The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[CricAddict]

At least that is better than just some biased cricket historians and writers getting an orgasm writing about his favourite cricketer.

I am not saying statistics are everything but it is better than blindly listening to cricket historians.

Stats are stats. You need not like them. But they provide a decent idea. With a decent sample size, they would give you an idea how good a cricketer.

You take stats as a supporting point but your view should actually come from qualitative measures like watching them or hearing/reading people who have watched them.

 

[Logan]

I watch cricket because I enjoy the sport. I have been watching cricket for over 25 years and can to an extent assess the cricketers I have seen.


Cricket historians would have loved a particular player and will biased towards them. Are you saying they will never be biased?

 

[Logan]

You take stats as a supporting point but your view should actually come from qualitative measures like watching them or hearing/reading people who have watched them.

I can assess people who I have watched.

What about cricketers I have never seen?

I am just saying cricket writers in the past would have been biased towards certain cricketers for many reasons.

 

[Spark]

I watch cricket because I enjoy the sport. I have been watching cricket for over 25 years and can to an extent assess the cricketers I have seen.


Cricket historians would have loved a particular player and will biased towards them. Are you saying they will never be biased?

Quantified motivated reasonining is still motivated reasoning, and generally much less self-aware. The careless use of stats is no better and is usually much worse than the very simple "I watched this bloke play a lot and thought he was really, really good.

You take stats as a supporting point but your view should actually come from qualitative measures like watching them or hearing/reading people who have watched them.

Exactly. Lamp-post, illumination, support etc.

 

[Logan]

The general consensus on the best innings of this decade is Perera’s 153*.

Wisden rated Stokes innings as the best.

Of course, there is a bias because they are an English cricket magazine.

 

[Spark]

The general consensus on the best innings of this decade is Perera’s 153*.

Wisden rated Stokes innings as the best.

Of course, there is a bias because they are an English cricket magazine.

Is it? You've done a comprehensive study on the matter, I presume, given how confident a declaration this is? There are no valid reasons to rate Stokes' innings as better other than pro-English bias?

 

[Logan]

Perera’s knock > Stokes’ knock

Simple as that

You can quote Wisden or any other acclaimed cricket historian. It doesn’t matter

 

[srbhkshk]

Quantified motivated reasonining is still motivated reasoning, and generally much less self-aware. The careless use of stats is no better and is usually much worse than the very simple "I watched this bloke play a lot and thought he was really, really good.

Not that I disagree but my main problem with "I saw him play" is that a Mark Waugh will typically be rated higher than a Steve Waugh.

 

[honestbharani]

But a Mark Waugh won't be rated over a Ricky Ponting.

 

[Spark]

Not that I disagree but my main problem with "I saw him play" is that a Mark Waugh will typically be rated higher than a Steve Waugh.

Hmm, how often does this happen, though, outside of bitter types like Shane Warne et al?

In general I just find it baffling that something so simple as "I watched him play" is just flat-out discounted in favour of statistical analysis that I find extremely simplistic and a long, long way from robust. It's not something I find impressive when analysing current players, I don't find it convincing with historical players either. As ever, these matters are complex and a variety of viewpoints - some of which are qualitative and non-quantitative - are ideal.

 

[Coronis]

Perera’s knock > Stokes’ knock

Simple as that

You can quote Wisden or any other acclaimed cricket historian. It doesn’t matter

As I didn’t watch either knock, and the highlights of both were great, could you please give me a detailed statistical analysis to confirm this point of view?

 

[Spark]

But a Mark Waugh won't be rated over a Ricky Ponting.

Exactly. My personal view on cricket stats these days is that they are, at best "extremely fuzzy" and very good at giving you a very rough idea, but mostly useless in making the sorts of very fine distinctions - and let's be completely honest, the distinctions we're making here are all extremely fine. To get very technical, "stats" represents the first-order or even zeroth-order term in the expansion, and you have to do a lot more work than just looking at averages, or averages in countries, or averages against countries, to get any sort of truly accurate representation of how good a cricketer was.

 

[Logan]

1. Stokes did it at home. Perera did it in SA.

2. Perera came to crease at 52/3.

Stokes came at 141/3 with Root was on 50+.

3. SL’s Top 6 without Perera scored 78 runs i.e 25% of the target.

England’s Top 6 without Stokes scored 178 runs i.e 50% of the target.


4. Perera added 78 runs for the last wicket with Fernando.

Stokes added 76 runs for the last wicket with Leach.


5. Perera did it against Steyn, Rabada, Philander and Oliver. All the 4 bowlers averaged less than 25.

Stokes did it against Cummins, Hazzelwood, Lyon and Pattison. Only Cummins averaged less than 25.

6. Perera scored 153* and the second highest score 48.

Stokes scored 135 and the second highest score was 77.

7. Perera’s won resulted in the first ever Test series in SA by an Asian team.

 

[Logan]

To get very technical, "stats" represents the first-order or even zeroth-order term in the expansion, and you have to do a lot more work than just looking at averages, or averages in countries, or averages against countries, to get any sort of truly accurate representation of how good a cricketer was.

For a batsman the top three(not the only three) categories to judge IMO

1. Overall Average

2. Average against different opponents

3. Average in Different countries

 

[Spark]

For a batsman the top three(not the only three) categories to judge IMO

1. Overall Average

2. Average against different opponents

3. Average in Different countries

Yeah like I've said several times now, I think this is just a really boring and unhelpful way to analyse cricket.

 

[AndrewB]

Why not? Economy rate of 5 per over in the era he played in is pretty good for a 5th bowler.

For matches where players actually bowled as a 5th bowler in th 2000s, it’s about on a par with Tendulkar, Sehwag and Collingwood, and is distinctly worse than Afridi, Jayasuriya, Gayle and Klusener. It’s not bad for a batsman who bowls a bit, but would be poor for a specialist.

 

[Logan]

That’s your opinion. I respect it. For me, that’s the the best minimum three criteria to judge a batsman along with being compared to your peers in the same time period.

 

[vcs]

1. Stokes did it at home. Perera did it in SA.

2. Perera came to crease at 52/3.

Stokes came at 141/3 with Root was on 50+.

3. SL’s Top 6 without Perera scored 78 runs i.e 25% of the target.

England’s Top 6 without Stokes scored 178 runs i.e 50% of the target.


4. Perera added 78 runs for the last wicket with Fernando.

Stokes added 76 runs for the last wicket with Leach.


5. Perera did it against Steyn, Rabada, Philander and Oliver. All the 4 bowlers averaged less than 25.

Stokes did it against Cummins, Hazzelwood, Lyon and Pattison. Only Cummins averaged less than 25.

6. Perera scored 153* and the second highest score 48.

Stokes scored 135 and the second highest score was 77.

7. Perera’s won resulted in the first ever Test series in SA by an Asian team.

I don't have a horse in this Stokes-Perera debate, both ATG innings, but those are just facts devoid of context.

Take the "all bowlers averaged < 25" factoid for instance. One of those 4 was a Steyn on the verge of retirement, and Philander wasn't able to bowl I think due to injury. None of which takes away from the excellence of the knock mind you, and I don't disagree that the innings will forever be underrated because it was a low-profile series between two "unfashionable" teams, by a player for whom this will most probably be a career highlight that he won't come close to repeating.

Quoting those facts is not a good way to make the argument though.

 

[honestbharani]

Cricket stats are very easy to pick apart because they are amongst the most contextless numbers thrown up in professional sport. A 100 on a road is not the same as a 100 in a dusbowl or a greentop and so on and so forth. So they actually end up causing more confusion than clarity when you start laying full emphasis on those.

At the same time, stats are relevant enough as they do show what one has achieved over their career. Like a few others have pointed out, its best to make a judgement considering stats, first hand opinion and a few other factors.

 

[Spark]

Cricket stats are very easy to pick apart because they are amongst the most contextless numbers thrown up in professional sport. A 100 on a road is not the same as a 100 in a dusbowl or a greentop and so on and so forth. So they actually end up causing more confusion than clarity when you start laying full emphasis on those.

At the same time, stats are relevant enough as they do show what one has achieved over their career. Like a few others have pointed out, its best to make a judgement considering stats, first hand opinion and a few other factors.

I have increasingly started to weight "big series performances" when I rate a player's career overall. So, for example, when I evaluate Warner at the end of his career, he won't necessarily be weighed down massively by his poor away record (although it'll certainly count) but it will be weighed down specifically by his failures in India 2017 and England 2019, which were both tight series in which even okay performances would probably have tilted the series decisively in Aus's favour from a final result POV, but he just went missing completely as a senior batsman and opener.