Stats are evil

[Ikki]

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.

Then the difference between the two is how analytical you've been about it. By the above standard, one can say X player is better than player Y because of his average. Some things cannot be possibly shown in statistics.

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

Exactly, you can only speak for your mind. Whilst others I am sure will have a different basis for their own opinions. Subjective.

 

[silentstriker]

By the above standard, one can say X player is better than player Y because of his average.

Statistics are more than an average.

 

[Swervy]

Statistics are more than an average.

Ultimately, what do statistics prove?

 

[Richard]

Someone's output - ie, that they (in infinitely more cases than not) had an outcome which influenced the outcome of the game for their team (be it a positive or negative influence).

 

[Richard]

Then the difference between the two is how analytical you've been about it. By the above standard, one can say X player is better than player Y because of his average. Some things cannot be possibly shown in statistics.

Statistics are more than an average.

As Manan said, one average is of little importance. You can quite easily have, oh, say, a batsman whose banal career average was 37 actually being a more productive one in the areas that count than, oh, say, one who averaged in the low 50s.

The bigger picture is what counts. This, invariably, results in subjectivity - who places what importance on what.

 

[neville cardus]

Ultimately, what do statistics prove?

A veritable stack for some, Swervy, but absolutely nothing for lettered intellectuals and amorous romantics such as ourselves. Statistics epitomise for me redundant numerical pleonasm, conveying nothing but the most bounded of truths. Let us have Archie Mac talk us through the mechanics of his off-drive for half an hour, and then shall we see how negligibly little is conveyed by mere numbers.

 

[silentstriker]

A veritable stack for some, Swervy, but absolutely nothing for lettered intellectuals and amorous romantics such as ourselves. Statistics epitomise for me redundant numerical pleonasm, conveying nothing but the most bounded of truths. Let us have Archie Mac talk us through the mechanics of his off-drive for half an hour, and then shall we see how negligibly little is conveyed by mere numbers.

And your perception of beauty do not relate to the primary goal of a batsman or a bowler (eg. cricketing output, scoring runs and taking wickets). You are misrepresenting the argument as no one is using statistics to prove that Mark Waugh's game is more beautiful than Andrew Symonds. The fact that most agree with the fact that there was a little je ne sais quoi in Mark Waugh's batting is completely irrelevant and outside the scope of statistics. You can listen to flowery descriptions of a player's off drive to your heart's content, but that does not correlate to his contribution, merely the quality of his shots.

I can watch Daren Ganga all day. And as an amorous romantic, you can love his play while snubbing your nose at Allan Border. But we aren't deciding which players satisfied the needs of the romantics using statistics. But when you say that Daren Ganga was a better player than Allan Border (as defined by his output in cricketing terms), you are crossing the line and you can't be grumpy when the hard light of statistics knocks you back.

So then instead of admitting that perhaps it was only in your romanticized fantasy that Daren Ganga was better than Allan Border, the whole purpose of what cricketers try to do every day (cricketing output) gets rubbished. So now we rely on that infallible tool of human memory and emotion to judge players, and damn the contributions. And we have these old farts (not anyone in particular here) telling us that the singular proclamation 'Give me Arthur' by an equally old fart is sufficient to deify a player and supersedes the almost five hundred games of first-class output that has been thoroughly recorded.

 

[neville cardus]

And your perception of beauty

Be not misled, S.S., by my famous nom de plume (whatever lengths I may go to in endeavouring to evoke his writing), for I am not one hopelessly obsessed with aesthetics. Nowhere in that post did I allude to beauty.

 

[adharcric]

And your perception of beauty do not relate to the primary goal of a batsman or a bowler (eg. cricketing output, scoring runs and taking wickets). You are misrepresenting the argument as no one is using statistics to prove that Mark Waugh's game is more beautiful than Andrew Symonds. The fact that most agree with the fact that there was a little je ne sais quoi in Mark Waugh's batting is completely irrelevant and outside the scope of statistics. You can listen to flowery descriptions of a player's off drive to your heart's content, but that does not correlate to his contribution, merely the quality of his shots.

I can watch Daren Ganga all day. And as an amorous romantic, you can love his play while snubbing your nose at Allan Border. But we aren't deciding which players satisfied the needs of the romantics using statistics. But when you say that Daren Ganga was a better player than Allan Border (as defined by his output in cricketing terms), you are crossing the line and you can't be grumpy when the hard light of statistics knocks you back.

So then instead of admitting that perhaps it was only in your romanticized fantasy that Daren Ganga was better than Allan Border, the whole purpose of what cricketers try to do every day (cricketing output) gets rubbished. So now we rely on that infallible tool of human memory and emotion to judge players, and damn the contributions. And we have these old farts (not anyone in particular here) telling us that the singular proclamation 'Give me Arthur' by an equally old fart is sufficient to deify a player and supersedes the almost five hundred games of first-class output that has been thoroughly recorded.

Well said.

 

[Ikki]

Statistics are more than an average.

Essentially, they're just numbers so any other value-based judgment is by definition 'subjective'. The better judgments are those that go into deeper analysis. I guess that is what I am trying to say.

IMO, the only objective things you can say are, for e.g., "Ponting has scored more runs than Bradman" or "Hussey has a better average than Ponting." But say that in a matter-of-fact way and not as an implication that one player is better than another. Because that brings it back to subjection.

 

[Ikki]

And your perception of beauty do not relate to the primary goal of a batsman or a bowler (eg. cricketing output, scoring runs and taking wickets). You are misrepresenting the argument as no one is using statistics to prove that Mark Waugh's game is more beautiful than Andrew Symonds. The fact that most agree with the fact that there was a little je ne sais quoi in Mark Waugh's batting is completely irrelevant and outside the scope of statistics. You can listen to flowery descriptions of a player's off drive to your heart's content, but that does not correlate to his contribution, merely the quality of his shots.

I can watch Daren Ganga all day. And as an amorous romantic, you can love his play while snubbing your nose at Allan Border. But we aren't deciding which players satisfied the needs of the romantics using statistics. But when you say that Daren Ganga was a better player than Allan Border (as defined by his output in cricketing terms), you are crossing the line and you can't be grumpy when the hard light of statistics knocks you back.

So then instead of admitting that perhaps it was only in your romanticized fantasy that Daren Ganga was better than Allan Border, the whole purpose of what cricketers try to do every day (cricketing output) gets rubbished. So now we rely on that infallible tool of human memory and emotion to judge players, and damn the contributions. And we have these old farts (not anyone in particular here) telling us that the singular proclamation 'Give me Arthur' by an equally old fart is sufficient to deify a player and supersedes the almost five hundred games of first-class output that has been thoroughly recorded.

The statement "X is a move lovelier bat than Y" is just as subjective as "X is a better cricket player than Y".

And if you think the only important factors are most runs scores, how fast they're scored; most wickets taken, how fast they're taken; or other statistics alike then it shows how important the figures are to you. Because what you may consider better is quite different as to what someone else may consider better, as it is all subjective from the get-go.

Some variables of the game, which cannot be quantified, may be more important to some people and some people may rest easy with the quantifiable ones. I think that's the essence of it, which dictates whether you are or you are not a 'stats-man'. And of course, varying positions in between.

 

[Athlai]

Statistics prove a relationship between certain players and the game of cricket. I don't think anyone truly believes they are 100% accurate but I'd say we could find a STRONG relationship between stats and reality.

90% confidence perhaps.

Statistics doesn't count for everything and I doubt if anyone would use it solely to judge a player (in the long term, not speaking of 'I don't know this guy what do his stats look like'). Statistics and people explaining what those statistics mean go hand in hand, I deal with it all the time in Statistics class . Crickets a game of numbers, and sometimes people just love to see some numbers, I know I personally do, a good graph or interesting piece of information is a great compliment to any game of cricket.

Statistics as they DO go hand in hand with people explaining them CAN be manipulated however, does that make them evil? Only if you take everything at face value IMO.

 

[The Sean]

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?

This is a subject well and truly after my own heart. As for this post - well, I could have written it.

Which, surely, is the ultimate compliment.

 

[The Sean]

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.

I'm about as big a Keith Miller fan as walks the earth, but I don't think anyone has ever claimed he's even close to being the greatest batsman of all time. And you'd probably count on one hand the number of people who've ever claimed he was the greatest bowler ever too, if there were any at all.

 

[Ikki]

I'm about as big a Keith Miller fan as walks the earth, but I don't think anyone has ever claimed he's even close to being the greatest batsman of all time. And you'd probably count on one hand the number of people who've ever claimed he was the greatest bowler ever too, if there were any at all.

Well, Sean, I've had a few say it. They've gone onto say that he gave his wicket away too many times for the sake of the game...and all that, and argue his figures are brought down because of it. I was not arguing how often something like this could be said, but the FACT that it could be said shows we cannot have an over-reliance on hearsay either.

 

[The Sean]

Well, Sean, I've had a few say it. They've gone onto say that he gave his wicket away too many times for the sake of the game...and all that, and argue his figures are brought down because of it. I was not arguing how often something like this could be said, but the FACT that it could be said shows we cannot have an over-reliance on hearsay either.

Mate, I agree with what you've just said there, but I think you're arguing two different points. Should Miller's batting average have been higher had he taken things more seriously and put more of an emphasis on his numbers? Almost certainly.

Does this mean he could have been the greatest batsman of all time (ie, better than Bradman)? Nope.

 

[The Sean]

It seems we’re running the gamut of black and white here without necessarily immersing ourselves in the shades of grey that make cricket what it is. I’ve spoken out repeatedly against the use of stats as the primary method to quantify the quality of a player, and yet I’m the first to admit I’m a stats geek from way back – I love my stats and can recite them almost at will, it’s something of a party trick to be honest. And I’d never discount them – I agree in many ways with what SS and Rich among others say insofar that stats, when read and analysed properly, can tell you a lot about a player, his output, his contributions. They can tell you how many runs he scored or wickets he took, the opposition, the venue, the bowling attacks or batting line-ups he faced, and what the other players in the same match, series, or period of time achieved comparatively. These are all useful things to know, and we can gain a lot of insight into a player by looking at it. A person who ignores stats completely I think misses just as much as someone who over-relies on them.

The problem is, as I’ve always said, when stats are all that is used form an opinion. Or, at least, comprise the majority of the criteria used to form an opinion. It’s missing the point in a way – why even bother watching a game of cricket when going over the scorecard at the end of the match tells you everything you want to know? Stats, in my opinion, can never tell you all you need to know about cricket and the men (and women) who play it, no matter how intelligently or specifically they might be analysed and focused.

Viv Richards has been mentioned more than most, in this thread and others, as a player you can’t just judge on stats alone and he’s an excellent example. Previous arguments have sometimes tended to miss the point, going along the rather simplistic lines of him “scoring quickly”, with the counter-argument being that in a Test match over five days that doesn’t necessarily matter. No, the pure strike rate doesn’t matter per se – it’s what that number means. It wasn’t that he happened to score at a few more runs per 100 balls than other batsmen. It was that, by dominating from the off, he imposed his will on the match – he rocked the confidence of the bowlers, so upsetting their line, length and consistency, he rested the initiative from them and to his own team, he had the ability to single-handedly influence the course of a cricket match in a very short period of time. That’s a priceless ability that you just can’t put a number on. But it’s critical, to my mind, in assisting to determine the great from the very, very good.

Players with the capacity to produce a piece of breathtaking genius are sometimes marked down for being “***y” players or having the “wow” factor and compared unfavourably on here against more statistically consistent or effective players. I say bring on the “wow” factor – the ability to perform a feat on the cricket field that leaves me with a sharp intake of breath, a wide grin and an I-can’t-believe-he-just-did-that shake of the head is one I treasure in a player more than almost anything else. And if they can ice the cake by performing it when it matters, against the best opposition, in difficult conditions, and to influence the outcome of a match, then screw what the numbers tell me at the end of it. I’ve just seen magic.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, that sums it up quite well for me.

Trouble is, I've always been someone who views cricket a bit differently from the rest. To me, I enjoy someone who blocks it out every bit as much as someone who scores quickly, or who dominates.

And while I certainly don't underestimate the ability to demoralise a bowling-attack, nor the fact that it means a bit more than just scoring at a few runs per ball quicker than someone else, I still believe it's a bit overrated. You can take the Richards example out for me - I never saw him bat live so am open to the "you just don't understand", which I disagree with but have an easier way around than using said example: I prefer a more modern example of the exact same cloth - Gilchrist.

Now, I personally believe that had Gilchrist been less of a "feared" batsman it'd have had negligable influence on Australia's success in 1999\2000-2003. There might have been the odd Test that would've had a different result here and there, yeah. But I still believe the other players would have been good, probably as good as they are anyway. Equally, there's no place for a Gilchrist\Richards in a line-up that doesn't already contain large numbers of excellent players, because you just can't play like that if you're one of only a couple. Richards debuted in 1974 when Fredericks, Greenidge, Kalli, Lloyd and Kanhai were all around him. Gilchrist likewise with Slater, Langer, the Waughs and Ponting.

I believe the fear-factor helping your team-mates is directly cancelled-out by the fact that you can't achieve said factor unless your team-mates are good enough to allow you to play that way.

And obviously, spectator "thrill" is just that - unique to the individual. You get contrarion types like me and 1 or 2 others for whom pace of scoring, taking-a-game-by-the-scruff-though-dominance is not a stand-out. Me, I enjoyed Michael Atherton's game at Karachi every bit as much as I did Andrew Flintoff's at Edgbaston.

 

[SJS]

Stats miss the power, passion
Peter Roebuck

Cricket needs to extract itself from the cold embrace of its statisticians. Over the last few seasons these calculators on two legs have wielded an inordinate influence. Far from retaining the dignified silence befitting those whose main attribute is an ability to count allied to an abiding fascination with the peripharies of the game( the discovery that Tom Bloggs twice scored 74 on a Tuesday afternoon in Derby sends them into raptures), these numbers men roar like agitated bulls whenever something displeases them.

In recent weeks, these dismal creations have complained about to issues, Jason Gillespie's lengthy innings in Chittagong (previously thought to be a movies feating Dick Van Dyke) and the authenticity of the World XI matches played last October. The fact that no sensible person cares a hoot about matters of this sort passes them by. True cricketers concentrate on the game itself, with its majesty and its follies, and look forward to the next match without fussing about trifles.

Gillespie's mistake was to score a double hundred in a Test match played against a minnow. No sooner had the pace bowler performed his mighty feat than those obsessed with figures started pointing out that the South Australia had put himself alongside, or not far behind, two of the greatest batsmen of the era, Sachin Tendulkar and Jacques Kallis. Neither the Indian or the South African has been prolific in the matter of huge scores. More fool them. Plenty of chances have come their way.

Obviously these historians and bean counters believe that the records have been distorted by easy runs collected against weak attacks representing nations prematurely awarded Test status. So what? As the schoolboy saying goes " get over it!". Cricket is not answerable to figures collated by some poor soul whose youthful dreams were crushed by endless days at third man. This reverence for figures provokes resentment at every change that compromises them. Cricket may delight mathematicians but to put them in charge is akin to allowing traffic wardens to form a government.

No-one in their right mind relies entirely on figures in their assessment of a cricketer. Gillespie's mum does not imagine that her offspring can bat half as well as Tendulkar or Kallis, or Brett Lee for that matter. His innings against Bangladesh was a marvellous effort, nothing more, nothing less. No need arises to point out, or to regret, that the South Australian has achieved something beyond much better players. Everyone already knows that.

In any case the figures have in recent years been affected by numerous other factors, such as vastly improved bats consisting of thick, light and unpressed wood, and boundaries shortened for safety purposes and for dramatic effect by ropes. Both Matthew Hayden in his record-breaking innings in Perth, and England on the first day of the second Ashes Test in Edgbaston ( when 11 sixes were hit) took full advantage of these changes. Demented statisticans will need to take these matters into account, with table showing the bulk of the bats and length of the boundaries used in each contest. Meanwhile sensible people will be celebrating the game and opening a bottle of plonk.

Admittedly the status of the World X1 is, or was, a valid topic for discussion. It does seem odd, though not objectionable, that matches between a country and a scratch outfit can be put in the same category as a contest between the best two nations can muster. It is not so much a question of standards as legitimacy. The Australians were representing something substantial. The World was a shadow.

However the decision to award Test status to these matches was taken by the responsible body and it is time to move on. Only those obsessed with status work themselves into a fury about these things. Apparently a scorer by the name of Bill Frindall has refused to include these contests in his book of records, and never mind that his figures will be wrong. Here is an instance of the cart pulling the horse.

No other game assigns such a significant role to bare figures. Pele is not judged solely or even mainly by the goals he netted, or Naas Botha by the points he scored. Cricket needs to put the statisticians back in their box. It is a game to be relished not an account to be scrutinised. To concentrate on averages is to miss the power, the poetry and the passion.

 

[Richard]

Completely disagree. There's no reason, just because no other sports place such value on stats, that cricket shouldn't. It's always been a statistician's dream, and he's completely wrong that "no sensible person" cares a hoot about stats. Rarely read such rubbish.

As for comparison of boundaries being moved to substandard sides being given Tests status... ridiculous, frankly. Boundaries have always been moved, batting equipment has always been changed, it's happened since the game's inception. Substandard sides at the international level has always been a very rare case indeed, and there's many more reasons than distortion of records for it not to happen.

One feels Mr Pitt hit the nail on the head.