Meaningless and stupid cricket statistics

[trundler]

You recognize the need to apply common sense to stats, even the most basic one, averages. (Which could be rephrased, more objectively, but potentially more problematically, as the need to apply multiple statistical filters).

You regard a measure like WPM/I as essentially invalid. It is objectively as good a measure of contribution as exists, and if filtered, whether by common sense or statisically (which admittedly is complicated) will give a great idea of quality.

Do you really believe it is impossible to filter this down in this way for this stat specifically? We spend most of our time in ATG threads deconstructing stats in bizarrely, nerdy, complicated ways. Why is this any different? If we are engaging in pendantry like average in X place in X timeframe, surely we should be engaging in something more important like this?

I'm not saying this to be provocative — lord knows I lay my bait without any such disclaimer — but the reason why WPM evokes such a visceral reaction from TJB is purely because of its deployment in Warne Vs Murali debates. Obviously, there's a completely unrelated factor (general quality of opposition) which artificially widens the gap but instead of just recognising that people say it's useless in general. This also comes up when we're talking about Miller's bowling. Yeah, WPM depends a lot on context but it's pretty telling how Philander managed only 3.5 overall despite a legendary start to his career. Or that Lillee managed 5 wickets each game despite shattering his spine in half. No one argues a WPM of 4.6 makes one a better bowler than someone with 4.4. People also brush off Hadlee picking up 5 each game as irrelevant with muh less competition excuses but it's a testament to his supreme fitness and godlike persistence. It's even more incredible considering he played something like 85% of the matches NZ played in his career. Compare that with Fat Vern's road activated glass knees. Rant over. Richard Hadlee was a god.

 

[Bolo.]

I'm not saying this to be provocative — lord knows I lay my bait without any such disclaimer — but the reason why WPM evokes such a visceral reaction from TJB is purely because of its deployment in Warne Vs Murali debates. Obviously, there's a completely unrelated factor (general quality of opposition) which artificially widens the gap but instead of just recognising that people say it's useless in general. This also comes up when we're talking about Miller's bowling. Yeah, WPM depends a lot on context but it's pretty telling how Philander managed only 3.5 overall despite a legendary start to his career. Or that Lillee managed 5 wickets each game despite shattering his spine in half. No one argues a WPM of 4.6 makes one a better bowler than someone with 4.4. People also brush off Hadlee picking up 5 each game as irrelevant with muh less competition excuses but it's a testament to his supreme fitness and godlike persistence. It's even more incredible considering he played something like 85% of the matches NZ played in his career. Compare that with Fat Vern's road activated glass knees. Rant over. Richard Hadlee was a god.

I hope not. Let's be honest, none of us are immune to having our biases about players shape our bias of stats, and while there are plenty of other good reasons to rank Warne ahead, Murali's WPM/I is a clearly solid reason to rank him ahead, lack of competition notwithstanding.

FTR, massively agree with the Vern example. Vern did not just have a problem with 'glass knees'... he was just a holding bowler without a lively ball on favourable pitches... and a lazy one, which made his average look really good. Doesn't matter how many games he dodged (I have no idea what the number is). He would have averaged mid 20s+ if he was bowling enough to get anywhere near to 5WPM in the games he played in, even ignoring his alleged pitch dodging.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm not saying this to be provocative — lord knows I lay my bait without any such disclaimer — but the reason why WPM evokes such a visceral reaction from TJB is purely because of its deployment in Warne Vs Murali debates. Obviously, there's a completely unrelated factor (general quality of opposition) which artificially widens the gap but instead of just recognising that people say it's useless in general. This also comes up when we're talking about Miller's bowling. Yeah, WPM depends a lot on context but it's pretty telling how Philander managed only 3.5 overall despite a legendary start to his career. Or that Lillee managed 5 wickets each game despite shattering his spine in half. No one argues a WPM of 4.6 makes one a better bowler than someone with 4.4. People also brush off Hadlee picking up 5 each game as irrelevant with muh less competition excuses but it's a testament to his supreme fitness and godlike persistence. It's even more incredible considering he played something like 85% of the matches NZ played in his career. Compare that with Fat Vern's road activated glass knees. Rant over. Richard Hadlee was a god.

dumb comment brah, thought never crossed my mind. There's plenty to differentiate Murali & Warne in debates but that's never been one of them in my experience anyway. Hadlee v McGrath would have been a better point of attack if you wanted to come at me in this manner, at least it would be relevant in that comparison

Miller maybe though, definitely comes up

 

[TheJediBrah]

Also, my main problem with most of the posts in this thread is that people only judge how "useful" a stat is if the stat can tell you how good a player is? Which is pretty ****ing stupid.

That's the context it's almost always being used in here though . . . if someone says "x stat is meaningless" in a certain context, even if the context is implied, it's not "****ing stupid" to say that because the stat could mean be meaningful in a completely different context.

You recognize the need to apply common sense to stats, even the most basic one, averages. (Which could be rephrased, more objectively, but potentially more problematically, as the need to apply multiple statistical filters).

You regard a measure like WPM/I as essentially invalid. It is objectively as good a measure of contribution as exists, and if filtered, whether by common sense or statisically (which admittedly is complicated) will give a great idea of quality.

Do you really believe it is impossible to filter this down in this way for this stat specifically? We spend most of our time in ATG threads deconstructing stats in bizarrely, nerdy, complicated ways. Why is this any different? If we are engaging in pendantry like average in X place in X timeframe, surely we should be engaging in something more important like this?

Good points. At the risk of sounding very repetitive it all comes down to context. If someone wants to talk about a player's WPI or WPM in a discussion about how much they bowled because of team or era-related factors then fair enough we shouldn't go about objecting to it. But in my experience here that is almost never the case, it will be some player comparison and someone will notice that the player they like has a higher WPM than the one they don't and then decide to use it as a reason they were better.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Ebadot had a Rubel-esque average…and then he manifested into Malcolm Marshall against the Kiwis in that one game…his average dipped down to the low 50s (I think)

This is the kind of stats debate I expect to see when I visit this thread…not an extension of the “ATG arguing” thread lol

Anyways, lemme repost this gem,

 

[trundler]

Hadlee v McGrath would have been a better point of attack if you wanted to come at me in this manner, at least it would be relevant in that comparison

No that's when you pretend one's bowling support has no effect on stats.

 

[Shady Slim]

I'm not saying this to be provocative — lord knows I lay my bait without any such disclaimer — but the reason why WPM evokes such a visceral reaction from TJB is purely because of its deployment in Warne Vs Murali debates. Obviously, there's a completely unrelated factor (general quality of opposition) which artificially widens the gap but instead of just recognising that people say it's useless in general. This also comes up when we're talking about Miller's bowling. Yeah, WPM depends a lot on context but it's pretty telling how Philander managed only 3.5 overall despite a legendary start to his career. Or that Lillee managed 5 wickets each game despite shattering his spine in half. No one argues a WPM of 4.6 makes one a better bowler than someone with 4.4. People also brush off Hadlee picking up 5 each game as irrelevant with muh less competition excuses but it's a testament to his supreme fitness and godlike persistence. It's even more incredible considering he played something like 85% of the matches NZ played in his career. Compare that with Fat Vern's road activated glass knees. Rant over. Richard Hadlee was a god.

lol foh with this philander slander

 

[trundler]

lol foh with this philander slander

lol foh with this philander slander

Philander was a burden on his team that had to be hidden away in a significant chunk of his matches. He took barely 3 wickets per match after his novelty wore off. Yeah, he had an epic dozen or so tests but he didn't even manage 3 wickets per match away overall. That's awful output. He could hide in an awesome attack but was regularly exposed as ineffective. Post Morkel and Steyn he was abject away. Remember him being 90s India level in SL. Anderson slyly got away with a decent average on the last Oz tour without contributing much because he didn't bowl that much. Almost Philander's entire career was that dialed up to 11.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Philander was a burden on his team that had to be hidden away in a significant chunk of his matches. He took barely 3 wickets per match after his novelty wore off. Yeah, he had an epic dozen or so tests but he didn't even manage 3 wickets per match away overall. That's awful output. He could hide in an awesome attack but was regularly exposed as ineffective. Post Morkel and Steyn he was abject away. Remember him being 90s India level in SL. Anderson slyly got away with a decent average on the last Oz tour without contributing much because he didn't bowl that much. Almost Philander's entire career was that dialed up to 11.

This is a good use of wpm because it downgrades a player I don't like

 

[Shady Slim]

Philander was a burden on his team that had to be hidden away in a significant chunk of his matches. He took barely 3 wickets per match after his novelty wore off. Yeah, he had an epic dozen or so tests but he didn't even manage 3 wickets per match away overall. That's awful output. He could hide in an awesome attack but was regularly exposed as ineffective. Post Morkel and Steyn he was abject away. Remember him being 90s India level in SL. Anderson slyly got away with a decent average on the last Oz tour without contributing much because he didn't bowl that much. Almost Philander's entire career was that dialed up to 11.

huge impact in oz for sa to win them the match at the waca in 2016 to help have australia all out for 200 odd after they were 130 ish for 0 after steyn went down after making the initial breakthrough

and you can accuse me of being australiacentric with caring about that a lot vs the tour in sl you mention and to that i say, yes, big dog come to eat big against the big dogs

 

[TheJediBrah]

huge impact in oz for sa to win them the match at the waca in 2016 to help have australia all out for 200 odd after they were 130 ish for 0 after steyn went down after making the initial breakthrough

Which came directly after he went 0/100+ in the first test on a flat wicket, then skipped the second test with an "injury" on a flat wicket because too hard/protect his stats.

That series is not exactly an example in big Vern's favour

 

[Shady Slim]

Which came directly after he went 0/100+ in the first test on a flat wicket, then skipped the second test with an "injury" on a flat wicket because too hard/protect his stats.

That series is not exactly an example in big Vern's favour

he won the man of the series award chief, the waca was first test, then he went to hobart and dicked us in favourable conditions

 

[Starfighter]

One of you is talking about 12/13 and the other is talking about 16/17.

 

[Shady Slim]

One of you is talking about 12/13 and the other is talking about 16/17.

yes, but given i explicitly referred to the series in my post as being in 2016 i'm going to use the opportunity to be smug and sanctimonious about being in the right rather than being more neutral and conducive to fair discussion

 

[TheJediBrah]

he won the man of the series award chief, the waca was first test, then he went to hobart and dicked us in favourable conditions

I selectively chose to misinterpret the series you were talking about because the other one fits my narrative

yes, but given i explicitly referred to the series in my post as being in 2016 i'm going to use the opportunity to be smug and sanctimonious about being in the right rather than being more neutral and conducive to fair discussion

You say that like it's a bad thing

 

[Coronis]

Inspired by seeing Gower’s name in a recent thread, players who had no ducks in the most consecutive innings. I’ll do 75+ cos it works out nicely with 10 blokes.

David Gower (119)
Richie Richardson (96)
Sachin Tendulkar (91) - streak didn’t end, career did
Alan Border (89)
Alec Stewart (86)
Kumar Sangakkara (85)
Angelo Matthews (83)
Ken Barrington (78)
AB de Villiers (78)
Aravinda de Silva (75)

Basically what we can understand from this is that Bradman was a hack because he played 80 innings with 7 ducks. Too hot and cold for my next XI.

One I did see that surprised me was Anderson with 54. Might rate him a bit higher now.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

If I’m not mistaken, ABDV’s streak was ended by an Ashraful double-bounce delivery

 

[Coronis]

I was bored. Batsmen who average 50+ home and away (min 10 innings for both).

Bradman 98.22/102.84
Sutcliffe 64.60/56.31
Smith 62.91/57.56
Paynter 51.30/67.15
Barrington 50.71/69.18
Hammond 50.06/66.32
Sobers 66.80/50.73
Sangakkara 60.44/54.07
Hobbs 52.29/59.91
Hutton 57.79/55.29
Kallis 56.73/53.91
Chappell 54.39/52.95
Tendulkar 52.67/54.74
Dravid 51.35/53.03
Younis 59.61/50.62*
Gavaskar 50.16/52.11
Flower 51.26/51.81

(I grouped away/neutral together when searching this, Younis drops out otherwise)

17 batsmen out of the 42 total that average 50 (min 20 innings)

 

[weeman27bob]

No Ponting or Lara, but Sanga?

@Himannv in shambles

 

[Coronis]

Yeah unlike Sanga, Lara and Ponting were big home track bullies.