Stats Arguments

[aussie]

Just got know how to use them when debating, since in cricket stats doesn't always tell the entire truth.

 

[Shri]

Urban dictionary being a credible source.

Meh, and hence the "".

 

[nightprowler10]

Never paid attention to stats until I joined this site. Wasim was always my favorite but I never looked up his average and SR until CW and even PC.

 

[Top_Cat]

Stats are always superior to subjective bull crap.

If the data's no good, what else are you going to use? Do a lit search, you'll see plenty of studies where things like psych tests were created by a committee of practitioners because the empirical evidence wasn't strong enough. And it's perfectly defensible.

 

[Migara]

If the data's no good, what else are you going to use?

If data is no good the opinions based on them will be even worse. That's what happens in subjective assessments. Golden rule of Garbage In -> Garbage Out.

Stats does not mean everything. But it means a subtantial part. Opinions are always second to statistical inferences.

 

[GIMH]

My stats tell me that your opinion is wrong tbh

 

[Migara]

Another load of subjective bull crap.

 

[Zinzan]

Nope. But I do make pretty much that exact post whenever there's a thread title with a spelling mistake and\or rogue apostrophe's (sic) etc.

Haha, good timing this, have only just finished watching a skit on 'punctuation bullies' on an English comedy show in which they were described as 'very very very sad & insecure people with no real lives, who need to get over themselves'

Not making a personal attack here, just thought the timing of your correction was outstanding

 

[GIMH]

Another load of subjective bull crap.

Bore off, go and make a graph or something hey

 

[Top_Cat]

If data is no good the opinions based on them will be even worse. That's what happens in subjective assessments. Golden rule of Garbage In -> Garbage Out.

Stats does not mean everything. But it means a subtantial part. Opinions are always second to statistical inferences.

Yeah but we're not talking about basing opinions on bad data. GIGO aside, informed opinion is used routinely in many scientific studies because the GI part doesn't apply, even if it is opinion. Like I said, perfectly defensible and done widely, tons of studies out there with no data analysis involved (you can't for something like a case study analysis, for example).

Using the data purely because it's the best/only available, even if crap, is just as irresponsible as using uninformed opinion, mainly because people tend (wrongly) to put more stock in numbers at first glance. Blindly saying 'Opinions are always second to statistical inferences' ignores what happens in real world research. Read a research methods textbook, it's not even a point of contention.

 

[Migara]

Yeah but we're not talking about basing opinions on bad data. GIGO aside, informed opinion is used routinely in many scientific studies because the GI part doesn't apply, even if it is opinion. Like I said, perfectly defensible and done widely, tons of studies out there with no data analysis involved (you can't for something like a case study analysis, for example).

It's valuable if it is an unbiased opinion. But in cricket the opinions are heavily biased, and it makes opinions very much less important.

Using the data purely because it's the best/only available, even if crap, is just as irresponsible as using uninformed opinion, mainly because people tend (wrongly) to put more stock in numbers at first glance. Blindly saying 'Opinions are always second to statistical inferences' ignores what happens in real world research. Read a research methods textbook, it's not even a point of contention.

AFAIK, Random controlled trials and other trials always kept in a higher degree of evidence than opinions.

Example: BTS guidelines on treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension. Levels of Evidence, page 2245. See for yourself where statistical inferences and "expert" opinions are placed.

 

[Top_Cat]

It's valuable if it is an unbiased opinion. But in cricket the opinions are heavily biased, and it makes opinions very much less important.

AFAIK, Random controlled trials and other trials always kept in a higher degree of evidence than opinions.

Example: BTS guidelines on treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension. Levels of Evidence, page 2245. See for yourself where statistical inferences and "expert" opinions are placed

Oh for goodness sake, we're not talking about RCT's here. It's bleeding obvious an RCT is considered the highest level of evidence because you collect or generate the data yourself during the course of the study, FFS. What you're talking bears no relation to using already existing data as one would do in analysis of sports stats, for example. It requires a completely different experimental design because RCT's don't apply (randomisation isn't possible, no control group, etc.). RCT's are the gold standard, sure. Are they always possible? Not by a long shot. So, with cricket data, levels A and B are out the window.

So what do you have left? Not much. The data collected in cricket is at quite a macro level so either you can use it to calculate new variables with appropriate caveats or you can try another data-free design like case studies, for example. There's a bunch of problems associated with this design but in the case of cricket or sports stats in general, there's not really a lot you can do.

Point is, proponents of using data at all costs as if that's the only way it can be done or is automatically the best way are just flat out wrong if the data is as poor, from an experimental perspective, as sports stats are due to issues of validity (internal, construct, etc.)

 

[duffer]

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

Close thread.

 

[zaremba]

AFAIK, Random controlled trials and other trials always kept in a higher degree of evidence than opinions.

Example: BTS guidelines on treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension. Levels of Evidence, page 2245. [/IMG]

Yes, because cricket is just like a trial of a new medical treatment.

 

[Perm]

Bore off, go and make a graph or something hey

 

[Flem274*]

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

Quoted again. So true.

Stats are a guideline. Obviously a batsman averaging 20 in the modern era of higher batting averages over 30 tests with a FC average of 25 kinda sucks a bit, but because someone bowled 2 dot balls per over and caught three chickens as opposed to anothers 2 wickets and a magpie it doesn't make them....anything really.

And stats are just boring unless they're an ICC game, where you snigger that your star bowler averages 18 in tests.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah but we're not talking about basing opinions on bad data. GIGO aside, informed opinion is used routinely in many scientific studies because the GI part doesn't apply, even if it is opinion. Like I said, perfectly defensible and done widely, tons of studies out there with no data analysis involved (you can't for something like a case study analysis, for example).

Using the data purely because it's the best/only available, even if crap, is just as irresponsible as using uninformed opinion, mainly because people tend (wrongly) to put more stock in numbers at first glance. Blindly saying 'Opinions are always second to statistical inferences' ignores what happens in real world research. Read a research methods textbook, it's not even a point of contention.

And those are stupid.

But seriously, I agree with you. Cricket statistics are not scientific data. You can't treat them as such.

 

[pasag]

Love yer work vic.

 

[nightprowler10]

Close thread.

AWTA. I know its become a bit of a cliche but CC is unbearable when such threads take over.

 

[Top_Cat]

AWTA. I know its become a bit of a cliche but CC is unbearable when such threads take over.

Yep, agreed. Haven't looked in the vs threads for years for that reason.