Stats are evil

[Richard]

statistics can be manipulated to suits the users needs and requirements.

And opinion even more so.

 

[shortpitched713]

Stats, properly interpreted, and taken in context with other stats of the same era, are the great equalizer.

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately such analysis is not often taken into consideration when comparing players of different eras. Instead we get arguments such as "Lara's 50 is better than Trumper's 30." Or "Trumper will always be better cause he played in harder conditions." Each statement is impossible to objectively make unless one does a comparative analysis that takes into account the prevailing conditions in the eras that both players played in.

 

[Richard]

I dont think stats mean NOTHING however you have to see that a great player is not a great player BECAUSE of his stats, the stats are a mere by-product

No, that's an inaccurate analogy. The reasons for consideration of greatness and the things that create superb stats are the same thing. Both in fact are mere by-products.

 

[Richard]

But when he was great, he did have great stats. When he was crap, his stats were crap....

Seems pretty fair to me.

Swervs has refused to accept this with me many times. For him, Botham was still a great player (bowler and batsman) even 1984-1989 (even he has to my knowledge never said he was in his ill-fated 1990s comeback), because he played the odd sensational innings and managed the odd superlative spell.

 

[Richard]

Thus the line "...on top of that we have the stats to make a complete picture of the player and their career."

Trouble is, sometimes opinions are formed which genuinely fly in the face of statistical wisdom. (EG - Lillee)

 

[Ikki]

I agree with you Pasag. I also agree with using stats in clarifying issues but sometimes they do muddy it too.

There are some statistically superior batsmen to Richards, but I doubt most people would even consider guys like Kallis as better. And that is the danger with looking at stats, because there is no way to measure, statistically, the help Kallis has gotten with flat pitches and weaker bowling, with which Richards didn't. So it is subjectivity no matter how much of a stat buff you may be to level the equation. Likewise, listening to some oldies harp on you'd think there is no better player ever than Keith Miler but you look at his stats and you think he is human after all.

The same goes for Lillee and to a lesser extent Warne. Lillee has more debate, Warne for me shouldn't.

 

[Richard]

I agree with you Pasag. I also agree with using stats in clarifying issues but sometimes they do muddy it too.

There are some statistically superior batsmen to Richards, but I doubt most people would even consider guys like Kallis as better. And that is the danger with looking at stats, because there is no way to measure, statistically, the help Kallis has gotten with flat pitches and weaker bowling, with which Richards didn't. So it is subjectivity no matter how much of a stat buff you may be to level the equation. Likewise, listening to some oldies harp on you'd think there is no better player ever than Keith Miler but you look at his stats and you think he is human after all.

Don't think so - Miller smotes almost all other all-rounders in history.

On the Richards question, I'd never compare Kallis to him for obvious reasons (reckon Kallis would have averaged 50 at the absolute most had bowling standards not deteriorated) but I have said many times that I think Greg Chappell has a case for being an equal, and I'd certainly not hesitate to place Tendulkar and Lara ahead of him, and possibly Stephen Waugh too. Outrageous for those who place dominance (something that can never be conveyed statistically) ahead of almost all other aspects, but not for me.

One thing that's also often confused with over-reliance on stats is disregard for these things such as dominance, which I've always had and which I know one or two others (not many mind) share. I rate Andy Flower and BC Lara as equally fine players of spin, even though the former rarely dominated it like the latter did, and this means most place Lara > Flower.

 

[Ikki]

Don't think so - Miller smotes almost all other all-rounders in history.

Maybe but some would have you argue he was the best in the world, ever, at either discipline. Anyway, that is an example of flawed subjective analysis. Or an over-reliance on it, I guess.

On the Richards question, I'd never compare Kallis to him for obvious reasons (reckon Kallis would have averaged 50 at the absolute most had bowling standards not deteriorated) but I have said many times that I think Greg Chappell has a case for being an equal, and I'd certainly not hesitate to place Tendulkar and Lara ahead of him, and possibly Stephen Waugh too. Outrageous for those who place dominance (something that can never be conveyed statistically) ahead of almost all other aspects, but not for me.

You can't measure bowling standards Richey boy so there is no statistical analysis here that can do the comparison justice. So going 100% on stats is inane.

One thing that's also often confused with over-reliance on stats is disregard for these things such as dominance, which I've always had and which I know one or two others (not many mind) share. I rate Andy Flower and BC Lara as equally fine players of spin, even though the former rarely dominated it like the latter did, and this means most place Lara > Flower.

How about momentum? How about pressure? How about luck - first-chance averages?

 

[Richard]

Maybe but some would have you argue he was the best in the world, ever, at either discipline. Anyway, that is an example of flawed subjective analysis. Or an over-reliance on it, I guess.

No-one, ever, would argue Miller to be the greatest batsman ever. Unless they were beyond insane. Bowler, just possibly, but most people considered him < Lindwall UIMM.

You can't measure bowling standards Richey boy so there is no statistical analysis here that can do the comparison justice. So going 100% on stats is inane.

You can do a pretty decent demonstration of how bowling standards have declined using pure stats. Watching helps though.

How about momentum? How about pressure? How about luck - first-chance averages?

First-chance averages are pretty much (not exclusively, as Shankar will attest to) the only batting-averages I care about.

 

[Ikki]

No-one, ever, would argue Miller to be the greatest batsman ever. Unless they were beyond insane. Bowler, just possibly, but most people considered him < Lindwall UIMM.

Point shown.

You can do a pretty decent demonstration of how bowling standards have declined using pure stats. Watching helps though.

How? Whatever it is, it's still an estimate and a subjective one.

First-chance averages are pretty much (not exclusively, as Shankar will attest to) the only batting-averages I care about.

Do you care about the reaction/attitude of said batsmen after getting fortunate? Will he go on and dominate the opposition and make them pay or will he whimper and over-acknowledge his fortune?

 

[Swervy]

Swervs has refused to accept this with me many times. For him, Botham was still a great player (bowler and batsman) even 1984-1989 (even he has to my knowledge never said he was in his ill-fated 1990s comeback), because he played the odd sensational innings and managed the odd superlative spell.

well I wouldnt have said he was a GREAT player post 84, with the passage of time, I would say he is now underestimated somewhat (84-88 I guess). To say he was crap is what I object to

 

[Swervy]

No, that's an inaccurate analogy. The reasons for consideration of greatness and the things that create superb stats are the same thing. Both in fact are mere by-products.

Both are by-products? How? Sorry I am tired, can you explain a bit more

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I have very little time for people who say a player is good or bad and then go on to explain why that is so based on stats. I find those posters just don't get 'it'.

But can't I say Brian Lara was good against Australia because he scored a lot of runs? That's using stats almost exclusively to back my point. Of course there are many other factors that I can call into play to prove that point (circumstance mostly). But in some instances, whether or not a player looks the part, the statistics do enough talking to back a point. For mine, a player can look all at sea for every ball of his career, but if he scores runs consistently regardless, I'd call him a good player. Simply because he gets the job done.

I agree with what you're saying, but I do think there are exceptions to your rule.

 

[SJS]

Thought this would be better as a seperate thread:



Yeah, the way they are used is evil. Stats are merley a part of a broader picture. They come into play, granted, but only together with a larger case for and against a player that involve many other factors. I have very little time for people who say a player is good or bad and then go on to explain why that is so based on stats. I find those posters just don't get 'it'.

For me, I base my opinion on a player on what I've seen, what I've read, how high his fellow players rate him and how highly people's whose opinions I respect rate the person and then on top of that we have the stats to make a complete picture of the player and their career.

I can't help but cringe at people who write off O'Reilly, Grace, Trumper because they take a quick look at their numbers on their cricinfo profile page. So yeah, I find the way stats are being used in assesing cricketers at times quite 'evil'.

Thoughts?

I agree with what you are saying completely. I just think 'evil' is too strong a word.

Stats can be extremely misleading and used as the only means of to compare they can lead to erroneous conclusions. The over reliance on stats comes largely from a kind of laziness to make the effort to understand the finer points and details that can make all the difference to our understanding of the sport.

Its like fast food once again. But its easy and its readily available.

 

[Richard]

How? Whatever it is, it's still an estimate and a subjective one.

As is any form of interpretation of stats. Stats themselves are unequivocal - how much meaning you place on various different stats is up to the individual.

Do you care about the reaction/attitude of said batsmen after getting fortunate? Will he go on and dominate the opposition and make them pay or will he whimper and over-acknowledge his fortune?

Yes, but nothing in my mind can override the fact that he should not have had the opportunity to do so.

 

[Richard]

well I wouldnt have said he was a GREAT player post 84, with the passage of time, I would say he is now underestimated somewhat (84-88 I guess). To say he was crap is what I object to

You've said he was still a great bowler 1984-87 to me before now. And while he may not have been crap on the David Gilbert level it's hard to say he was much if any better than the Graham Dilleys and Richard Ellisons (something many will refuse to accept because neither ever looked like touching the heights Botham had once done).

 

[Richard]

Both are by-products? How? Sorry I am tired, can you explain a bit more

Because cricket is about figures. If you take 10-98 you've had a damn successful match. This will impact on how good a cricketer you are, and your longer-term stats.

Whereas if you take 1-127 you've had a very unsuccessful match indeed.

 

[Athlai]

 

[vic_orthdox]

Because cricket is about figures

and therefore, stats are evil.

If you ask politely, I'll tell you what cricket is really about.

 

[Richard]

Go on then, Mr. McNamara (CW) Mark One, what is it about then?