Why....

[Dan]

Richard, show me YOUR idea of stats of, say Matthew Hayden compared to his "official ones"

 

[Neil Pickup]

If you'd have divided all that by the number of pubic hairs each batsman has and then multiplied it by seagulls I'd agree with you.

So long as they're black-headed gulls and not that common herring rubbish then we have a deal.

 

[Richard]

haha, this is like talking to one of the students in my English classes...what I'm saying and what you apparently think I'm saying are two different things.

Perhaps you're deliberately talking a load of gibberish to ensure that is the case then?

 

[Richard]

Well, that I would disagree with. Stats, for me, enhance the appreciation of the game. But I never think about them while the game in going on, as I am absorbed in the action. They provide enjoyment, but only in between games when I have nothing better to do than to measure and compare.

Hardly anyone does. But if enjoyment of cricket was limited to purely during game time, well...

Places like CW wouldn't exist for starters.

 

[Athlai]

Perhaps you're deliberately talking a load of gibberish to ensure that is the case then?

Guys lets not make this personal.

 

[Richard]

Agreed, and I think Swervy's comment in your sig sums it up brilliantly.

It doesn't, really, though - too often "reading the game" basically falls under "thinking to know better than the game itself".

Those who rail against StatsGuru, to me, reprisent those who'd prefer to just say "you can't judge anything on stats", because this means things can always be less inequivocal. You can basically say "I trust my eyes and because I and others say so that means you can't bring-up stats to counter-punch". An attitude I hate, frankly.

 

[Richard]

Guys lets not make this personal.

When SOC and myself are involved, that's long been an inevitability - for the last 2 years at least.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hardly anyone does. But if enjoyment of cricket was limited to purely during game time, well...

Places like CW wouldn't exist for starters.

No - you'd have nothing to talk about on CW.

 

[pasag]

It doesn't, really, though - too often "reading the game" basically falls under "thinking to know better than the game itself".

Those who rail against StatsGuru, to me, reprisent those who'd prefer to just say "you can't judge anything on stats", because this means things can always be less inequivocal. You can basically say "I trust my eyes and because I and others say so that means you can't bring-up stats to counter-punch". An attitude I hate, frankly.

Not quite sure what you're talking about tbh. I trust my eyes, I trust your eyes and will listen to most peoples opinions on players. That's what discussing sport is all about. I don't care much for statistical analysis as I've outlined many a time (I do find it interesting but no way to prove one player is better than another or to rate a player in any way). Again, Swervy said it perfectly it's about watching the game and developing an understanding for what's going on and the many factors stats will never begin to illustrate.

 

[Richard]

The thing is, though, as has been noted so many times, the human eye - and more significantly still the human memory - is a fallible thing and stats can often "jog" the memory or detect stuff that the memory can forget or, worse, simply refuse to recognise.

Therefore, while stats are obviously no use without the mind to interpret them and the eyes to watch where they're coming from, I care more for them when judging a player's effectiveness than anything else. Or, perhaps a better way of putting it, I don't care to judge a player without them.

 

[pasag]

The thing is, though, as has been noted so many times, the human eye - and more significantly still the human memory - is a fallible thing and stats can often "jog" the memory or detect stuff that the memory can forget or, worse, simply refuse to recognise.

Therefore, while stats are obviously no use without the mind to interpret them and the eyes to watch where they're coming from, I care more for them when judging a player's effectiveness than anything else. Or, perhaps a better way of putting it, I don't care to judge a player without them.

Well this is something we'll never really agree on. I'm sure we'll be arguing about it again before long as well. But just do clarify, I do think stats have a place in evaluating a player but along side expert opinions, fellow players opinions, extensive readings and the opinions of people I respect and of course what I've seen with my own eyes.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Perhaps you're deliberately talking a load of gibberish to ensure that is the case then?

I thought I was being quite clear, but it's like someone's hitting the reset button every so often.

Look mate, if you think I'm talking gibberish then that proves the point I was trying to make.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't know about you guys, but the first thing that I think about when I see a cover drive is the instant effect that it will have on the multivariate regression between batting average compared to height, game situation, number of times dropped and birth weight.

That's what it's all about, isn't it?

You mean you don't instantly analyze the cover drive in a poisson distribution and run the bayesian inference on it?

Amateur.

 

[Son Of Coco]

You mean you don't instantly analyze the cover drive in a poisson distribution and run the bayesian inference on it?

Amateur.

 

[Richard]

I thought I was being quite clear, but it's like someone's hitting the reset button every so often.

Look mate, if you think I'm talking gibberish then that proves the point I was trying to make.

I don't think you're talking gibberish, but you seem to think I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[shortpitched713]

Those who think stats have nothing to do with cricket are a little off of it. The scoreboard doesn't record anything besides a statistic; that is runs scored and wickets taken. And at the end of the day, its what it says on the scoreboard that makes the greatest difference.

 

[Neil Pickup]

You mean you don't instantly analyze the cover drive in a poisson distribution and run the bayesian inference on it?

Amateur.

I think it's simplistic to use a poisson distribution to analyse a cover drive: there are far too many variables involved in a delivery to distil it into a single shot: and even to prune it to a runs-scored function would be short-sighted due to the nature of the multiple peaks in that kind of distribution.

 

[Pratters]

 

[Sanz]

Isn't the guy supposed to be naked ?

 

[Pratters]