Statistics are for losers

[Magrat Garlick]

.

For a moment, I forgot Cricket Chat was where we all gather to hate on brown cricketers.

 

[Burgey]

For a moment, I forgot Cricket Chat was where we all gather to hate on cricketers with dud stats.

ftfy

 

[flibbertyjibber]

This is actually a broad problem in data science, not only in sports. People look at irrelevant or incomplete stats and conclude that stats are misleading and useless when they fail to match reality. You just need better models, obviously that's easier said then done.

Poor Stuart gets blamed for everything.

 

[Debris]

To be honest, I think I am going to need to see some statistics before I take this seriously.

 

[sledger]

Why?

 

[Kirkut]

Where there are statistics there will be comparisons, which is why I quit studying them long time ago. It blinds the uniqueness of every cricketer, numbers can never define humans.

 

[sledger]

Yes, indeed, which begs the question, why are they even tracked at all? What is the rationale and justification for this?

 

[Kirkut]

I believe stats were introduced to sports in order to make it easier for betting industries to have parameters for making bets. Second reason could be to bring in casual crowds to watch the sport, numbers do impress people.

 

[sledger]

I believe stats were introduced to sports in order to make it easier for betting industries to have parameters for making bets. Second reason could be to bring in casual crowds to watch the sport, numbers do impress people.

Yes I suppose this could be right, perhaps you are onto something here. There is a simplicity about stats which I could see could make them very appealing to those who are only able to think at a moderate to low level.

 

[Pup Clarke]

In cricket, the actual output of a batsman or bowler is less tangible than other sports. For example, a batsman can play a perfect cover drive which is both aesthetically perfect and gain maximum reward (4 runs) and then subsequently be dismissed next ball by an inswinging yorker for 4 The batsman thereafter can not affect the game compared to traditional team-sports, where success and failure is rarely punished to that same extent.
Therefore, the perfect cover drive the ball before is essentially meaningless or arbitrary - expect perhaps to purists or the person's family/friends. The batsman is basically measured solely on his output (4 runs). How many times has anyone ever heard a commentator discuss the innings of a batsman if he makes a really low score but looks competent? I'm sure sometimes it happens (Quiney's 9) but they will be more likely to praise the bowler and lament it a batting failure.

 

[sledger]

In cricket, the actual output of a batsman or bowler is less tangible than other sports. For example, a batsman can play a perfect cover drive which is both aesthetically perfect and gain maximum reward (4 runs) and then subsequently be dismissed next ball by an inswinging yorker for 4 The batsman thereafter can not affect the game compared to traditional team-sports, where success and failure is rarely punished to that same extent.
Therefore, the perfect cover drive the ball before is essentially meaningless or arbitrary - expect perhaps to purists or the person's family/friends. The batsman is basically measured solely on his output (4 runs). How many times has anyone ever heard a commentator discuss the innings of a batsman if he makes a really low score but looks competent? I'm sure sometimes it happens (Quiney's 9) but they will be more likely to praise the bowler and lament it a batting failure.

The first sentence in bold is highly contentious; I think I'd go as far as to totally disagree with it.

In any event, however, it appears to be impossible to reconcile with the second sentence in bold. How can a player's output be both intangible and the primary way of assessing their performance?

 

[mr_mister]

Yes I suppose this could be right, perhaps you are onto something here. There is a simplicity about stats which I could see could make them very appealing to those who are only able to think at a moderate to low level.

Do you talk like this in person? I hope for your sake that you don't

 

[indiaholic]

Its sledger, if you want to know what he sounds like come over to off topic.

 

[sledger]

Do you talk like this in person? I hope for your sake that you don't

Why?

 

[Daemon]

The first sentence in bold is highly contentious; I think I'd go as far as to totally disagree with it.

In any event, however, it appears to be impossible to reconcile with the second sentence in bold. How can a player's output be both intangible and the primary way of assessing their performance?

Yeah, strange contradiction.

Nearly all output in cricket is much more tangible than in most sports imo.