Meaningless and stupid cricket statistics

[ankitj]

No, I think it's the 19 grounds on which he collectively averages 100. It doesn't mean they're across all countries, the very high averages at some grounds balance out the less spectacular ones.

I know. I added matches adding up to 52. It doesn't have NZ.

 

[sumantra]

Runs in the 1st innings and 2nd innings...I think it was Ian Smith who was commenteting when Sehwag was batting, and a statistic showed up about his glorious first innings performance and a dismal second innings stats...Ian was quick to comment that if Sehwag was batting for his side, he would have wanted him to get as many runs as he possibly can in the first innings, so that he doesn't need to bat in the second innings at all...Ravi Shastri, his fellow commentator in the box who was trying to analyze those stats didn't say a single word after that...

 

[Coronis]

Haven't been watching it but looking at the Sri Lanka vs England test did give me a thought.... what do you guys think about conversion rate as a statistic in general? We do have two players at the opposite ends of the spectrum being amongst the best batsmen in the world at the moment. Virat Kohli, one of just 8 players to average above 50 with more centuries than fifties (27 to 23). Then we also have Joe Root, currently with just 18 centuries to 49 fifties, joining other notable players such as Clive Lloyd, AB de Villiers, Shiv Chanderpaul, Saeed Anwar, Alan Border, Frank Worrell, Bob Simpson and VVS Laxman as players with less than half the amount of centuries than fifties.

 

[Bijed]

Haven't been watching it but looking at the Sri Lanka vs England test did give me a thought.... what do you guys think about conversion rate as a statistic in general? We do have two players at the opposite ends of the spectrum being amongst the best batsmen in the world at the moment. Virat Kohli, one of just 8 players to average above 50 with more centuries than fifties (27 to 23). Then we also have Joe Root, currently with just 18 centuries to 49 fifties, joining other notable players such as Clive Lloyd, AB de Villiers, Shiv Chanderpaul, Saeed Anwar, Alan Border, Frank Worrell, Bob Simpson and VVS Laxman as players with less than half the amount of centuries than fifties.

Stats regarding distribution of a player's scores are meaningful imo, but I feel like 50s/100s rate is a bit simplistic (or at least is often interpreted in an overly simplistic way), although still a useful rule of thumb.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Haven't been watching it but looking at the Sri Lanka vs England test did give me a thought.... what do you guys think about conversion rate as a statistic in general? We do have two players at the opposite ends of the spectrum being amongst the best batsmen in the world at the moment. Virat Kohli, one of just 8 players to average above 50 with more centuries than fifties (27 to 23). Then we also have Joe Root, currently with just 18 centuries to 49 fifties, joining other notable players such as Clive Lloyd, AB de Villiers, Shiv Chanderpaul, Saeed Anwar, Alan Border, Frank Worrell, Bob Simpson and VVS Laxman as players with less than half the amount of centuries than fifties.

Joe Root's conversion rate is brought of an issue, and rightly so.

VVS Laxman (and a couple of the others up there) often batted lower (although Rahane bats 5 - not too different from VVS and has 12 centuries in 68 or something).

 

[_00_deathscar]

I'm all for the concept of the "all format player" ala Virat Kohli.
But "all format stats" put into one bundle - e.g. "Average of 48.58 in Tests, ODIs and T20s combined" is complete and utter horseshit.

 

[Bijed]

I'm all for the concept of the "all format player" ala Virat Kohli.
But "all format stats" put into one bundle - e.g. "Average of 48.58 in Tests, ODIs and T20s combined" is complete and utter horse****.

I agree on cross-format averages being bull, but I actually don't mind cross-format aggregate records like total centuries/wickets/whatever as much as some people seem to. Like, I don't think they're at all a good stat to use for comparing players but they're straightforward enough to just be an inoffensive piece of trivia.

 

[Dendarii]

Haven't been watching it but looking at the Sri Lanka vs England test did give me a thought.... what do you guys think about conversion rate as a statistic in general? We do have two players at the opposite ends of the spectrum being amongst the best batsmen in the world at the moment. Virat Kohli, one of just 8 players to average above 50 with more centuries than fifties (27 to 23). Then we also have Joe Root, currently with just 18 centuries to 49 fifties, joining other notable players such as Clive Lloyd, AB de Villiers, Shiv Chanderpaul, Saeed Anwar, Alan Border, Frank Worrell, Bob Simpson and VVS Laxman as players with less than half the amount of centuries than fifties.

You would need to exclude not out 50s. Simply comparing all 50s and 100s would count against batsmen who had an undefeated half-century when the innings came to end and they were preventing from going on by the circumstances of the game, and the batsmen penalised there would tend to be those who batted lower down the order.

 

[Shady Slim]

Haven't been watching it but looking at the Sri Lanka vs England test did give me a thought.... what do you guys think about conversion rate as a statistic in general? We do have two players at the opposite ends of the spectrum being amongst the best batsmen in the world at the moment. Virat Kohli, one of just 8 players to average above 50 with more centuries than fifties (27 to 23). Then we also have Joe Root, currently with just 18 centuries to 49 fifties, joining other notable players such as Clive Lloyd, AB de Villiers, Shiv Chanderpaul, Saeed Anwar, Alan Border, Frank Worrell, Bob Simpson and VVS Laxman as players with less than half the amount of centuries than fifties.

i think it's a good tool in the academic ATG discussions people have here to separate hall of very good batsmen from hall of fame batsmen, but it's not good as a tool for discrediting a batsman full stop - to use the root example, conversion rate is what keeps root from being in that elite smith kw kohli tier of bats, but to use it to say he's bad or something would be ridic

 

[Engle]

It's like the year 2020. People think that once we've gone past it, things will somehow get better. It's just a Julian calendar ticking along.

A century is nothing more than moving from 2 digits to 3 digits. A batsman can score 70, 80 runs in a Test for a total of 150 runs and get less attention than another who scores 110, 20 for a total of 130 runs (ah, but he scored a century)

 

[AndrewB]

The highest score that any batsman has made more than once in a Test is 203.
This record is held jointly by Chanderpaul and Shoaib Mohammad, who each scored 203 twice. Neither made another Test double hundred, and all four innings were in fact 203*.

 

[Starfighter]

Since January 2010, Anderson has taken 452 wickets in 112 tests at 24.15. with 22 five wicket hauls - this represents 72% of his entire test match career. He is averaging just over 4 wickets per test. He has taken his best test figures (7-42) and match figures (10-45) since 2010 also

Perfect example here. By excluding the part of a players career where they were bad, they can be made to look better. Nobel Prize-worthy stuff.

 

[Line and Length]

Perfect example here. By excluding the part of a players career where they were bad, they can be made to look better. Nobel Prize-worthy stuff.

I can't entirely agree with your analysis. This sort of statistic is inclusive of a large portion of a player's career and is an indication of performances over a complete period. Many players begin slowly and/or continue beyond their peak. There is nothing wrong with looking at a complete and extensive time frame which includes all performances within that time frame. In Anderson's case, the given figures cover more than a decade - much longer than a lot of players' entire careers.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Not entirely stupid or meaningless

 

[trundler]

Not entirely stupid or meaningless
View attachment 26860

Horseshoe theory in action

 

[AndrewB]

I don't know if this stat (from George Dobell's Cricinfo article about how bad England have been in away Tests) is meaningless and stupid; it's certainly misleading: "Between December 1986 and February 1990, they didn't win away at all."

(a) That's trying to sound like 4 seasons of failures in away Tests: in fact it's 1 dead rubber in the 1986-7 Ashes (which England had already won), 7 Tests (6 draws and 1 loss) in 1987-8, and - that's it. Between March 1988 and February 1990, they didn't play away at all.
(b) In 1986-1989, England only won a single home Test - against Sri Lanka - out of 23, so it's misleading to hint that playing away was a particular problem for England at that point.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Dobell is a sycophantic little turd, doesn't surprise me one bit but pumping the tyres of the current English team is more important to him than being accurate

 

[Prince EWS]

Dobell is a sycophantic little turd, doesn't surprise me one bit but pumping the tyres of the current English team is more important to him than being accurate

Well it was accurate tbf, it was just also misleading.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Well it was accurate tbf, it was just also misleading.

True, frankly any excuse for a bit of Dobell bashing is good enough for me though

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I don't know if this stat (from George Dobell's Cricinfo article about how bad England have been in away Tests) is meaningless and stupid; it's certainly misleading: "Between December 1986 and February 1990, they didn't win away at all."

(a) That's trying to sound like 4 seasons of failures in away Tests: in fact it's 1 dead rubber in the 1986-7 Ashes (which England had already won), 7 Tests (6 draws and 1 loss) in 1987-8, and - that's it. Between March 1988 and February 1990, they didn't play away at all.
(b) In 1986-1989, England only won a single home Test - against Sri Lanka - out of 23, so it's misleading to hint that playing away was a particular problem for England at that point.

me, at the 2023 World Cup: Wow Australia haven't won this tournament in 8 years