Superior Bowler: Vaas or Gillespie?

[Richard]

Except it doesn't mean that, because averaging 20 in your best performances isn't that good, and having an average 10 better than your career effort in your best 50% isn't that remarkable when your career average is 30. The same would doubtlessly be true of Stuart Macgill for example.

I mean, if you take just the innings in which Glenn McGrath has taken a five wicket haul, he has 150 wickets @ 10.03. Quite remarkable, isn't it? It's also, in every sense, utterly meaningless, because you can pull out any bowler you like and their five wicket hauls would look pretty good. In fact, I'd say McGrath's would be better than most as he has only conceded more than 100 runs in an innings where he took 5 once, but still having a good average in your best performances alone is hardly a rarity. I can absolutely guarantee you that McGrath's best 50% is better than Vaas's best 50%, which clearly completely debunks your idea that Vaas at his best is better than McGrath. If McGrath's best is better than Vaas's best, and McGrath's worst is better than Vaas's worst, how can Vaas be anywhere near as good as McGrath? He can't, obviously.

And I repeat, for maybe the 1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th time - I'll try it like this to see if it helps - I have not once said Vaas is better than McGrath.
I'd say averaging 20 in your normal performance - which is what good Vaas does - is exceptional - we're talking about 40-odd matches, not just 8 or 9.
You still do not seem to have grasped the basic fact that we're not just talking about the "best performances" - we're talking about half a career. It's not too far a cry from splitting Botham's career into two pieces (which you have agreed on the legitimacy of), just that Botham's all came in one go.

 

[Richard]

Please tell me how this shows that Vaas is a very polarised bowler.

For comparison: Jason's Manhattan

I don't think that graph has large enough scales to illustrate it.
What is it - 1 wickets per 2 millimetres?
If wickets were bigger you'd see the pattern better.
A CricInfo StatsGuru breakdown - even series-by-series - gives a better illustration.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And I repeat, for maybe the 1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th time - I'll try it like this to see if it helps - I have not once said Vaas is better than McGrath.
I'd say averaging 20 in your normal performance - which is what good Vaas does - is exceptional - we're talking about 40-odd matches, not just 8 or 9.
You still do not seem to have grasped the basic fact that we're not just talking about the "best performances" - we're talking about half a career. It's not too far a cry from splitting Botham's career into two pieces (which you have agreed on the legitimacy of), just that Botham's all came in one go.

No, you have said that Vaas at his best is as good as McGrath, which is only true if what you're saying is Vaas at his best is as good as McGrath at his worst. This is true, just like it is true for, say, Stuart Macgill and Shane Warne. Macgill outbowls Warne sometimes, and when he is bowling well he's an extremely good bowler, as good as Warne is on an average sort of a day. However, Warne is a much, much better bowler than Macgill overall, because picking out someone's best performances and comparing them to someone elses worst performances is ridiculous and proves nothing at all. If you apply special criteria to a bowler, you ahve to apply it to other bowlers in comparison or it means nothing.

Regarding Botham, the situation was wholly different because it wasn't some sort of magical transformation from one game to another and back again. Ian Botham in 1979 or 1981 was a completely different bowler to what he was in 1987 due to injuries, fitness and all sorts of other things. He changed, and he never changed back, therefore it's worth considering how good he was before his problems reduced his value. This isn't true of Vaas at all, just sometimes he gets a lot of wickets and sometimes he doesn't. Obviously if Vaas averaged 20 up until 1999 or something and now averaged 30, you'd have a perfectly reasonable case. However, all you are saying now is that if you ignore every single instance of Vaas not doing well... he always does well, which is so daft and self-evident that one would have to wonder why you bothered saying it at all.

 

[Steulen]

The graphs are good enough for my screen / eyes. Which pattern should be obviously visible in it? Because for the life of me I don't see it. I see good and bad performances, as you'd see in any bowler's graph, but I don't see that polarisation.

 

[luckyeddie]

I don't think that graph has large enough scales to illustrate it.
What is it - 1 wickets per 2 millimetres?
If wickets were bigger you'd see the pattern better.
A CricInfo StatsGuru breakdown - even series-by-series - gives a better illustration.

What Richard means is that if statistics do not support his viewpoint, then naturally they are discounted.

 

[Steulen]

Indeed. let's do some cold hard facts then.

Of course, if Richard's polarisation theory is correct, you'd say that the clear difference between Vaas and a non-polarised bowler like Gillespie would be in the standard deviation of number of wickets taken per innings. After all, if Vaas either throws pies or bombshells, he will take none or a truckload, resulting in a lot of data being located far from the mean, i.e. a high sd. Both Gillespie and Vaas have a mean wicket per innings count of nearly 2, Vaas takes 1.95 wickets, Gillespie 1.92 wickets. The interesting bit, the SD: Vaas 1.66, Gillespie 1.53. Hardly different, unless you want to print 0.13 in font size 24.

Additonally, polarisation should be clearly visible in a sorted low-to-high bar graph. Attached you'll find these graphs for both Vaas and Gillespie, with innings sorted from lowest to highest number of wickets.

Conclusion: sorry Richard, but no

 

[Legglancer]

Indeed. let's do some cold hard facts then.

Of course, if Richard's polarisation theory is correct, you'd say that the clear difference between Vaas and a non-polarised bowler like Gillespie would be in the standard deviation of number of wickets taken per innings. After all, if Vaas either throws pies or bombshells, he will take none or a truckload, resulting in a lot of data being located far from the mean, i.e. a high sd. Both Gillespie and Vaas have a mean wicket per innings count of nearly 2, Vaas takes 1.95 wickets, Gillespie 1.92 wickets. The interesting bit, the SD: Vaas 1.66, Gillespie 1.53. Hardly different, unless you want to print 0.13 in font size 24.

Additonally, polarisation should be clearly visible in a sorted low-to-high bar graph. Attached you'll find these graphs for both Vaas and Gillespie, with innings sorted from lowest to highest number of wickets.

Conclusion: sorry Richard, but no

OK I don't get this ..... can you please simplyfy for ******** folk like me ?

 

[Steulen]

OK I don't get this ..... can you please simplyfy for ******** folk like me ?

Sure. Richard says that Vaas is a polarised bowler. This means he's either superior-toMcGrath brilliant, or abysmal. This should mean that he either takes a truckload of wickets, or none at all. Say, either not a single wicket, or always 4,5,6 wickets.

Statistically, this can be expressed as the standard deviation. For example, if you have a bowler who takes 2 wickets every single innings, he would take 2 wickets on average (d'oh), and all individual innings would be exactly equal to that average. This would result in a standard deviation of 0: all measurements are equal to the average. In the case of Mr. Polarised, who takes no wickets half the time and 4 wickets the other half of his innings, you would still get an average of 2 wickets, but here you would see a difference of 2 between that average and each individual innings, so the 'average difference' is 2; an indication that the results of the innings are more widespread and diverse than in the case of the first bowler. The more extreme the polarisation, the bigger the 'average difference' to the average
The standard deviation (SD) is a little bit more complicated than just the 'average difference', but it says the same; how widespread are your measurements? The higher the SD, the more widespread. For Vaas to be a polarised bowler, this SD would have to be a lot higher than for a 'normal' bowler. Which it isn't.

 

[Legglancer]

Sure. Richard says that Vaas is a polarised bowler. This means he's either superior-toMcGrath brilliant, or abysmal. This should mean that he either takes a truckload of wickets, or none at all. Say, either not a single wicket, or always 4,5,6 wickets.

Statistically, this can be expressed as the standard deviation. For example, if you have a bowler who takes 2 wickets every single innings, he would take 2 wickets on average (d'oh), and all individual innings would be exactly equal to that average. This would result in a standard deviation of 0: all measurements are equal to the average. In the case of Mr. Polarised, who takes no wickets half the time and 4 wickets the other half of his innings, you would still get an average of 2 wickets, but here you would see a difference of 2 between that average and each individual innings, so the 'average difference' is 2; an indication that the results of the innings are more widespread and diverse than in the case of the first bowler. The more extreme the polarisation, the bigger the 'average difference' to the average
The standard deviation (SD) is a little bit more complicated than just the 'average difference', but it says the same; how widespread are your measurements? The higher the SD, the more widespread. For Vaas to be a polarised bowler, this SD would have to be a lot higher than for a 'normal' bowler. Which it isn't.

Thank you kindly Sir ..... What is the equation for Standard Deviation ? is it = dy/dx ?

 

[Anil]

The rubbish Vaas says nothing about the good one. The good one says nothing about the rubbish one. Understand?

oh yes it does....it says very clearly that he doesn't have one of the essential hall-marks of greatness, ie consistency....that's what separates him from the truly great ones like murali & mcgrath....vaas is a good bowler, at his best very good, to say he rivals mcgrath in any way, shape or form is ridiculous in the extreme...

 

[Richard]

Oh, yes, obviously.
But the good Vaas is better than McGrath.
The bad Vaas is worse than just about anyone who's ever played Test-cricket.

 

[Richard]

Indeed. let's do some cold hard facts then.

Of course, if Richard's polarisation theory is correct, you'd say that the clear difference between Vaas and a non-polarised bowler like Gillespie would be in the standard deviation of number of wickets taken per innings. After all, if Vaas either throws pies or bombshells, he will take none or a truckload, resulting in a lot of data being located far from the mean, i.e. a high sd. Both Gillespie and Vaas have a mean wicket per innings count of nearly 2, Vaas takes 1.95 wickets, Gillespie 1.92 wickets. The interesting bit, the SD: Vaas 1.66, Gillespie 1.53. Hardly different, unless you want to print 0.13 in font size 24.

Additonally, polarisation should be clearly visible in a sorted low-to-high bar graph. Attached you'll find these graphs for both Vaas and Gillespie, with innings sorted from lowest to highest number of wickets.

Conclusion: sorry Richard, but no

Actually Gillespie is one of few who actually do have extreme inconsistency (though not as bad as Vaas').
I still don't understand what these graphs express, but maybe if you do it again for McGrath compared to Vaas - or Allan Donald, for instance - you might get a better picture?

 

[Swervy]

Oh, yes, obviously.
But the good Vaas is better than McGrath.
The bad Vaas is worse than just about anyone who's ever played Test-cricket.

I find it all so funny

 

[Richard]

What Richard means is that if statistics do not support his viewpoint, then naturally they are discounted.

Obviously.
As you demonstrated with your McGrath-Harmison-economy-rate thing.

 

[Richard]

I find it all so funny

Mainly because you make the stupid mistake of dismissing the idea that Vaas is either rubbish or fantastic.
As demonstrated by that ridiculous post you made a while ago about "the commentators don't say 'here comes good Vaas' etc."

 

[Richard]

No, you have said that Vaas at his best is as good as McGrath, which is only true if what you're saying is Vaas at his best is as good as McGrath at his worst. This is true, just like it is true for, say, Stuart Macgill and Shane Warne. Macgill outbowls Warne sometimes, and when he is bowling well he's an extremely good bowler, as good as Warne is on an average sort of a day. However, Warne is a much, much better bowler than Macgill overall, because picking out someone's best performances and comparing them to someone elses worst performances is ridiculous and proves nothing at all. If you apply special criteria to a bowler, you ahve to apply it to other bowlers in comparison or it means nothing.

No, you don't, because you can only apply something where it fits.
Almost no bowlers can have their careers divided into two halves and find them so polarised.
Of course you can do it for any bowler but with, for instance, MacGill post-Adelaide2000\01 it fits into about 3 games of one and 14 of the other.
And you might get similar results, on the opposite extreme, if you did it to McGrath.
Hardly any bowler ever has had a career where they've been almost always either brilliant or utterly terrible.
And only for such bowlers is there any point in doing what I've said time and again to do for Vaas.

Regarding Botham, the situation was wholly different because it wasn't some sort of magical transformation from one game to another and back again. Ian Botham in 1979 or 1981 was a completely different bowler to what he was in 1987 due to injuries, fitness and all sorts of other things. He changed, and he never changed back, therefore it's worth considering how good he was before his problems reduced his value. This isn't true of Vaas at all, just sometimes he gets a lot of wickets and sometimes he doesn't. Obviously if Vaas averaged 20 up until 1999 or something and now averaged 30, you'd have a perfectly reasonable case. However, all you are saying now is that if you ignore every single instance of Vaas not doing well... he always does well, which is so daft and self-evident that one would have to wonder why you bothered saying it at all.

Why does it have to be any different because Botham was a chronologically structured case rather than going from one extreme one game to another the next?

 

[Swervy]

Mainly because you make the stupid mistake of dismissing the idea that Vaas is either rubbish or fantastic.
As demonstrated by that ridiculous post you made a while ago about "the commentators don't say 'here comes good Vaas' etc."

But you cant just say the the 'good' vaas is a better bowler than McGrath...Vaas is Vaas, the fact that he is inconsistant where McGrath is metronomically consistant suggests McGrath is a better bowler than Vaas

Maybe go and ask a handful of test cricketers what they think...is Vaas at his best (where conditions have to suit him) a better bowler than McGrath at his best..I would be surprised if anyone would say Vaas.

 

[Swervy]

Why does it have to be any different because Botham was a chronologically structured case rather than going from one extreme one game to another the next?

Because the general theory about Botham is that as his fitness and such got worse so did his ability to swing the ball, and so he became a much more one dimensional bar the odd performance...Vaas is inconsistant within a timescale in the order of ever few weeks..its nothing to do with his own physical health, it just that he is an inherently inconsistant bowler, who when conditions favour him, does well, if he is bowling well...and if conditions arent in his favour and he is bowling well still..he still isnt overly dangerous (well 9 out of ten times anyway)

thats the difference

 

[Richard]

But you cant just say the the 'good' vaas is a better bowler than McGrath...Vaas is Vaas, the fact that he is inconsistant where McGrath is metronomically consistant suggests McGrath is a better bowler than Vaas

I really, really wish people would stop going on about that. If you take them overall McGrath is obviously miles superior, but taking Vaas overall is really rather silly, because of his tendency to bowl totally differently all the time. There is no one "normal" for him - there are two.
One is about as good as you get, the other is about as poor as you get.

Maybe go and ask a handful of test cricketers what they think...is Vaas at his best (where conditions have to suit him) a better bowler than McGrath at his best..I would be surprised if anyone would say Vaas.

Depends - hardly anyone would admit that McGrath between 2001 and 2004 wasn't that good because so many still managed to get out to him.
Asking opposition isn't generally the best way to judge, because it's so open to mistaken feelings.

 

[Richard]

Because the general theory about Botham is that as his fitness and such got worse so did his ability to swing the ball, and so he became a much more one dimensional bar the odd performance...Vaas is inconsistant within a timescale in the order of ever few weeks..its nothing to do with his own physical health, it just that he is an inherently inconsistant bowler, who when conditions favour him, does well, if he is bowling well...and if conditions arent in his favour and he is bowling well still..he still isnt overly dangerous (well 9 out of ten times anyway)

thats the difference

Vaas has absolutely nothing on conditons - indeed, conditions which favour him are those which favour almost no other seamer.
Most seamers prefer green seamers - if there was a set of conditions which favoured Vaas it'd be slow, low, turning pitches.
If he's poor he can waste any conditions, if he's good he can exploit any conditions, however unfriendly they are to other bowlers.