Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I alluded to this in one of the Australia-India threads last night. In cricket there are certain figures that people love to use to prove how good or bad a player is that, if you think about it, don't really prove or tell you anything.
My least favourite is the old 'player x only averages y if you take out his hundreds' chestnut, generally used to make a player look bad. The problem is that a player's average is reflective of all their scores and is higher because of their bigger ones, though some will be more consistent than others. You may as well take out all the innings where they scored runs to 'prove' that they average zero. It's a stupid stat. Bradman was good because he was able to reel off those big innings at an unprecedented rate. His failures in between aren't relevant.
The one I noted last night is for the opposite, it's 'player x averages y in wins' which is supposed to prove that they're good. Now, of course there will be some variability over this sort of thing, players enjoy better series than others, there's surrounding team strength and opposition strength, conditions and so on. But it doesn't take much thinking to realise that when players perform, teams win, and hence team wins will tend to be associated with good performances. And in the example discussed (Bumrah), where India have done more winning overseas, yeah, bringing in a better player will help you win more often. The more better players, the more winning.
Someone mentioned the specific example of the oft cited stat of Dhoni's average in successful chases. Think about it for a moment. He's a lower order batsman, usually one of the last recognised. Big victories by nine or ten wickets aren't that common, so lo and behold he will often be involved in chases. Aside from him being probably more likely to finish unbeaten in a successful chase rather than perishing in a failed one, it's pretty reasonable to assume that a good innings from him will greatly improve India's chances of winning, same as any other batsman in any other team.
Overall these averages and whatever that are dredged up and often used to provide a 'deep insight' as to why a certain player is good or bad don't really tell us anything. All they do is show that good performances win matches, or that bad performances are well... bad. Things we don't need numbers to know. They're just drivel.
My least favourite is the old 'player x only averages y if you take out his hundreds' chestnut, generally used to make a player look bad. The problem is that a player's average is reflective of all their scores and is higher because of their bigger ones, though some will be more consistent than others. You may as well take out all the innings where they scored runs to 'prove' that they average zero. It's a stupid stat. Bradman was good because he was able to reel off those big innings at an unprecedented rate. His failures in between aren't relevant.
The one I noted last night is for the opposite, it's 'player x averages y in wins' which is supposed to prove that they're good. Now, of course there will be some variability over this sort of thing, players enjoy better series than others, there's surrounding team strength and opposition strength, conditions and so on. But it doesn't take much thinking to realise that when players perform, teams win, and hence team wins will tend to be associated with good performances. And in the example discussed (Bumrah), where India have done more winning overseas, yeah, bringing in a better player will help you win more often. The more better players, the more winning.
Someone mentioned the specific example of the oft cited stat of Dhoni's average in successful chases. Think about it for a moment. He's a lower order batsman, usually one of the last recognised. Big victories by nine or ten wickets aren't that common, so lo and behold he will often be involved in chases. Aside from him being probably more likely to finish unbeaten in a successful chase rather than perishing in a failed one, it's pretty reasonable to assume that a good innings from him will greatly improve India's chances of winning, same as any other batsman in any other team.
Overall these averages and whatever that are dredged up and often used to provide a 'deep insight' as to why a certain player is good or bad don't really tell us anything. All they do is show that good performances win matches, or that bad performances are well... bad. Things we don't need numbers to know. They're just drivel.
