Leaving out the minnows...

[Prince EWS]

Well, to put the same question to you as I did everyone else, would you also include Australian FC stats? That's a higher standard than a game against Bangladesh.

I actually would, and I'm one in favour of 'removing the minnows' as such. I reckon I put more emphasis on First Class performances when rating a player than anyone on this forum other than Richard. Obviously they don't play as big a part in my evaluation of a player as Test performances, particularly if a player has had a long Test career, but they're still relevant IMO. I treat them in a very similar way to games against Bangladesh actually.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well, to put the same question to you as I did everyone else, would you also include Australian FC stats? That's a higher standard than a game against Bangladesh.

That's purely personal opinion though. I wouldn't as not every test player gets to play against Australian FC sides and not every FC side in the world would be stronger if we added them all.

 

[Richard]

I wasn't saying I make judgements without reference to stats, but that looking at the overall average is often misleading (especially when dealing with players who haven't played many tests). Rather than trying to 'standardise' that according to whatever suits why not just break them down and see what they reveal?

Bopara's case reveals more than the virtue of the first-chance average. The virtue of looking past his overall average and seeing what he really did/who he played against/the situation stands out bit too. You don't have to remove the stats to do that.

I'm a big fan of breaking down stats as much as possible rather than just looking at one banal number, but I'm also a fan of broad stats categorisations (ie, what is and isn't a Test match) being as apt and accurate as possible.

Test cricket is not the only level of cricket, but it's generally held as the elite level. I don't see the point in using Test as distinct from non-Test-First-Class at all if Test isn't held-up to the best scrutiny possible. And I think said scrutiny would find Bangladesh's inclusion utterly unworthy.

 

[Ikki]

It's to do with the predictive power of sports stats, basically. So many uncontrolled factors influence how many runs a batter will score that the predictive power of averages/runs scored on the same ground/against the same opponent is weakened significantly. Too much to use predictively at all, for mine, but that's just me.

I agree with you if for example one player has played 10 times where the other played the same team 2 teams and therefore one got a better chance to establish a better record so the comparison can become unfair. But when both have played certain teams a significant amount of times where prediction is not as inaccurate I see nothing wrong with it.

Ultimately, no simple average/ratio will prove or predict one thing one way or another so accurately, I just think it's very worthwhile when you do standardise. It does take quite a bit of time doing though.

 

[Ikki]

A person's average against all sides is a result of what actually happened up until that point. Deciding that person A would've scored X amount of runs against team he didn't play at all based on what person B did on a certain day in conditions that would certainly be different based on what theyve done against certain other teams and their respective averages is a random guess.

The idea that you can accurately guage how many runs a player will score on a given day accurately given their career average is simplistic at best. I'll be looking foward to seeing if Ricky Ponting can stay consistent and score 55.88 in both innings in Adelaide at a strike rate of 59.41.

But don't you see? Even just looking at averages as they stand we are in essence looking further/extrapolating.

Take this example:

Player A averages:

Country 1: 50, 10 tests
Country 2: 50, 10 tests
Country 3: 50, 10 tests
Country 4: 30, 20 tests

Overall: 42

Player B averages:

Country 1: 43, 14 tests
Country 2: 45, 14 tests
Country 3: 45, 14 tests
Country 4: 30, 8 tests

Overall: 42.

Now, it may appear that their averages are equal and hence they are similarly good; but the reality is that Player A has performed better than Player B everywhere and is equally as bad against one country - let's say Country 4 is the best side in cricket. But for the composition of test matches, the numbers played against each, it can skew the comparison.

Let's make it that Player A plays the same amount against the same countries as Player B:

Player A averages:

Country 1: 50, 14 tests
Country 2: 50, 14 tests
Country 3: 50, 14 tests
Country 4: 30, 8 tests

Overall: 47

Player B averages:

Country 1: 43, 14 tests
Country 2: 45, 14 tests
Country 3: 45, 14 tests
Country 4: 30, 8 tests

Overall: 42.

or the other way around:

Player A averages:

Country 1: 50, 10 tests
Country 2: 50, 10 tests
Country 3: 50, 10 tests
Country 4: 30, 20 tests

Overall: 42

Player B averages:

Country 1: 43, 10 tests
Country 2: 45, 10 tests
Country 3: 45, 10 tests
Country 4: 30, 20 tests

Overall: 37

----

So one has to beware really. Look at Ponting's away from home average, for instance. It's 50 IIRC. But in reality it is really weighed down by only one country (India). Without India, all others included, Ponting actually averages 59! And even a country by country breakdown supports this amazing feat.

so IMO, it can really clear things up.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Generally, if two players have played in the same era, and have both played a reasonable number of games, minnows need not be left out. And removing minnows should only really come into the equation if the player concerned is horrible against the top teams. If a batsman averages 50 against Australia, then even if he averages 100 against Bangladesh, it shouldn't be held against him.

Removing minnows is a decent filter, but simplistic. Firstly, it is hard to decide which teams are minnows. India's bowling for instance has almost always been mediocre. Should runs against them count ? And then you have to consider pitch conditions - is facing Heath Streak on a green top easier or facing Donald on a belter ? There are various other factors that may be considered of course such as umpiring errors, dropped catches etc.

 

[Richard]

Removing "minnows" is simple and there's a simple reason why it should always be done. Presuming by "minnow" one means "substandard side", then it is wrong to credit games involving said side as Test matches. All that is required is to decide "does <team> deserve Test status?" There are in my view only a tiny number of games which have been classified Test matches where, for reason of the substandardness of one team involved, that classification should not be applied. But however tiny they are, the integrity of Test cricket is better preserved with them not included than included.

 

[Son Of Coco]

But don't you see? Even just looking at averages as they stand we are in essence looking further/extrapolating.

----

So one has to beware really. Look at Ponting's away from home average, for instance. It's 50 IIRC. But in reality it is really weighed down by only one country (India). Without India, all others included, Ponting actually averages 59! And even a country by country breakdown supports this amazing feat.

so IMO, it can really clear things up.

Yes, but we're making assumptions as to who is better based on what they've done. Not assuming they'll score a certain amount of runs next game based on what they or someone else has done against a certain team at a different time.

Aren't you saying what I was saying? I.e: that you have to look past the overall number to get a real idea of a player's ability?

 

[zaremba]

Removing "minnows" is simple and there's a simple reason why it should always be done. Presuming by "minnow" one means "substandard side", then it is wrong to credit games involving said side as Test matches. All that is required is to decide "does <team> deserve Test status?" There are in my view only a tiny number of games which have been classified Test matches where, for reason of the substandardness of one team involved, that classification should not be applied. But however tiny they are, the integrity of Test cricket is better preserved with them not included than included.

Too many shades of grey I'm afraid.

Take every measure you possibly can - include minnows, discount them, include FC stats, look at home and away, consider whether performances were delivered in critical situations v dead rubbers, the works - then argue it out. There's no one single stat (eg "Tests excluding minnows") which will give an adequate answer.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Too many shades of grey I'm afraid.

Take every measure you possibly can - include minnows, discount them, include FC stats, look at home and away, consider whether performances were delivered in critical situations v dead rubbers, the works - then argue it out. There's no one single stat (eg "Tests excluding minnows") which will give an adequate answer.

Yes exactly, it's the same problem the FCA has. I've probably started something by saying that

 

[Richard]

Too many shades of grey I'm afraid.

Take every measure you possibly can - include minnows, discount them, include FC stats, look at home and away, consider whether performances were delivered in critical situations v dead rubbers, the works - then argue it out. There's no one single stat (eg "Tests excluding minnows") which will give an adequate answer.

Isn't that exactly what I've always said?

(Well, not, I'll rephrase that - that is exactly what I've always said.)

I've always had zero time for those who try to "perfect" stats to enable them to use stats alone to prove what they want to prove. I on the other hand merely try to get the best stats I can, to use them to their maximum extent.

And Test stats including only Test-standard sides > Test stats including both up-to-standard and substandard sides. That's all there is to it.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, but we're making assumptions as to who is better based on what they've done. Not assuming they'll score a certain amount of runs next game based on what they or someone else has done against a certain team at a different time.

Aren't you saying what I was saying? I.e: that you have to look past the overall number to get a real idea of a player's ability?

Yes, but what they've done is used as an indication of what they will do or a representation of their quality.

Bradman may average 100, yet you may argue there is no way to know how he'd face other bowling attacks. But we do use "what he has done" to predict how he'd do when we compare him or look at attacks he may face in all-time sides. Stats are used to look beyond merely what they've done and use them as a gauge. And if they aren't, then everything is in black and white: the one with the most runs or wickets is the best.

 

[zaremba]

Isn't that exactly what I've always said?

(Well, not, I'll rephrase that - that is exactly what I've always said.)

I've always had zero time for those who try to "perfect" stats to enable them to use stats alone to prove what they want to prove. I on the other hand merely try to get the best stats I can, to use them to their maximum extent.

And Test stats including only Test-standard sides > Test stats including both up-to-standard and substandard sides. That's all there is to it.

TBH I was a bit pissed when I wrote that, but I think I was basically disagreeing with your suggestion that minnows should "always" be excluded.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

What about, rather than excluding totally the Bangladeshis (and Zimbabweans), is there any value in applying a weighting to Bangladesh's stats?

i.e. if, on average, Bangladesh wickets cost 10% less than the average cost per wicket over the time of their playing test cricket, should bowler's stats against them be inflated by 10%? This would ensure that players who have played badly against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe continue to have their records penalised accordingly, whilst the vagueries of players who have excelled against Bangladesh are somewhat normalised, whilst recognising that they did still perform well against a lesser standard team.

 

[Richard]

TBH I was a bit pissed when I wrote that, but I think I was basically disagreeing with your suggestion that minnows should "always" be excluded.

As I say - for me picking-and-choosing when to include and when to remove is a big no-no. For me it's a simple case of "is a team Test-class (ie, can compete regularly with most or all of the Test teams) and does it meet the geographical requirements for Test cricket?" Only once the answer to both of these is "yes" am I happy to classify games involving said side Test.

(Same applies to ODI but there's a myriad more issues at heart there.)

 

[Richard]

What about, rather than excluding totally the Bangladeshis (and Zimbabweans), is there any value in applying a weighting to Bangladesh's stats?

i.e. if, on average, Bangladesh wickets cost 10% less than the average cost per wicket over the time of their playing test cricket, should bowler's stats against them be inflated by 10%? This would ensure that players who have played badly against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe continue to have their records penalised accordingly, whilst the vagueries of players who have excelled against Bangladesh are somewhat normalised, whilst recognising that they did still perform well against a lesser standard team.

I think it's much easier and much less complicated to just say "Bangladesh are not and should not be a Test team" TBH. If you want to do that you may as well just admit Kenya and a host of others to Test status and see how they get on then do similar.

Protecting the sacrosanctity of Test cricket should be at heart of this discussion.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

But, like it or not,Bangladesh play 'test' cricket. Removing all stats against them benefit those players who've failed to perform against them.

 

[Ikki]

What about, rather than excluding totally the Bangladeshis (and Zimbabweans), is there any value in applying a weighting to Bangladesh's stats?

i.e. if, on average, Bangladesh wickets cost 10% less than the average cost per wicket over the time of their playing test cricket, should bowler's stats against them be inflated by 10%? This would ensure that players who have played badly against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe continue to have their records penalised accordingly, whilst the vagueries of players who have excelled against Bangladesh are somewhat normalised, whilst recognising that they did still perform well against a lesser standard team.

Yeh but think about it, what if a certain player has played B/Z some 15 times whilst another has played them 2 times. Let's say they're both of equal quality but the one who played them 15 times has done ridiculously well (averages 100 for example) whereas the one that batted twice only did very well (averaged 70 for example). You could argue that if the second player played more he'd increase his average to something like the first player; and that 2 tests are not enough to extrapolate with.

And again, what is the problem with keeping minnows if players have played enough and sucked against them? Who has ever removed minnows in that instance? If players have played a few innings and not succeeded, removing minnows is still logical IMO; but not so if that player clearly had enough chances and failed.

 

[Uppercut]

You could equally say that including stats against them benefit those who succeeded against them.

The other angle is that runs and wickets against Bangladesh are, in the vast majority of cases, worth nothing in terms of helping your side win the match. Bangladesh haven't shown themselves to be capable of beating a test side in over 50 attempts, so it's reasonable to assume that South Africa will beat them whether AB De Villiers scores 250 or 0. In this case, why should De Villiers be penalised for scoring 0? His score, taken in isolation, is completely inconsequential, it neither helps nor hinders his team- the result is already close enough to predetermined as to make it reasonable to take it as inevitable, especially at home. So why should he be penalised for scoring 0?

Now, you could say a couple of things. Firstly, that it's not necessarily always the case, Vettori being the most obvious example. Secondly, that there are plenty of other inconsequential runs you might also want to exclude.

I'd argue that completely excluding Vettori's one-man show against Bangladesh would be unfair from a statistical perspective. You have to consider it to some extent.

As for the second part, runs that turned out to be inconsequential are a different thing from runs that were always going to be inconsequential. Bangladesh were, to all intents and purposes, always going to lose to South Africa. Not literally, but such an assumption is reasonable.

Don't take everything I say at face value, it's part of a wider point. Essentially, I'm asking, why should a player's failure against Bangladesh count against him? His failure doesn't affect his team's welfare even slightly.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

You could equally say that including stats against them benefit those who succeeded against them.

The other angle is that runs and wickets against Bangladesh are, in the vast majority of cases, worth nothing in terms of helping your side win the match. Bangladesh haven't shown themselves to be capable of beating a test side in over 50 attempts, so it's reasonable to assume that South Africa will beat them whether AB De Villiers scores 250 or 0. In this case, why should De Villiers be penalised for scoring 0? His score, taken in isolation, is completely inconsequential, it neither helps nor hinders his team- the result is already close enough to predetermined as to make it reasonable to take it as inevitable, especially at home. So why should he be penalised for scoring 0?

This is clearly a case of ridiculous extrapolation of a point as if you're willing to view this failure as inconsequential, the whole batting order may as well go out there and all get nought. I realise that's not what you're saying, but to view an innings as inconsequential as the result is 'predetermined' is total bollocks.

Anyway, is this relevant to the point that I was making that rather than exclude all Bangladesh runs/wickets you deflate/inflate them by a factor of how far (in general) Bangladesh are performing below test standard. This would still give Vettori some value for his wickets, but should smooth out anomolous results to some extent.