar]

Interesting point. I for one don't fall prey to this no matter what the case.

It's not very difficult to be unbiased with respect to stuff like nationality of the player etc.. But I'm talking about more subtle biases like in the case of a comparison between a batsman who looks all class and a dour one who apparently scratches around. Now if we went by pure impression we might rate the the class looking one. Statistics, however would emphasise the bottomline that both have been equally effective over a period of time and force us to rate them the same.

 

[DanielFullard]

It's not very difficult to be unbiased with respect to stuff like nationality of the player etc.. But I'm talking about more subtle biases like in the case of a comparison between a batsman who looks all class and a dour one who apparently scratches around. Now if we went by pure impression we might rate the the class looking one. Statistics, however would emphasise the bottomline that both have been equally effective over a period of time and force us to rate them the same.

Oh yes, I understood your initial point. Is that bias though? Not sure. But yet again your point furthers the one I made, if a batsmen gets 50 runs but is horribly scrappy, lucky and faces easy bowling on paper it would seem he has a better day than a teammate who got 30 runs with masterful strokeplay against class bowling

 

[shankar]

if a batsmen gets 50 runs but is horribly scrappy, lucky and faces easy bowling on paper it would seem he has a better day than a teammate who got 30 runs with masterful strokeplay against class bowling

Agreed. Which is why long term statistics should be considered.

 

[Langeveldt]

I'm wondering - have you completely missed the point of this thread or something? He's saying that people all too often say "Bowler A averages 5 runs less than Bowler B, he's obviously a better bowler" and that it represents a fixation on stats.

Uh, no.. If bowler A averages 5 runs less than Bowler B, why isn't he obviously a better bowler?? (Assuming they have both been playing long enough for the average to be a valid one) He isn't exactly going to be a worse bowler is he, or am I missing something here?

If you played the Ashes 2005 ten times over, Australia would have won far more times than England, because statistically they are the better side.. Of course the unexpected can happen sometimes, I'm not discounting that.. But when you look at a long term trend, it follows the average, which is exactly why its called an average..

When you look at statistics you have to take into consideration who the opponents are, you have to interpret them correctly.. Too many people make blind judgements without looking at the breakdown.. Bowler A would be a worse bowler if all his wickets were against Bangladesh, or against number 11's.. So you have to take that into consideration..

The only time I ignore a stat is if it has been heavily effected by anomalies like Bangladesh.. Like Gillespie's batting average this last year..