Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[Prince EWS]

Actually no, the fallacy is people who equate flipping a coin with batsmen in the real world. Do you really think the probability of a batsmen achieving a certain amount of runs is as simple as a coin toss? A coin toss is a completely fair and independant event, where as the performance of a batsmen in a particular innings is NOT independant. E.g. if a batsman makes 250 in the first innings, it is less likely they will fall early in the second - their form and confidence from their first innings probably carries to their second innings. I don't want to go into it further here, because it is completely irrelevent, but that is just one example of why sitting behind a computer and using 'mathematical' theories to explain cricket is stupid.

I wasn't speaking metaphorically - there's actually a member (ret) who believes that about coin-tossing.

 

[Ruckus]

I see...well for any interested anyway that's called the "Gamblers fallacy"...

But back to the topic, I'd be interested to know if Kallis would be a better batsman if he wasn't used an all-rounder. And similarly could Ponting be better if he'd never been Captain?

 

[Mike5181]

I see...well for any interested anyway that's called the "Gamblers fallacy"...

But back to the topic, I'd be interested to know if Kallis would be a better batsman if he wasn't used an all-rounder. And similarly could Ponting be better if he'd never been Captain?

Probably, though both wanted those roles anyway so it wasn't an unwanted burden or anything. They both had good players to support them in those particular roles as well. Ponting's captaincy was lightened because he had great players like Warne etc. So he wasn't someone who majorly underperformed like Stephen Fleming because of the captaincy. You could argue of late with the added pressure he has endured with a losing side his own poor performances have broken under the pressure somewhat. Kallis had great bowlers like Pollock, Ntini etc so he rarely was required to bowl huge amounts of overs like Vettori etc. You could also say the success they gained from these extra roles lead to greater confidence when they were batting. (Ponting won a lot of the games he captained and Kallis has over 200+ wickets in both forms).

 

[honestbharani]

You've said this to me before, and I've never seen a more lolworthy, misrepresenting, straw man argument used against me by someone who isn't an idiot before this in my life, so I've just ignored it up until now. But I'm in an argumentative mood, so here goes.

The only thing I've ever claimed that work to be is a better indicator of what a player has done than scorebook averages. I never compared it to anything else, or said it would work well as a prediction tool (for several very obvious reasons, not limited to the fact that players improve and decline, and the fact that they measure long-term output rather than sample sizes of one..), or even said it was anywhere near perfect at what it was trying to measure. I said it was a better measure of what a player had done in comparison to other players than his scorebook average. That's it.

I'll tell you what though - how about you predict the outcomes of the next game with second hand opinions, anecdotes and flawed conclusions drawn from limited aesthetic sample sizes and we'll see how close we both get.

lol @ you missng the point. I actually think your adjusted averages are more representative of what a player has achieved than actual career stats.. Why the hell else would I have asked you so many times to publish it for batsmen?



As for being able to predict, sure we can... The opinion and thoughts take into account stuff like recent form, conditions and also a gut feel on how good a certain player is than just number that basically have NO relevance to what is GOING TO happen...


I don't want to enter into a CC/Sanz like debate and proving who is better through a game of chess ( ) but if you seriously think that opinions of players are more flawed than averages, God help you.. And if you still seriously want to predict, open a thread for predictions where you only go by your stats and averages and I go by my thoughts and gut feels... Although having watched a number of predictions in various tour threads, I can safely say the opinionated seem to be able to get more right than the stats-fixated..

 

[Prince EWS]

lol @ you missng the point. I actually think your adjusted averages are more representative of what a player has achieved than actual career stats.. Why the hell else would I have asked you so many times to publish it for batsmen?

I know you do. The point is that you've misrepresented, or at least misinterpreted, my opinion of them.

 

[honestbharani]

I have never heard of a dumber reason to belittle the importance of statistics than the point made by hb about its prediction power over a small sample size, with all due respect.

The essence of probability (or even an extension, expectation), in itself, doesn't lie in its predictive power over a 5 test match series for instance.

When you toss a coin the probability of a 'heads' call winning you a toss is 0.5...does it mean that I can predict (with 100% accuracy) how many tosses Dhoni will win in the remaining two tests of this series? Even if my prediction comes true, will I be able to predict the same all the time? No. Does that change the probability of a 'heads' call winning you a toss?

Independent events.. My point really is that a batsman's score in a game (or any other stat in cricket) IS NOT an independent event. Therefore, no stat can actually show you EXACTLY how good a certain performance was and neither can any real sample help you predict what the same guy is gonna do in the next match.. In other words, it is just as flawed/flawless as depending on opinions and judgements (either one's own or based on someone else's)...

 

[Teja.]

I wouldn't go there. There are actually people on this forum who legitimately believe that if you've just flipped three heads in a row, it's more likely to be a tail than a head on the fourth flip. As if that, not only is there a cosmic force that exists purely for the divine purpose of evening out all coin-flipping, but that it works individually and targets people who have just flipped streaks.

I'm serious. People do really believe that.

 

[Teja.]

FTR, I do think Ponting is a better batsman than Kallis. Just feel rating batsman on their skills rather than their actual performance is crap.

As for the aesthetics point, I try to keep the personal enjoyment/liking aspect out while judging players, I might not completely succeed at it as biases do creep in as they always do, but I try my best.

As for the Hammond/Hobbs/Sutcliffe/Barrington point, There are reasons the latter two aren't rated as high as the former two. While I'm not saying the way they scored their runs is not a big factor in how people rate them, Importantly, The latter two played their entire careers in their peaks having careers 10 and 12 years long and Sutcliffe debuting at the age of 29. In comparison, Both Hobbs and Hammond had careers which were 2 decades long. In addition, Barrington was not a very big success in FC cricket which was considered very important for cricketers at the time.(I don't have an opinion regarding this btw)

Hb, When I said 'Scoring of one more run', I did not mean a literal one run, what I meant is that the actual scoring of runs is much much more important than how the runs are scored.

 

[honestbharani]

I know you do. The point is that you've misrepresented, or at least misinterpreted, my opinion of them.

Well, if it came across that way, I am sorry. But my intent all along is to show that rating players on stats is just as prone to mistakes as it is to rate them based on opinions... To keep saying some stuff and showing some stats and thinking you have proven your point is the biggest lolworthy thing I have seen in CW.. And I have seen a LOT.

 

[honestbharani]

FTR, I do think Ponting is a better batsman than Kallis. Just feel rating batsman on their skills rather than their actual performance is crap.

As for the aesthetics point, I try to keep the personal enjoyment/liking aspect out while judging players, I might not completely succeed at it as biases do creep in as they always do, but I try my best.

As for the Hammond/Hobbs/Sutcliffe/Barrington point, There are reasons the latter two aren't rated as high as the former two. While I'm not saying the way they scored their runs is not a big factor in how people rate them, Importantly, The latter two played their entire careers in their peaks having careers 10 and 12 years long and Sutcliffe debuting at the age of 29. In comparison, Both Hobbs and Hammond had careers which were 2 decades long. In addition, Barrington was not a very big success in FC cricket which was considered very important for cricketers at the time.(I don't have an opinion regarding this btw)

Hb, When I said 'Scoring of one more run', I did not mean a literal one run, what I meant is that the actual scoring of runs is much much more important than how the runs are scored.

See, in terms of effect in the match, I agree with you totally.. What I mean to say is that opinions based on having seen said players perform and also having seen the EXACT CONTEXT of those performances, can be just as accurate as statistical view...

 

[Ruckus]

See, in terms of effect in the match, I agree with you totally..

If you could argue that both Kallis and Ponting have literally the same "effects in matches", then imo both are equally great. The only difference would be superficial qualities like the aesthetics of the batsmen. However, I would argue Ponting overall has positively affected the matches he has played in to greater extent than Kallis - and the main reason is his better SR.

I want to know some arguments from pro-Kallis posters, for why Kallis is BETTER than Ponting purely as a batsman. Both have almost identical overall records, yet Ponting has achieved the same with a better SR.

 

[honestbharani]

You can't win a game by scoring less runs than your opponent. Having batsmen who will score more runs is always better than having batsmen who will score less runs.

yes.. And I think Ponting is more likely to score more runs than Kallis against most decent bowling sides.. And against lesser sides, my bowlers may not need the extra 5 runs that Kallis might provide.. So there goes..


And no you don't win games JUST because you score more than your opponents..

 

[Flem274*]

lol @ you missng the point. I actually think your adjusted averages are more representative of what a player has achieved than actual career stats.. Why the hell else would I have asked you so many times to publish it for batsmen?



As for being able to predict, sure we can... The opinion and thoughts take into account stuff like recent form, conditions and also a gut feel on how good a certain player is than just number that basically have NO relevance to what is GOING TO happen...


I don't want to enter into a CC/Sanz like debate and proving who is better through a game of chess ( ) but if you seriously think that opinions of players are more flawed than averages, God help you.. And if you still seriously want to predict, open a thread for predictions where you only go by your stats and averages and I go by my thoughts and gut feels... Although having watched a number of predictions in various tour threads, I can safely say the opinionated seem to be able to get more right than the stats-fixated..

Independent events.. My point really is that a batsman's score in a game (or any other stat in cricket) IS NOT an independent event. Therefore, no stat can actually show you EXACTLY how good a certain performance was and neither can any real sample help you predict what the same guy is gonna do in the next match.. In other words, it is just as flawed/flawless as depending on opinions and judgements (either one's own or based on someone else's)...

The Point..............................................................................................You are here->.

 

[honestbharani]

If you could argue that both Kallis and Ponting have literally the same "effects in matches", then imo both are equally great. The only difference would be superficial qualities like the aesthetics of the batsmen. However, I would argue Ponting overall has positively affected the matches he has played in to greater extent than Kallis - and the main reason is his better SR.

I want to know some arguments from pro-Kallis posters, for why Kallis is BETTER than Ponting purely as a batsman. Both have almost identical overall records, yet Ponting has achieved the same with a better SR.

Nah.. that discussion was not specific to Kallis/Ponting.. I don't think Teja was suggesting Kallis would score more than Ponting and even if he was, I was not referring to them in my post..

 

[honestbharani]

The Point..............................................................................................You are here->.

And you are nowhere?

 

[Flem274*]

And no you don't win games JUST because you score more than your opponents..

If there is a way to win a cricket match other than scoring more runs than the other team, please forward it to this address:

New Zealand Cricket
PO Box 958
Christchurch
New Zealand

 

[kingkallis]

If you could argue that both Kallis and Ponting have literally the same "effects in matches", then imo both are equally great. The only difference would be superficial qualities like the aesthetics of the batsmen. However, I would argue Ponting overall has positively affected the matches he has played in to greater extent than Kallis - and the main reason is his better SR.

I want to know some arguments from pro-Kallis posters, for why Kallis is BETTER than Ponting purely as a batsman. Both have almost identical overall records, yet Ponting has achieved the same with a better SR.

Average of 53.82 is not equal to 56.82 ( Kallis has a better average in both formats )

Some of you will say that we dont go by stats, so be it. You are already targeting Kallis's SR by comparing numbers.

Also would you please DEFINE the meaning of achieved here? What did he achieve? He achieved ( as a skipper / batsman ) more when he had Warney, Pidge, Gilly, Haydos.

 

[honestbharani]

If there is a way to win a cricket match other than scoring more runs than the other team, please forward it to this address:

New Zealand Cricket
PO Box 958
Christchurch
New Zealand

lol.. you don't win unless your opponent completes both innings. That is as much a criteria for winning as it is to have scored more runs.. But trust certain guys to miss a point so that they can dish out a smart ass (half assed, more like) reply..

 

[honestbharani]

His first hundred in Australia.

Was an awesome knock... Still think it and the Perth knock are his most memorable ones for me.. But in Perth so many others got runs too..

 

[Blaze 18]

Of course it's easier when you have some really good batsmen in your team.

I agree with this, but how does this argument favour Jacques Kallis ?