Stumped!

[JOJOXI]

Best game of our season by far for Charminster - https://www.stumpedgame.com/experts.php?Match=1654150

Won a T20 against an opponent who outrated us by 26k

 

[Charlie B]

Jura have never gone so far in the CUP... I realise (now!) we are not good enough to play this long without huge ramifications for the fitness of our squad. I know i should bow out but you only get once chance in 10 probably to go this far so i continue to play my best team. It is at the big expense of SOD, T20 and DEV also (because DEv players end up playing t20 or OD when they shouldn't)

I will be very fortunate if i can somehow keep the CUP efforts going and not end up being relegated in one of the other divisions which was a goal for me to avoid this season (I didnt have down making Round 6 of the CUP)

I now see the wisdom of something I remember Zor ax typing about having a squad of 24 until he goes out of the cup... then trimming it to 22

Tt makes sense as well financially as you are making $x a fortnight extra from the game... but too late for that now- I'm still learning learning by doing and making mistakes but try to learn from reading and listening also !

 

[Jarquis]

Oh now I see why! Well it would be a mean chap who denied you the right to enjoy a win against the team 8th in the world and had a superior XPV (although his WR is based on his OD rather than T20 skills, though he looks like he will take the title)

I'm happy to have edged in front of the Outlaws- but i guess they , I , you and Real Madrid are all in the mix (more or less ) to take the last relegation spot - so a Jim win would have certainly suited us better ...but fair play to your team for a crucial 4 points

You never came back on Post 8,833/8.834 btw ?

I had nothing to add.

I admire the effort but think it’s a complete nonstarter

 

[Charlie B]

I had nothing to add.

I admire the effort but think it’s a complete nonstarter

What is?

 

[Jarquis]

What is?

The ‘math’

 

[Jarquis]

Khattak up to RFM now. Do I keep going?

 

[StephenZA]

Khattak up to RFM now. Do I keep going?

what’s his skill set? If he has a decent movement skill then keep him FM. If he has low movement and high variation take him to Fast… it makes a difference.

 

[StephenZA]

Khattak up to RFM now. Do I keep going?

what’s his skill set? If he has a decent movement skill then keep him FM. If he has low movement and high variation take him to Fast… it makes a difference.

Just looked at Khattak skill set. FM is probably perfect for him.

 

[cnerd123]

is Younis really that good? Seems the sort of Badenhorst/Murdoch type high-SS player that perpetually averages 30. His bowling's, ehhh

Cheeky 4-fer vs AXI on their home turf in ZCC's 5 wicket win today #BQDoesNotMatter

 

[Jarquis]

what’s his skill set? If he has a decent movement skill then keep him FM. If he has low movement and high variation take him to Fast… it makes a difference.

I guess you could say that. Appreciate the advice though

 

[Jarquis]

Young pops in Att and Exp. Getting closer to a cap.

 

[Charlie B]

The ‘math’

So you are saying you do not agree that is a correct basis for evaluating fielding levels in terms of the number of runs they might impact a match by?

If so - the 'non-starter' of the 'math', is it the concept itself ? or that something I have calculated has been performed incorrectly?

You begin with 'wut' but that is rather a generic question!- I can try and answer it if you give me a bit more to go on rather than dismissing it in one syllable

 

[Jarquis]

So you are saying you do not agree that is a correct basis for evaluating fielding levels in terms of the number of runs they might impact a match by?

If so - the 'non-starter' of the 'math' is it the concept itself or that something I have calculated has been performed incorrectly?

You bean with 'wut' but that is rather a generic question- I can try and answer it if you give me a bit more to go on

The concept itself.

Catches per match alone tells you nothing.

 

[Charlie B]

The concept itself.

Catches per match alone tells you nothing.

Tells you nothing about what? It would be great if you could be a little more fulsome in your answers - I

To kick-off, catches per match tells you how many catches per match a fielder takes which means you have a direct comparison to another player in your squad at a generic level... there can be more to explore than that - but it is a simple beginning to refute 'tells you nothing'

 

[Jarquis]

Tells you nothing about what? It would be great if you could be a little more fulsome in your answers - I might have to purchase a metal detector

They tell you nothing about a fielder’s ability, utility or anything else. There are too many variables with regards to captaincy, field placements and opportunities.

If you want to track the number of chances that each fielder has, the proportion they take and the difficulty of them, go for it.

The non-catching element of fielding far outweighs the catching part too. So unless you’re tracking midfields, overthrows, missed run out attempts and everything else you might as well just consult an rng.

What you posited demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how cricket operates as a sport. It’s cute but from an actual utility POV it isn’t worth the characters I spent on it in my initial response.

 

[Charlie B]

They tell you nothing about a fielder’s ability, utility or anything else. There are too many variables with regards to captaincy, field placements and opportunities.

If you want to track the number of chances that each fielder has, the proportion they take and the difficulty of them, go for it.

The non-catching element of fielding far outweighs the catching part too. So unless you’re tracking midfields, overthrows, missed run out attempts and everything else you might as well just consult an rng.

What you posited demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how cricket operates as a sport. It’s cute but from an actual utility POV it isn’t worth the characters I spent on it in my initial response.

Why so aggressive? If you don't value it then why post, just let it go as most of us do the posts here ? Is there any needfor such vitriol, what is your objective , what response are you hoping for ?

We are a small group of people with different ideas, thought and energies for playing an online game (which is vaguely modelled on cricket) We can all pour holes into most of the posts here - so much anger!

It is a great pity to see this

 

[Jarquis]

Why so aggressive? If you don't value it then why post, just let it go as most of us do the posts here ? Is there any needfor such vitriol, what is your objective , what response are you hoping for ?

We are a small group of people with different ideas, thought and energies for playing an online game (which is vaguely modelled on cricket) We can all pour holes into most of the posts here - so much anger!

It is a great pity to see this

I quite literally did that when I didn’t respond to your follow up. Or when I described it as a non-started but apparently that wasn’t a sufficient explanation for you.

It’s not at all aggressive. You’re welcome to continue to do as you’d like, it makes not one bit of difference to me.

But if you’re going to make multiple follow up posts and ask me to ‘be more fulsome’ then I’ll tell you how fruitless i think the whole exercise is.

 

[Charlie B]

But you quite literally didn't !

You said 'wut' - but did not choose to explain why, perhaps attempting to intimate it was beneath you and merely wanted to register your disdain (we can never be 100% certain as all words spoken are subjective to the writer, which is why I asked you to elucidate your one word post, to clarify what you might have felt- you have now made that quite clear).

Your last post continues to say 'your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of how cricket operates as a sport' and 'it isn't worth the characters I spent on it in my initial response' (which is 3)

To me that is indeed aggressive and strongly intimates that 'the time and energies of Jarquis, (in the opinion of Jarquis) are more worthy and important than my own (this would be a very difficult trail to follow- you are in effect setting up a court to judge the value of your life and time against mine!, good luck with that!)

No one knows how knowledgeable members here are on cricket - this is a place of anonymity. Should yours be greater than mine then more power to your elbow, it is not a prerequisite for playing Stumped or posting here.

Should you be Ben Stokes posting in his lunch break then we bow to your knowledge of cricket. All we do have to go on is your performance in some tiny little online management game loosely based on cricket (that is meant to be a retreat , not a place to find high-minded keyboard warriors). In that respect the Astronauts and the Pirates in your near 2 year membership can hardly be said to have gone into orbit, and haven't yet troubled the scorers in our peaceful CWC competitions (not aggressive just the only objective information we do have to go on, but anyway ultimately unimportant and ability, cricket knowledge , life skills , achievements whatever should not be the basis of whether we are allowed to post to the CWC forum without 'put downs)

If you wish to be 'cute' and 'clever' (your words) in posting responses of lofty condemnation to anything posted here then that is going to be aggressive and antagonistic. I await your future posts demonstrating as you call it 'your fundamental understanding of how cricket operates as a sport' and how that converts into Stumped- they will certainly be an incredible learning opportunity based on the level of expectation you have created in regards your wisdom.

Should I disagree I will choose to say nothing or I will probably respond, thank you for the time and post, whilst politely querying elements of it or making the effort to consider it from another perspective. The posts here are varied in their nature, if you don't like em, leave em!

Personally I will not seek out to denigrate anyone or belittle their posts but at the same time I would not be prepared for them to do the same to me - CWC, Stumped or not - that seems to be how it normally operates here

 

[Jarquis]

Because I didn’t feel it valued a conversation which is why I didn’t respond to your initial seeking of clarification.

it says nothing about how I value the importance of my time over yours. Merely the importance of the conversation and how we choose to spend our time.

i love how you say ‘all words are subjective to the writer’ and then proceed to say ‘to me that is intended’. Little bit contradictory no?

please do tell me more about this ‘court’ im attempting to set up though?

also, I’m not sure if you’re aware but this is a cricket forum where lots of people do post about cricket and so there is at least some public ally available information regarding people’s knowledge of the sport.

at no point have I ever professed to be an expert on anything. However, I’m now curious - if you were to recruit a team of super fielders and your best fielder became your worst fielder, do you think his CPM would remain constant?

again, I did leave your follow up well alone and when you brought it back up did explicitly tell you I felt it was a non-starter and not worthy of any further discussion. Apparently that wasn’t enough.

 

[Charlie B]

Because I didn’t feel it valued a conversation which is why I didn’t respond to your initial seeking of clarification.

If it did not value a conversation from you, then why comment? - what was the purpose of your 'wut'?

it says nothing about how I value the importance of my time over yours. Merely the importance of the conversation and how we choose to spend our time.

- now you are saying the conversation is important? If you are commenting on how we choose to spend our time that is a discussion on the relative values of time

i love how you say ‘all words are subjective to the writer’ and then proceed to say ‘to me that is intended’. Little bit contradictory no?

Not contradictory. I am merely explaining to you that all opinions are subjective and then explaining the meaning of my words to try and create more clarity to subjectivity.

please do tell me more about this ‘court’ im attempting to set up though?

You are not attempting to set up any court- please re-read

also, I’m not sure if you’re aware but this is a cricket forum where lots of people do post about cricket and so there is at least some public ally available information regarding people’s knowledge of the sport.

I am aware of it. Perhaps there is publicly - my personal focus is on our small sub-group and i am not going to trawl through all your posts to ascertain your cricket knowledge, least of all as it is irrelevant to the right to post, politeness and etiquette. At the highest level it is not really of much importance what anyone says here in comparison to how it is said. If you wish to mark your territory as a cricket expert then perhaps set up a kahoot with interested combatants

at no point have I ever professed to be an expert on anything. However, I’m now curious - if you were to recruit a team of super fielders and your best fielder became your worst fielder, do you think his CPM would remain constant?

Please re-read your posts. You will understand if I don't engage in now satisfying your curiousity. Before there was no curiousity, only a need to be dismissive, this volte-face would appear to be somewhat 'thin ice'

again, I did leave your follow up well alone and when you brought it back up did explicitly tell you I felt it was a non-starter and not worthy of any further discussion. Apparently that wasn’t enough.

My follow up was to ask you what 'wut' meant. Not much can be deciphered from 3 letters so almost certainly (and not unreasonably) I have concluded the motive was otherwise - that we have already discussed. The nature and the tone of your further responses have also already been discussed.