Meaningless and stupid cricket statistics

[nzfan]

Personally I'm not a fan of any stats that compare players. This is a game of way too many variables to present a reasonable comparison. The conditions are so different across the globe and the worst one is comparing over different eras. It just doesn't make sense. On the other hand this game is so much about numbers people cannot keep off from comparisons. The worse are comparisons within the team. Such as is Williamson better than Taylor etc... What's the point. Runs scored by either contribute to the team cause anyways. Asking if Ponting is better than Sachin is so flawed. As far as I know personally the players give a hoot about this. This is not a solitary game like tennis or golf. Team dynamics matters lots and has a bearing on the eventual numbers.

Any article that has stupid numbers thrown about on cricinfo I don't even click them. Once or twice I have clicked them they haven't held my interest for long.

I have played reasonable level of cricket and I can tell you if you had 3 good batters in the side and if you are one of them you are hoping the other two come off. You don't hope I score more than them and prove a point to the world I'm better than the two other in the team.

Sure there is healthy competition such as I want to be the man that puts in massive contribution but you never really hope the other guys don't score so that it makes me look good. In fact as soon as you take your pads off you just want the rest of the guys to do real well so that you end up on the winning side. The only thing you remember is the time spent with the lads and you never really look at numbers as a player because you know it's near stupid to do so. When you are out of the team though it's slightly different from personal perspective. As much as you are a team man you just hope someone messes up and you get in the team That's just natural human tendency and the competitiveness that comes playing professional cricket. As soon as you are in the team you will do all you can to help the batter at the other end if he's going through a rough patch particularly if he's a gun player.

The stats are only relevant to that particular match and anything beyond is useless as harsh as it may sound or followers may not like it.

 

[ankitj]

On average in wins: Kumble has better average than Warne and Flower better than Lara. It doesn't take much to realise why that would be the case.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Flower's career average isn't much lower than Lara's anyway

edit: 1 run difference

 

[ankitj]

But there is a massive gap in their averages in wins

 

[Coronis]

Because Flower was a matchwinner, unlike Lara.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Because Flower was a matchwinner, unlike Lara.

Played in 7 wins in his whole career haha

 

[Coronis]

Played in 7 wins in his whole career haha

Thems the jokes.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well technically he was a match-winner, just on rare occasions

 

[Red]

Personally I'm not a fan of any stats that compare players. This is a game of way too many variables to present a reasonable comparison. The conditions are so different across the globe and the worst one is comparing over different eras. It just doesn't make sense. On the other hand this game is so much about numbers people cannot keep off from comparisons. The worse are comparisons within the team. Such as is Williamson better than Taylor etc... What's the point. Runs scored by either contribute to the team cause anyways. Asking if Ponting is better than Sachin is so flawed. As far as I know personally the players give a hoot about this. This is not a solitary game like tennis or golf. Team dynamics matters lots and has a bearing on the eventual numbers.

Any article that has stupid numbers thrown about on cricinfo I don't even click them. Once or twice I have clicked them they haven't held my interest for long.

I have played reasonable level of cricket and I can tell you if you had 3 good batters in the side and if you are one of them you are hoping the other two come off. You don't hope I score more than them and prove a point to the world I'm better than the two other in the team.

Sure there is healthy competition such as I want to be the man that puts in massive contribution but you never really hope the other guys don't score so that it makes me look good. In fact as soon as you take your pads off you just want the rest of the guys to do real well so that you end up on the winning side. The only thing you remember is the time spent with the lads and you never really look at numbers as a player because you know it's near stupid to do so. When you are out of the team though it's slightly different from personal perspective. As much as you are a team man you just hope someone messes up and you get in the team That's just natural human tendency and the competitiveness that comes playing professional cricket. As soon as you are in the team you will do all you can to help the batter at the other end if he's going through a rough patch particularly if he's a gun player.

The stats are only relevant to that particular match and anything beyond is useless as harsh as it may sound or followers may not like it.

Saying that guys in a cricket team want each other to succeed so they win the game doesn't mean that stats aren't useful in doing long term comparisons between players. It's a weird take. I'm sure everyone in the Australian team wanted Pukovski to get a ton on debut, both for him and the team. No one in the Aust team would want him to fail so they looked better, i'm not sure what argument you're trying to make.

Longer term stats tell a good story of how effective a player was against certain opponents in certain conditions. Over a reasonable length career, they reveal quite a lot about players and are very useful when comparing players.

 

[nzfan]

Saying that guys in a cricket team want each other to succeed so they win the game doesn't mean that stats aren't useful in doing long term comparisons between players. It's a weird take. I'm sure everyone in the Australian team wanted Pukovski to get a ton on debut, both for him and the team. No one in the Aust team would want him to fail so they looked better, i'm not sure what argument you're trying to make.

Longer term stats tell a good story of how effective a player was against certain opponents in certain conditions. Over a reasonable length career, they reveal quite a lot about players and are very useful when comparing players.

Pretty much what I meant. Most players don't actually care about the stats. It's only useful for analysis from arm chair experts or commentators or tv crew.

 

[mr_mister]

It always fascinated me with Lara how of all the ATG batsmen in his class, he compiled the biggest hundreds while seemingly playing the most recklessly. A lot of his shots seemed to be more power than finesse and control, compared to say Sachin or Steve Smith, which I would assume would result in more chances for the fielders. Yet he holds the FC and test high score records

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Personally I'm not a fan of any stats that compare players. This is a game of way too many variables to present a reasonable comparison. The conditions are so different across the globe and the worst one is comparing over different eras. It just doesn't make sense. On the other hand this game is so much about numbers people cannot keep off from comparisons. The worse are comparisons within the team. Such as is Williamson better than Taylor etc... What's the point. Runs scored by either contribute to the team cause anyways. Asking if Ponting is better than Sachin is so flawed. As far as I know personally the players give a hoot about this. This is not a solitary game like tennis or golf. Team dynamics matters lots and has a bearing on the eventual numbers.

Any article that has stupid numbers thrown about on cricinfo I don't even click them. Once or twice I have clicked them they haven't held my interest for long.

I have played reasonable level of cricket and I can tell you if you had 3 good batters in the side and if you are one of them you are hoping the other two come off. You don't hope I score more than them and prove a point to the world I'm better than the two other in the team.

Sure there is healthy competition such as I want to be the man that puts in massive contribution but you never really hope the other guys don't score so that it makes me look good. In fact as soon as you take your pads off you just want the rest of the guys to do real well so that you end up on the winning side. The only thing you remember is the time spent with the lads and you never really look at numbers as a player because you know it's near stupid to do so. When you are out of the team though it's slightly different from personal perspective. As much as you are a team man you just hope someone messes up and you get in the team That's just natural human tendency and the competitiveness that comes playing professional cricket. As soon as you are in the team you will do all you can to help the batter at the other end if he's going through a rough patch particularly if he's a gun player.

The stats are only relevant to that particular match and anything beyond is useless as harsh as it may sound or followers may not like it.

Totally agree with this. Great post.

 

[aussie tragic]

Stats for any sub 140 km/h pace bowler who went for longegivity over pace should be ignored. Bye bye McGrath, Anderson, Broad and Walsh

 

[andruid]

Any sub 140 km/h pace bowlers stats should be ignored. Bye bye McGrath, Anderson and Broad.

All lesser than Tino Best

 

[vcs]

It always fascinated me with Lara how of all the ATG batsmen in his class, he compiled the biggest hundreds while seemingly playing the most recklessly. A lot of his shots seemed to be more power than finesse and control, compared to say Sachin or Steve Smith, which I would assume would result in more chances for the fielders. Yet he holds the FC and test high score records

He had extravagant stylish looking strokes but he was one of the most surgical batsmen ever at finding gaps. Even more than Sachin I think, at least in Tests, Sachin in ODI obviously was a beast in the first 15.

 

[Coronis]

Caught my eye when they were showing the Big 3 stats today, players averaging above 55 both home and away. Good company Smith is part of there.

Bradman 98.22 Home 102.84 Away
Smith 69.47* Home 57.10 Away
Sutcliffe 64.60 Home 56.31 Away
Hutton 57.79 Home 55.29 Away

 

[harsh.ag]

NZ #1 ranked test team

 

[hendrix]

Some of the most basic stats 101 stuff is the use of numbers supposed to show a trend that do not include any passing mention of strength of trend i.e. has it defeated the null hypothesis.

The most common example of this is batting form.

Player x scores 0 10 1 8 53 92 40 30

Is there enough power to say was out of form and is now in form, or is this just random distribution of numbers around his general average? There are very simple statistics to show whether this defeated the null hypothesis or not i.e. that this is just a random presentation of numbers.

Players make genuine improvements across their careers so of course there are going to be changes in averages and numbers but just some passing mention of the strength of trend will make it a much more intelligent conversation and allow us to actually infer quantitative outcomes for qualitative changes (e.g. a bowler adding an inswinger to his arsenal improving his strike rate etc).

Much was made of Steve Smith "finding his hands" after 3 low scores. Maybe he felt like he needed to change things. Maybe he was genuinely "found out" for those 3 innings and had to correct a weakness. There are plenty of potential explanations for this. But if we are going to use numbers and statistics you need to be honest enough to say that there's really no quantitative evidence that he was out of form or vulnerable.

 

[trundler]

Bye bye McGrath

Go wash your mouth with soap for saying McGrath's name next to Anderson and Broad. Somehow this isn't even the most detached boomer post you've made today.

 

[Burgey]

It always fascinated me with Lara how of all the ATG batsmen in his class, he compiled the biggest hundreds while seemingly playing the most recklessly. A lot of his shots seemed to be more power than finesse and control, compared to say Sachin or Steve Smith, which I would assume would result in more chances for the fielders. Yet he holds the FC and test high score records

He very often gave you a chance, or at least the impression of one, but his God mode is the best I've ever seen, and he went to it more often than anyone else too. When he went to it, it didn't matter what you bowled to him.