Cribbage's Standardised Test Averages (UPDATED November 2018 - posts 753-755)

[Prince EWS]

Mate, I'm sure you can come up with a better example.

 

[NUFAN]

Hey, I didn't say I could come up with a better example, I said that weldone could.

But in reality obviously my example is better. His example asked me who I find better out of two cricketers averaging the SAME but one playing DOUBLE the length of time as the other. It's a no brainer.

 

[weldone]

Hey, I didn't say I could come up with a better example, I said that weldone could.

But in reality obviously my example is better. His example asked me who I find better out of two cricketers averaging the SAME but one playing DOUBLE the length of time as the other. It's a no brainer.

You contradict your own previous statement - "In my opinion once you get to a certain amount of Tests or been playing the game for X amount of years, surely that's enough."

 

[smash84]

:

 

[NUFAN]

To me, this is like saying once you get to a certain batting average, surely that's enough.

The point I am making is that a longevity of 10 years is surely very good, but it can certainly be better - just like a batting average of 55 is great, but that's no 99.94.

The difference is that the defining aspect of being a professional cricketer is performance or standardised performance DURING a Cricketers career.

Obviously if you are a Shane Bond or a Vinod Kambli your longevity will be an issue. Why exactly did Pews decide to have a 10 Test requirement, but not a career spanning X number of days or years?

 

[Prince EWS]

The difference is that the defining aspect of being a professional cricketer is performance or standardised performance DURING a Cricketers career.

Obviously if you are a Shane Bond or a Vinod Kambli your longevity will be an issue. Why exactly did Pews decide to have a 10 Test requirement, but not a career spanning X number of days or years?

Sample size issues are different to longevity issues, for the 900th time.

 

[weldone]

Sample size issues are different to longevity issues, for the 900th time.

Haha seriously...

 

[NUFAN]

You contradict your own previous statement - "In my opinion once you get to a certain amount of Tests or been playing the game for X amount of years, surely that's enough."

That is not contradicting my previous statement?

Contradicting a previous statement would be:

Nufan @ 8.12 pm (300 words into his assignment)

In my opinion once you get to a certain amount of Tests or been playing the game for X amount of years, surely that's enough.

Nufan @ 9:46 pm (302 words into his assignment)

Every extra Test is vital. Cricketers should be judged on longevity. I love longevity..

haha......NUFAN I think I am now beginning to understand the meaning of Cevnoing a debate thanks to you mate

Cool story bro and get to your list so no one has to read this dribble.

 

[Ruckus]

Ultimately, longevity is listed separately to standardised averages on my charts. If you think I place too much importance on it then ignore it and just look at the standardised averages. It's there because it's what I value, and I've explained why. I'm not trying to change your mind here.

No doubt it's been brought up already, but on the charts you've made what exactly does the 'Value' column mean to you? Is it equivalent to how good a player is or which players are better, or is there a distinction you intended to make?

 

[weldone]

NUFAN, sample size and longevity are 2 different issues.

Below a certain sample size you can't judge a player by his performance in ANY way. For example, if a player ends his career with 7 wickets, you can't judge his performance based on that. It doesn't depend on whether his average is 4 or 90, you CANNOT judge the player based on that. This is the sample size issue. That's why we can't (or rather shouldn't) judge players like Mike Procter or Vijay Merchant from their test performances alone. This doesn't necessarily indicate a deficiency on a player's part, but this is a limitation of statistics.

Longevity, on the other hand, is a quality of a player. The difference between playing for 20 years and 10 years for example (or, between 2 years and 1 year for that matter).

 

[smash84]

Cool story bro and get to your list so no one has to read this dribble.

lol....you quoted this before my edit.....

 

[weldone]

That is not contradicting my previous statement?

Contradicting a previous statement would be:

Nufan @ 8.12 pm (300 words into his assignment)


Nufan @ 9:46 pm (302 words into his assignment)

Not funny man. First you say that after a certain number of years (a little higher than Bond or Kambli level, I assume?) longevity doesn't matter. Then you say comparing 20 years longevity with 10 years longevity is a no-brainer. If this is not contracdiction, I haven't seen one.

 

[NUFAN]

NUFAN, sample size and longevity are 2 different issues.

Below a certain sample size you can't judge a player by his performance in ANY way. For example, if a player ends his career with 7 wickets, you can't judge his performance based on that. It doesn't depend on whether his average is 4 or 90, you CANNOT judge the player based on that. This is the sample size issue. That's why we can't (or rather shouldn't) judge players like Mike Procter or Vijay Merchant from their test performances alone. This doesn't necessarily indicate a deficiency on a player's part, but this is a limitation of statistics.

Longevity, on the other hand, is a quality of a player. The difference between playing for 20 years and 10 years for example (or, between 2 years and 1 year for that matter).

I know what they mean. I, by mistake put a question mark before which made it sound like I didn't understand, but it was more of a rhetorical question.

 

[The Sean]

lol....you quoted this before my edit.....

Pretty sure you should be far too busy putting up the 20-11 thread to be commenting on any others.

 

[NUFAN]

Not funny man. First you say that after a certain number of years (a little higher than Bond or Kambli level, I assume?) longevity doesn't matter. Then you say comparing 20 years longevity with 10 years longevity is a no-brainer. If this is not contracdiction, I haven't seen one.

Why on earth would you assume that I mean only a little higher than a Bond or Kambli?

I have argued that a difference of 8 Tests (132 vs 124) and 15 years vs. 11 (although I'm not certain those years are correct) doesn't matter.

20 years vs. 10 years is double PLUS your earlier example compared two players with EQUAL records (50 average). So it was an absolute no brainer, that I and everyone with a brain would select.

If I had to say a figure anyone who finishes up in the top perhaps 25% of matches played (or length of time if you really must) has played enough longevity wise and should all be considered equal.

25% is a random number not set in stone, but it's more of an accurate indication of my feelings compared to your assumption.

 

[smash84]

Pretty sure you should be far too busy putting up the 20-11 thread to be commenting on any others.

haha.....you are too kind Sean.....It should be up in a few hours though....as soon as I am back home from work

 

[honestbharani]

Just think longevity is being a given a little too wuch weight, for me.. Otherwise, I am ok with the formula..

 

[honestbharani]

That's not valuing longevity; that's having a minimum sample size requirement. Playing for longer makes you more valuable.

The way you got your thinking around longevity seems to me that you expect these guys to keep averaging the same numbers every year. That does not happen.. Some people hold on to their standards after a certain age and some do not.. And value to the team depends on who the other 10 players in the team are, as much as anything else.. I think you are making the same mistake as those who keep harping on about the "standard of cricket".. Cricket is not played in vacuum..

 

[honestbharani]

PEWS sees it in this way - If he is the manager of a team for 15 years starting from today and he is given 2 options:

1. Play Walsh for next 15 years
2. Play McGrath for next 11 years,

he'll choose option 1 (considering McGrath's place will be taken by an average bowler for the 4 years after he retires).

so basically, he wont pick the best XI

 

[Prince EWS]

The way you got your thinking around longevity seems to me that you expect these guys to keep averaging the same numbers every year.

Quite the opposite in fact.

Some people hold on to their standards after a certain age and some do not

Indeed. And those who do are better, all other things given equal.