• 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.

Meaningless and stupid cricket statistics

trundler

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You recognize the need to apply common sense to stats, even the most basic one, averages. (Which could be rephrased, more objectively, but potentially more problematically, as the need to apply multiple statistical filters).

You regard a measure like WPM/I as essentially invalid. It is objectively as good a measure of contribution as exists, and if filtered, whether by common sense or statisically (which admittedly is complicated) will give a great idea of quality.

Do you really believe it is impossible to filter this down in this way for this stat specifically? We spend most of our time in ATG threads deconstructing stats in bizarrely, nerdy, complicated ways. Why is this any different? If we are engaging in pendantry like average in X place in X timeframe, surely we should be engaging in something more important like this?
I'm not saying this to be provocative — lord knows I lay my bait without any such disclaimer — but the reason why WPM evokes such a visceral reaction from TJB is purely because of its deployment in Warne Vs Murali debates. Obviously, there's a completely unrelated factor (general quality of opposition) which artificially widens the gap but instead of just recognising that people say it's useless in general. This also comes up when we're talking about Miller's bowling. Yeah, WPM depends a lot on context but it's pretty telling how Philander managed only 3.5 overall despite a legendary start to his career. Or that Lillee managed 5 wickets each game despite shattering his spine in half. No one argues a WPM of 4.6 makes one a better bowler than someone with 4.4. People also brush off Hadlee picking up 5 each game as irrelevant with muh less competition excuses but it's a testament to his supreme fitness and godlike persistence. It's even more incredible considering he played something like 85% of the matches NZ played in his career. Compare that with Fat Vern's road activated glass knees. Rant over. Richard Hadlee was a god.
 

Bolo.

International Debutant
I'm not saying this to be provocative — lord knows I lay my bait without any such disclaimer — but the reason why WPM evokes such a visceral reaction from TJB is purely because of its deployment in Warne Vs Murali debates. Obviously, there's a completely unrelated factor (general quality of opposition) which artificially widens the gap but instead of just recognising that people say it's useless in general. This also comes up when we're talking about Miller's bowling. Yeah, WPM depends a lot on context but it's pretty telling how Philander managed only 3.5 overall despite a legendary start to his career. Or that Lillee managed 5 wickets each game despite shattering his spine in half. No one argues a WPM of 4.6 makes one a better bowler than someone with 4.4. People also brush off Hadlee picking up 5 each game as irrelevant with muh less competition excuses but it's a testament to his supreme fitness and godlike persistence. It's even more incredible considering he played something like 85% of the matches NZ played in his career. Compare that with Fat Vern's road activated glass knees. Rant over. Richard Hadlee was a god.
I hope not. Let's be honest, none of us are immune to having our biases about players shape our bias of stats, and while there are plenty of other good reasons to rank Warne ahead, Murali's WPM/I is a clearly solid reason to rank him ahead, lack of competition notwithstanding.

FTR, massively agree with the Vern example. Vern did not just have a problem with 'glass knees'... he was just a holding bowler without a lively ball on favourable pitches... and a lazy one, which made his average look really good. Doesn't matter how many games he dodged (I have no idea what the number is). He would have averaged mid 20s+ if he was bowling enough to get anywhere near to 5WPM in the games he played in, even ignoring his alleged pitch dodging.
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm not saying this to be provocative — lord knows I lay my bait without any such disclaimer — but the reason why WPM evokes such a visceral reaction from TJB is purely because of its deployment in Warne Vs Murali debates. Obviously, there's a completely unrelated factor (general quality of opposition) which artificially widens the gap but instead of just recognising that people say it's useless in general. This also comes up when we're talking about Miller's bowling. Yeah, WPM depends a lot on context but it's pretty telling how Philander managed only 3.5 overall despite a legendary start to his career. Or that Lillee managed 5 wickets each game despite shattering his spine in half. No one argues a WPM of 4.6 makes one a better bowler than someone with 4.4. People also brush off Hadlee picking up 5 each game as irrelevant with muh less competition excuses but it's a testament to his supreme fitness and godlike persistence. It's even more incredible considering he played something like 85% of the matches NZ played in his career. Compare that with Fat Vern's road activated glass knees. Rant over. Richard Hadlee was a god.
dumb comment brah, thought never crossed my mind. There's plenty to differentiate Murali & Warne in debates but that's never been one of them in my experience anyway. Hadlee v McGrath would have been a better point of attack if you wanted to come at me in this manner, at least it would be relevant in that comparison

Miller maybe though, definitely comes up
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Also, my main problem with most of the posts in this thread is that people only judge how "useful" a stat is if the stat can tell you how good a player is? Which is pretty ****ing stupid.
That's the context it's almost always being used in here though . . . if someone says "x stat is meaningless" in a certain context, even if the context is implied, it's not "****ing stupid" to say that because the stat could mean be meaningful in a completely different context.
You recognize the need to apply common sense to stats, even the most basic one, averages. (Which could be rephrased, more objectively, but potentially more problematically, as the need to apply multiple statistical filters).

You regard a measure like WPM/I as essentially invalid. It is objectively as good a measure of contribution as exists, and if filtered, whether by common sense or statisically (which admittedly is complicated) will give a great idea of quality.

Do you really believe it is impossible to filter this down in this way for this stat specifically? We spend most of our time in ATG threads deconstructing stats in bizarrely, nerdy, complicated ways. Why is this any different? If we are engaging in pendantry like average in X place in X timeframe, surely we should be engaging in something more important like this?
Good points. At the risk of sounding very repetitive it all comes down to context. If someone wants to talk about a player's WPI or WPM in a discussion about how much they bowled because of team or era-related factors then fair enough we shouldn't go about objecting to it. But in my experience here that is almost never the case, it will be some player comparison and someone will notice that the player they like has a higher WPM than the one they don't and then decide to use it as a reason they were better.
 

Shady Slim

Cricketer Of The Year
I'm not saying this to be provocative — lord knows I lay my bait without any such disclaimer — but the reason why WPM evokes such a visceral reaction from TJB is purely because of its deployment in Warne Vs Murali debates. Obviously, there's a completely unrelated factor (general quality of opposition) which artificially widens the gap but instead of just recognising that people say it's useless in general. This also comes up when we're talking about Miller's bowling. Yeah, WPM depends a lot on context but it's pretty telling how Philander managed only 3.5 overall despite a legendary start to his career. Or that Lillee managed 5 wickets each game despite shattering his spine in half. No one argues a WPM of 4.6 makes one a better bowler than someone with 4.4. People also brush off Hadlee picking up 5 each game as irrelevant with muh less competition excuses but it's a testament to his supreme fitness and godlike persistence. It's even more incredible considering he played something like 85% of the matches NZ played in his career. Compare that with Fat Vern's road activated glass knees. Rant over. Richard Hadlee was a god.
lol foh with this philander slander
 

trundler

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
lol foh with this philander slander
lol foh with this philander slander
Philander was a burden on his team that had to be hidden away in a significant chunk of his matches. He took barely 3 wickets per match after his novelty wore off. Yeah, he had an epic dozen or so tests but he didn't even manage 3 wickets per match away overall. That's awful output. He could hide in an awesome attack but was regularly exposed as ineffective. Post Morkel and Steyn he was abject away. Remember him being 90s India level in SL. Anderson slyly got away with a decent average on the last Oz tour without contributing much because he didn't bowl that much. Almost Philander's entire career was that dialed up to 11.
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Philander was a burden on his team that had to be hidden away in a significant chunk of his matches. He took barely 3 wickets per match after his novelty wore off. Yeah, he had an epic dozen or so tests but he didn't even manage 3 wickets per match away overall. That's awful output. He could hide in an awesome attack but was regularly exposed as ineffective. Post Morkel and Steyn he was abject away. Remember him being 90s India level in SL. Anderson slyly got away with a decent average on the last Oz tour without contributing much because he didn't bowl that much. Almost Philander's entire career was that dialed up to 11.
This is a good use of wpm because it downgrades a player I don't like
 

Shady Slim

Cricketer Of The Year
Philander was a burden on his team that had to be hidden away in a significant chunk of his matches. He took barely 3 wickets per match after his novelty wore off. Yeah, he had an epic dozen or so tests but he didn't even manage 3 wickets per match away overall. That's awful output. He could hide in an awesome attack but was regularly exposed as ineffective. Post Morkel and Steyn he was abject away. Remember him being 90s India level in SL. Anderson slyly got away with a decent average on the last Oz tour without contributing much because he didn't bowl that much. Almost Philander's entire career was that dialed up to 11.
huge impact in oz for sa to win them the match at the waca in 2016 to help have australia all out for 200 odd after they were 130 ish for 0 after steyn went down after making the initial breakthrough

and you can accuse me of being australiacentric with caring about that a lot vs the tour in sl you mention and to that i say, yes, big dog come to eat big against the big dogs
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
huge impact in oz for sa to win them the match at the waca in 2016 to help have australia all out for 200 odd after they were 130 ish for 0 after steyn went down after making the initial breakthrough
Which came directly after he went 0/100+ in the first test on a flat wicket, then skipped the second test with an "injury" on a flat wicket because too hard/protect his stats.

That series is not exactly an example in big Vern's favour
 

Shady Slim

Cricketer Of The Year
Which came directly after he went 0/100+ in the first test on a flat wicket, then skipped the second test with an "injury" on a flat wicket because too hard/protect his stats.

That series is not exactly an example in big Vern's favour
he won the man of the series award chief, the waca was first test, then he went to hobart and dicked us in favourable conditions
 

Shady Slim

Cricketer Of The Year
One of you is talking about 12/13 and the other is talking about 16/17.
yes, but given i explicitly referred to the series in my post as being in 2016 i'm going to use the opportunity to be smug and sanctimonious about being in the right rather than being more neutral and conducive to fair discussion
 

TheJediBrah

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
he won the man of the series award chief, the waca was first test, then he went to hobart and dicked us in favourable conditions
I selectively chose to misinterpret the series you were talking about because the other one fits my narrative
yes, but given i explicitly referred to the series in my post as being in 2016 i'm going to use the opportunity to be smug and sanctimonious about being in the right rather than being more neutral and conducive to fair discussion
You say that like it's a bad thing
 

Top