***Official*** India's Tour of Australia 2020/21 - General discussion

[Arachnodouche]

fwiw you can tell he hits the bat harder than the others. Has the brain of a lemming unfortunately so no use

 

[silentstriker]

Man surely someone else should have been here instead of these guys.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Should've brought Nagarkoti and Mavi as net bowlers. Tyagi's here already but way too raw currently. Those two will eventually be in contention one hopes, so would've been good exposure.

 

[Senile Sentry]

What does this mean?

Too complex for you to understand.

 

[Burgey]

It’s not complicated, it’s nonsensical. What’s an “expected” average and how do you list five bowlers with higher averages than what one of them, and what another bowler actually average in the real world? It belongs here

Meaningless and stupid cricket statistics

The Prince :wub:

www.cricketweb.net

it’s a genuinely useless stat

 

[cnerd123]

Should've brought Nagarkoti and Mavi as net bowlers. Tyagi's here already but way too raw currently. Those two will eventually be in contention one hopes, so would've been good exposure.

I'm wondering how Washington Sundar is the only offspinner in India they could fine to replicate Lyon in the nets. Perhaps it's just due to COVID. Easier to have him hang around after the LO game than get another player into the bubble.

 

[Senile Sentry]

It’s not complicated, it’s nonsensical. What’s an “expected” average and how do you list five bowlers with higher averages than what one of them, and what another bowler actually average in the real world? It belongs here

Meaningless and stupid cricket statistics

The Prince :wub:

www.cricketweb.net

it’s a genuinely useless stat

Its a stat. All stats are useless imhi
Except the truth that Sachin > Bradman

 

[Spark]

It’s not complicated, it’s nonsensical. What’s an “expected” average and how do you list five bowlers with higher averages than what one of them, and what another bowler actually average in the real world? It belongs here

Meaningless and stupid cricket statistics

The Prince :wub:

www.cricketweb.net

it’s a genuinely useless stat

nah expected _____ is good and cricket should be moving much more towards these sorts of stats and much less "but he only averages 39 against sri lanka on turning pitches between 2004 and 2007"

 

[Burgey]

Hey Senile mate, meant to ask how come you weren’t here this morning at 5/300 but popped up after a couple of wickets? We’re you shining up the glass jaw?

But its not even a meaningful stat. How TF do you give Bumrah an “expected average” whatever that is - which is worse than his, you know, real world average?

 

[Burgey]

nah expected _____ is good and cricket should be moving much more towards these sorts of stats and much less "but he only averages 39 against sri lanka on turning pitches between 2004 and 2007"

But it’s meaningless unless you know what makes up the factors which give rise to it

 

[Spark]

Hey mate, meant to ask how come you weeent here this morning at 5/300 but popped up after a couple of wickets? We’re you shining up the glass jaw?

But its not even a meaningful stat. How TF do you give Bumrah an “expected average” whatever that is - which is worse than his, you know, real world average?

i believe what they do is that they actually have a look at the hawkeye trajectory of the ball, and then look at their own ball-by-ball database (which i think has, like, hawkeye data of every ball bowled in tests in the last 20 years) and have a look at how many batsmen have been dismissed by such deliveries. i'm sure it's more sophisticated than that but that's the core idea.

 

[Daemon]

It’s not complicated, it’s nonsensical. What’s an “expected” average and how do you list five bowlers with higher averages than what one of them, and what another bowler actually average in the real world? It belongs here

Meaningless and stupid cricket statistics

The Prince :wub:

www.cricketweb.net

it’s a genuinely useless stat

It's an interesting exercise imo, the name is misleading but just to make it a bit more eye catching I think? Otherwise it'd just be "which bowlers bowl a higher percentage of wicket taking deliveries".

I think it probably takes into account bounce and movement but I wonder if it takes into account speed.

 

[Spark]

It's an interesting exercise imo, the name is misleading but just to make it a bit more eye catching I think? Otherwise it'd just be "which bowlers bowl a higher percentage of wicket taking deliveries".

I think it probably takes into account bounce and movement but I wonder if it takes into account speed.

i'm pretty sure the name takes after the increasingly popular xG stat in football (which is also good, and needs to become more prominent, yer da pundits be damned)

 

[Burgey]

i believe what they do is that they actually have a look at the hawkeye trajectory of the ball, and then look at their own ball-by-ball database (which i think has, like, hawkeye data of every ball bowled in tests in the last 20 years) and have a look at how many batsmen have been dismissed by such deliveries. i'm sure it's more sophisticated than that but that's the core idea.

See this is a meaningful answer as opposed to dickhead’s standard response.

 

[Burgey]

Wish to emphasise I’m not referring to Daemon as the dickhead here.

 

[Spark]

It's an interesting exercise imo, the name is misleading but just to make it a bit more eye catching I think? Otherwise it'd just be "which bowlers bowl a higher percentage of wicket taking deliveries".

I think it probably takes into account bounce and movement but I wonder if it takes into account speed.

honestly that dom bess stat from the other day is as funny a stat as i've seen in a while

 

[Senile Sentry]

Hey Senile mate, meant to ask how come you weren’t here this morning at 5/300 but popped up after a couple of wickets? We’re you shining up the glass jaw?

But its not even a meaningful stat. How TF do you give Bumrah an “expected average” whatever that is - which is worse than his, you know, real world average?

Its ****ing 6 AM here and I had a late night.

I think its got to do with a combo of catches being dropped, mi****s or just plain bad luck. Still the averages aren't that diverged from the actual averages.

 

[Spark]

I mean I think the main point of it has been that the batsmen have been bad (the metric takes no account for the shot played) and given away their wickets cheaper than the bowling has merited. Which, tbh, is a pretty solid conclusion.

 

[Daemon]

honestly that dom bess stat from the other day is as funny a stat as i've seen in a while

Hah I didn't watch the days play but it ties up well with the narrative of how badly SL batted

 

[vcs]

Urgh I hate that xG **** in football and am pretty sure I'll hate it even more in cricket.