Why is SRT tense while getting to personal milestones?

[coffee_rules]

^No matter how much spin you give to YS's stats, you can't prove an average of 30 being same as an average of 50.

[Ram]

I really cannot understand this logic. You have answered the question yourself, and still question Gavaskar's innings. Every player has had a freak innings. Sure, 36 n.o. as an opener in 60 overs is awful - by any standards, but I am not sure how much extrapolate from that.

Actually, you made my point better than I could ever hoped to have made when you said ’36 n.o by an opener in 60 overs is awful by any standards’.

Perhaps, 5-6 years down the lane, you will use this match and claim that Tendulkar was selfish because he was going to score the slowest hundred of all of his centuries - ever.

Err.. no. There are several other Gavaskar innings in ODIs which I am sure, if I looked back enough, I could cite as examples of less than acceptable rate of scoring, yet I didn’t do that. This innings of 36 struck me for the sheer scale of oddity, hence the reference to it. To infer as some sort of signal that I am going to dig up past records of all players and point out individual anomalies in their record is just wishful thinking.

(Although going by your earlier post in this thread, you have already hinted that Tendulkar is worried about the records, and I am not quite sure what the apt reply for that statement is - especially coming from someone who has followed Sachin's career very closely).

Again, you’re making quite a habit of mis-representing my position. This is what I said about Sachin;

ts obviously prepostrous to even suggest that he plays for milestones, but its quite obvious that he does tighten up (slightly) when nearing landmarks. Little surprise in that though, given that he comes from the same 'Gurukul' that had arguably the biggest stat-hound in the history of the game, Sunil Gavaskar, as its head-master. So, that old-school mentality still lurks in him and rears its ugly head every once in a while.

I was responding to a VERY specific query by a poster who was talking about why Sachin ‘seems’ tense when he nears landmarks, especially 100s. My reply to that was crystal clear in terms of my position. I said that even though its ridiculous to even suggest he plays for milestones, its obvious that when he does near the century mark, he does seem to tighten up a bit, that is all. I made no references whatsoever about Sachin being worried about records. Now, if you’re going to deny that and say ‘Oh no, he plays just as normally when he nears his 100’, I am sorry, you simply havent watched enough of Sachin.

Maybe this 2nd innings Rahul Dravid knock is enough for you to call him selfish and claim that his 'lack of intent' shows that he's obsessed about statistics? If you're going to claim that this is a test match vs. Gavaskar's ODI match, I think a S/R of 12.5 in test matches TODAY is equivalent to an opener scoring 36 n.o. in a Limited Overs game (particularly seeing that Dravid played 96 deliveries).

Again..Duh.. which of Gavaskar’s test innings did I bring up as a case to support my point that he seems a selfish player? To even bring up Dravid innings, or for that matter, any other test innings into this argument is ridiculous, given that I’ve not even come close to broaching that aspect.

Another thing that baffles me is the fact that you've completely ignored the fact that a higher S/R is a very important factor for any batsman in the LOI format, and playing slowly deliberately would mean that you're match fixing or want to get dropped - not being selfish there.

On the face of it, this does seem a very good defence of Gavaskar’s innings. But the it crumbles in the face of the overarching point that can be put against it – To have an opener bat an entire 60 overs of an innings and score just 36 runs is nothing but baffling, the infancy of the ODI game then notwithstanding. What was Gavaskar thinking? Was he totally unaware that this was LOI, and that you’re supposed to score a fair clip? I simply cannot fathom the point of that innings. Whats the point of going out there and batting if you’re making a mockery of the stated intent of the team, which is to win the match?

As did so many other players during all the eras. You are claiming that Gavaskar was a selfish statistically obsessed batsman based on ONE freak ODI innings out of 108 matches that he played over a 13-14 year span. If this statement is NOT true, and you have other innings to show me that Gavaskar was selfish, I'll retract this.

Wrong again. I highlighted this innings as one of the many supporting points for my claim that Gavaskar often reveals a selfish, statistics minded streak that goes beyond dangerous. I did not put this up a sole point in my favor. Above and beyond this innings, I have highlighted, on several occasions, aspects of his commentary that are quite shocking. Also, Kapil Dev, in his first autobiography ' By the God's Decree' has an entire chapter dedicated to his relationship with Gavaskar and he himself goes to suggest how there was frictions between the two coz Kapil perceived that Gavaskar played selfishly.

Again, playing out 60 overs for 36 n.o, at best will increase your average by a few decimals (in the tenths or hundreds place) - and make your S/R go down several points (seeing that it was only his 3rd ODI, it probably had a severe effect on S/R). Care to point out how this is being selfish? As far as I understand, its an awful innings that anyone will hope not to ever replicate. This is akin to claiming that Jadeja was playing for his average in that match against England in the T20 WC in England earlier this year. That was why he didn't try to hit because he wanted to remain not out at the end of the innings. Does it even make sense to you ?

If someone bats an entire inning to score 30-odd runs, that reveals a surprising ignorance of the state of the game and the team needs required of that player. And your endless harping about how his S/R will look bad is not valid because, back then, there was not even much of a stress on strike rates. But, at a minimum, there’s an expectation for a player to score at least a fair clip. And using your Jadeja analogy, what would you say if, today, Sachin or Sehwag went batting on a 325 run chase and made a 70 off 130 balls?

What hypocrisy are we talking about here? I have addressed the 36 n.o. above. I will not do it again. As far as I know, from the articles I've read from the past and following most of Gavaskar's articles these days, he has been one guy who has never vacillated about his opinion on anything. He accused the umpire's decision being one due to bias towards Australian players in his walkout in 1981, and he did the same nearly 27 years later in several circumstances during the Indian tour of Australia 07-08.

This has got nothing to do with our discussion whatsoever. I never claimed that Gavaskar was a man who flipped between alternating positions wildly.

Just thought I'd add this in here (even if you may know it): when Gavaskar started his career in 1971, India was NOT a strong team. We did not have too many records to speak proudly of, we were a relatively weak team even though we had been playing since the 1930s. Obviously, we did not have a lot of say in the decisions that were made by the MCC or the ICC. He wanted to be that guy who changed that. An Indian batsman at the top of the runs scored (ever) in Test cricket. From his perspective, he wanted India to be recognized as a country that could produce batsman of his calibre - in case you have forgotten, this is arguably the best batsman against the West Indies' pace attack, in their prime. He has bullied them on their land in their prime - coming from a team that used to use HIM as the opening bowler. Think about that for a second. When you hear comments such as "India is only good enough to beat East Africa", you're bound to want to prove them wrong.

Well good on him. If cricket was an individual sport, Gavaskar would be our best ever batsmen, full stop. But, unfortunately, it isn’t. Our relative weaknesses during that period is no excuse to defend efforts that were not geared towards the team goal.

Clearly, being recognized as statistically superior to other batsmen mattered to him - and from his perspective, and from the perspective of those times, it is absolutely valid. I am not sure what you gain by claiming 100s of times that he is a statistically obsessed batsman. Well, if I can have a guy like Gavaskar open the innings and score 10000 runs and that too 14 centuries against the greatest pace attack of all times, I'm not sure I'd refuse.

Well, that maybe your perspective and you can keep it if you want. But that is not how I view team sport. To degenerate the great game of cricket into some sort of mindless number crunching activity is, in my opinion, demeaning to the entire sport itself.

Someone else (or maybe it was you) brought up the fact that he spoke of a Rohit 100 during the 240 chase in the first CB series final last march. Clearly, whoever it was, has short term memory loss problems. He was full of praise for Rohit Sharma (deservedly), and inspite of the 66, Gavaskar mentioned that though it might not have been possible for him to get a hundred (as the score was 210 when he was dismissed), players are judged by the fifties, hundreds, and not outs that they score when playing a game.

Wrong, players are NOT judged by their 50s, 100s and not outs. They’re judged by their contribution to match-winning efforts.

Having been there, done it at the highest level, I'd think Gavaskar knows what he's talking about. We talk about conversion rates all the time.

That’s pretty funny because people like Gary Sobers, Ian Chappell or a David Lloyd have also played the game at the highest level but I never find them claiming that people are judged by their 50s, 100s and not outs. Could it be that their level was simply high enough as Gavaskar’s?

[The Outsider]

Which point assignment do you consider ridiculous? If you choose, you can even pick any one series and point out the anamoly. You’re also free to suggest alternatives. But if you’re simply going to say ‘Here are the averages, here are the 50s, the 100s, and the not-outs’, I will consider that even more ridiculous.

How about this as an example - difference between Tendulkar and Yuvraj in your absolute scale is 3 points for the WC performance and Yuvraj covers up one point each by scoring a couple of 50s in a series against WI where everyone was scoring 50s for fun, one point by scoring a 50 against NZ in a 7 match series, and one point by smashing a BD attack.

[Ram]

^No matter how much spin you give to YS's stats' date=' you can't prove an average of 30 being same as an average of 50.[/quote'] First of all, its not '30 versus 50', as you claim. Yuvraj probably averages close to 40 in ODIs in the last 7 years, while Sachin's average is more close to 45 in the same period. Besides, What part of ‘Lets do a series by series comparison’ of the two players contribution to our ODI matches in the last 7 years, sounds like ‘spin’. In fact, the only people ‘spinning’ are the ones who blindly use averages to put up a case in favor of, or against someone.

[Ram]

How about this as an example - difference between Tendulkar and Yuvraj in your absolute scale is 3 points for the WC performance

I am saying that Sachin's performance in the WC '03 was 4 times, FOUR times more valuable than Yuvraj in the WC. Is that not a fair assignment?

and Yuvraj covers up one point each by scoring a couple of 50s in a series against WI where everyone was scoring 50s for fun, one point by scoring a 50 against NZ in a 7 match series, and one point by smashing a BD attack.

And thats exactly what I do for Sachin too. If he scores a unbeaten 50 against a team like B'desh and if that was his ONLY contribution for the entire series, he gets one point too. So, its works both ways, which I think balances out the odd anamoly. I've also refrained from giving any points to any players for minor contributions here and there (like 20s and 30s), which is why Yuvraj does not get any point on a handful of tournaments that Sachin missed due to injury.

[The Outsider]

I am saying that Sachin's performance in the WC '03 was 4 times, FOUR times more valuable than Yuvraj in the WC. Is that not a fair assignment?

No it's not. Because your absolute scale is a linear one, so in the context of your absolute scale his performance was not four times better than Yuvraj, but 3 points higher than Yuvraj.

And thats exactly what I do for Sachin too. If he scores a unbeaten 50 against a team like B'desh and if that was his ONLY contribution for the entire series, he gets one point too. So, its works both ways, which I think balances out the odd anamoly. I've also refrained from giving any points to any players for minor contributions here and there (like 20s and 30s), which is why Yuvraj does not get any point on a handful of tournaments that Sachin missed due to injury.

LOL! It's not an odd anomaly! In fact it does not even fit in with your own criteria where a point is given for a "single outstanding performance". How is scoring 2 50s in a 7 ODI runfest an "outstanding performance". How is scoring 1 50 in a 7 ODI series an "oustanding performance"? If there is a 7 match series and one player scores consistent 40s-70s in 5 out of those matches he gets 2 points while someone who makes 1 century gets 1 point? I am sorry, this is starting to resemble a Imran Nazir vs. Sehwag debate!

[Ram]

No it's not. Because your absolute scale is a linear one' date=' so in the context of your absolute scale his performance was not four times better than Yuvraj, but 3 points higher than Yuvraj. [/quote'] How else do you weight their relative performances, but assign points, series by series? I agree that this is not a totally scientific method, but do you agree agree that this is more worthwhile than saying 'Here are the averages, here's the average in wins, here's the average in losses, so this player is better than that player' logic? The ICC uses a very similar system of voting to determine their player awards (a panel gets to vote on how many points each players gets for each matches), while CA also uses an exact system for determining the winner of the Allan Border medal.

LOL! It's not an odd anomaly! In fact it does not even fit in with your own criteria where a point is given for a "single outstanding performance". How is scoring 2 50s in a 7 ODI runfest an "outstanding performance". How is scoring 1 50 in a 7 ODI series an "oustanding performance"?

The 'outstanding performance' is just a reference. Let me just put it this way - the points assignment is totally relative. If for say, Sachin gets 2 points for a series and Yuvraj gets one, all i am trying to say is Sachin's contribution is twice as valuable as Yuvraj. Again, it works exactly the same way for both players. If you think Yuvraj got a point assigned to him unfairly, there's a good chance Sachin gets a point too, like that, somewhere down the line.

If there is a 7 match series and one player scores consistent 40s-70s in 5 out of those matches he gets 2 points while someone who makes 1 century gets 1 point? I am sorry, this is starting to resemble a Imran Nazir vs. Sehwag debate!

As i said, i am absolutely open to tweaking the points assignment. But at the least, acknowledge that to merely compare averages as a barometer of success is far less scientific than this.

[The Outsider]

The 'outstanding performance' is just a reference. Let me just put it this way - the points assignment is totally relative. If for say, Sachin gets 2 points for a series and Yuvraj gets one, all i am trying to say is Sachin's contribution is twice as valuable as Yuvraj. Again, it works exactly the same way for both players. If you think Yuvraj got a point assigned to him unfairly, there's a good chance Sachin gets a point too, like that, somewhere down the line.

Your "it works exactly the same for both players" line is bogus because averages and strike rates work exactly the same for both players too. If you feel the average/strike rate thing is inadequate at least replace it by something better. What's the point of replacing one junk by another? Not only are you doing that, you are assigning arbitrary points for scoring 1 50 in a 7 match bilateral series, failing in the other six and only 4 points for scoring 600+ runs in 10 matches at the biggest stage of ODI cricket.

[Ram]

Your "it works exactly the same for both players" line is bogus because averages and strike rates work exactly the same for both players too. If you feel the average/strike rate thing is inadequate at least replace it by something better.What's the point of replacing one junk by another?

Agreed, but replace it with what? You guys have no hesitation in wholeheartedly accepting a fundamentally flawed and extremely unscientific system of comparing averages all along, so lets work to form a more balanced, scientific way of judging players. But please dont tell me 'Well, there's no better way, so lets get back to averages way of doing things..'

Not only are you doing that, you are assigning arbitrary points for scoring 1 50 in a 7 match bilateral series, failing in the other six and only 4 points for scoring 600+ runs in 10 matches at the biggest stage of ODI cricket..

If you can suggest way to more fairy assign weights to these performances, I'd be more than happy to change the assignment.

[graphic23]

Actually, you made my point better than I could ever hoped to have made when you said ’36 n.o by an opener in 60 overs is awful by any standards’.

Note: Awful != Selfish or stat obsessed.

Err.. no. There are several other Gavaskar innings in ODIs which I am sure, if I looked back enough, I could cite as examples of less than acceptable rate of scoring, yet I didn’t do that. This innings of 36 struck me for the sheer scale of oddity, hence the reference to it. To infer as some sort of signal that I am going to dig up past records of all players and point out individual anomalies in their record is just wishful thinking.

You are sure but you're not quoting them? Why dont you cite the innings that you're speaking of thats going to shut me up? Is it wishful thinking for me to expect you to back up your criticism of an all-time great with some numbers rather than "I'm sure he played some bad innings. I'm just not going to go look for them." That sounds to me like you have no clue about the alleged innings in question.

Again, you’re making quite a habit of mis-representing my position. This is what I said about Sachin; I was responding to a VERY specific query by a poster who was talking about why Sachin ‘seems’ tense when he nears landmarks, especially 100s. My reply to that was crystal clear in terms of my position. I said that even though its ridiculous to even suggest he plays for milestones, its obvious that when he does near the century mark, he does seem to tighten up a bit, that is all. I made no references whatsoever about Sachin being worried about records. Now, if you’re going to deny that and say ‘Oh no, he plays just as normally when he nears his 100’, I am sorry, you simply havent watched enough of Sachin.

Oh wow. Your argument is that he gets tense when he gets to a 100. And can you mention one person from his generation who doesn't?

Again..Duh.. which of Gavaskar’s test innings did I bring up as a case to support my point that he seems a selfish player? To even bring up Dravid innings, or for that matter, any other test innings into this argument is ridiculous, given that I’ve not even come close to broaching that aspect.

Um, and I already said that in my original statement. Even though we are comparing two different formats, would you not agree that 12(96) in a test match today (where scoring at 3.5 RPO has become the norm) is equal to or worse than 36* (60 overs) ? I'm asking you why you are not calling Dravid selfish.

On the face of it, this does seem a very good defence of Gavaskar’s innings. But the it crumbles in the face of the overarching point that can be put against it – To have an opener bat an entire 60 overs of an innings and score just 36 runs is nothing but baffling, the infancy of the ODI game then notwithstanding.

You keep telling me that its awful. I agreed with you. You cited the 36* n.o as an example for his stats-obsessed mind. I told you that its exactly the opposite. Why are you not defending your earlier point rather than just bluntly stating that "its baffling. so he's selfish."? How come I'm not getting ANY defense of your point?

What was Gavaskar thinking? Was he totally unaware that this was LOI, and that you’re supposed to score a fair clip? I simply cannot fathom the point of that innings. Whats the point of going out there and batting if you’re making a mockery of the stated intent of the team, which is to win the match?

Ok. I'll make it clearer. When fineleg had one of its "famous" moments, she accused Sachin of being a stats-obsessed person when he was rotating the strike with Ishant Sharma in the Sydney test of '08. Though the argument is absolute bullshit, at least statistically, the point is valid because 154* does increase your average (in however decimals). Now, a test player is judged based on his average against the top team of his time (which Sachin has dominated). Having said that, in a retarded twisted world, one can see how fineleg could accuse Sachin of being selfish because he wanted to stay not out. Now you've asked like 5-6 questions above that ridicule Gavaskar's intent and the innings. I said I agreed with you that it was a weird innings. What I am unable to grasp is how you're able to cite it as an example to show that he's a stats-obsessed person?

Wrong again. I highlighted this innings as one of the many supporting points for my claim that Gavaskar often reveals a selfish, statistics minded streak that goes beyond dangerous. I did not put this up a sole point in my favor. Above and beyond this innings, I have highlighted, on several occasions, aspects of his commentary that are quite shocking.

And its ridiculous because its irrelevant to your point. And I defended Gavaskar's mentality in a previous post. I'm not going to do it again.

Also, Kapil Dev, in his first autobiography ' By the God's Decree' has an entire chapter dedicated to his relationship with Gavaskar and he himself goes to suggest how there was frictions between the two coz Kapil perceived that Gavaskar played selfishly.

Kapil Dev has also said that Tendulkar rarely contributes when the going gets tough (during the England tour of '07). So 10 years down the lane, you're going to argue that point with someone as well? Or can you actually point me towards his innings (Test or ODI) which show that he was selfish. The 36 n.o no matter how many times you repeat "is selfish" doesn't become one - because it affected him negatively, not positively.

If someone bats an entire inning to score 30-odd runs, that reveals a surprising ignorance of the state of the game and the team needs required of that player. And your endless harping about how his S/R will look bad is not valid because, back then, there was not even much of a stress on strike rates.

Ok...

But, at a minimum, there’s an expectation for a player to score at least a fair clip.

:WTF: :WTF: :WTF: How do you manage to contradict yourself in successive statements and then expect me to take your argument seriously ?

And using your Jadeja analogy, what would you say if, today, Sachin or Sehwag went batting on a 325 run chase and made a 70 off 130 balls?

You mean like Ganguly did in the 4th ODI of the 7-ODI series in 2007 vs. Australia at Nagpur? Also, I'm not quite sure what this has to do with what we're talking about. I mentioned the Jadeja innings because I thought you were going to call him selfish for wanting to stay not out at the end of the innings instead of trying to hit out and get out in the T20 vs. England.

This has got nothing to do with our discussion whatsoever. I never claimed that Gavaskar was a man who flipped between alternating positions wildly.

IIRC you called him a hypocrite. I was wondering how he was being hypocritical.

Well good on him. If cricket was an individual sport, Gavaskar would be our best ever batsmen, full stop. But, unfortunately, it isn’t. Our relative weaknesses during that period is no excuse to defend efforts that were not geared towards the team goal.

Ok. We differ in our viewpoints, and I'm not going to try to convince you. Will respond to the rest later.

[The Outsider]

You guys have no hesitation in wholeheartedly accepting a fundamentally flawed and extremely unscientific system of comparing averages all along, so lets work to form a more balanced, scientific way of judging players.

When the difference in numbers is as staggering as here, then averages and strike rates work just fine. I don't need to develop some sophisticated method to tell me that a batsman averaging 50 is much superior than a batsman averaging 30 over a significant period(which are the averages in the period you took into consideration, but with use of sophistry in the guise of a subjective analysis have shown them to be neck and neck). Yeah, if the pure numbers are close together like for example an average of 45 vs. 42 with similar strike rates, it makes sense to look into the innings and series in more detail. Your post putting Tendulkar and Yuvraj neck and neck despite a staggering difference of 20 points in average is really nothing more than an one eyed view gone wild.

[Ram]

When the difference in numbers is as staggering as here, then averages and strike rates work just fine. I don't need to develop some sophisticated method to tell me that a batsman averaging 50 is much superior than a batsman averaging 30 over a significant period(which are the averages in the period you took into consideration, but with use of sophistry in the guise of a subjective analysis have shown them to be neck and neck). Yeah, if the pure numbers are close together like for example an average of 45 vs. 42 with similar strike rates, it makes sense to look into the innings and series in more detail.

The averages I've listed for Yuvraj are only for the period of June 2002 to Nov 2004. If you take the entire time-line that I have mentioned (Jan 2002 - Current), the numbers are far more closer. In that period, Sachin has played 149 ODI matches, scored 6075 runs at an average of 45.33 with 14 100s. In the same period, Yuvraj has played 213 matches, scored 6573 runs at an average of 38.66 with 12 100s. And given the fact that Sachin has opened in almost all of those matches and Yuvraj has come in at either no.4 or no.5, its only natural that there IS some deviation in their average. What do you have to say for this? Dont you think a 6-basis point difference in the averages of an opener and middle-order bat is close enough to warrant more rigorous investigation, or are you going to maintain your 'the averages differ enough for me to ignore the unscientific nature of this tool'.?

Your post putting Tendulkar and Yuvraj neck and neck despite a staggering difference of 20 points in average is really nothing more than an one eyed view gone wild.

Tell me a better way to do it and i'll do it for you. But dont tell me 'Just accept the averages', because its a far more worser way of doing things.

[Sachinism]

^^ Then you might as well bring in your argument against Dhoni about having not outs. How many not outs did Yuvi have in that period as opposed to Sachin?

[veer]

Observed this long time ago... but thats just human nature..

[The Outsider]

The averages I've listed for Yuvraj are only for the period of June 2002 to Nov 2004. If you take the entire time-line that I have mentioned (Jan 2002 - Current), the numbers are far more closer. In that period, Sachin has played 149 ODI matches, scored 6075 runs at an average of 45.33 with 14 100s. In the same period, Yuvraj has played 213 matches, scored 6573 runs at an average of 38.66 with 12 100s. And given the fact that Sachin has opened in almost all of those matches and Yuvraj has come in at either no.4 or no.5, its only natural that there IS some deviation in their average.

Let's take it one step at a time. You are not happy with the average/SR method, so you devise a method and apply it to a sample size of 2 years or so of two batsman, one averaging 50 the other averaging 30. Shouldn't you debunk that method as soon as you see that it is putting the two at par? Can there be any cricketing situation spanning over two years when two batsmen playing for and against the same teams roughly, with such disparate averages be even in the same league for your method to have any merit so it can be extended to a larger sample in order to draw some conclusion. Let's say I have 2 boxes that I want to weigh and just by basic common sense of lifting them I can make out one is much heavier than the other. Next, I engineer a scale to find out their exact weights but find that the scale I devised says both are about the same weight. Shouldn't it be obvious to me that the scale I devised is faulty?

What do you have to say for this? Dont you think a 6-basis point difference in the averages of an opener and middle-order bat is close enough to warrant more rigorous investigation, or are you going to maintain your 'the averages differ enough for me to ignore the unscientific nature of this tool'.? Tell me a better way to do it and i'll do it for you. But dont tell me 'Just accept the averages', because its a far more worser way of doing things.

Alright just so that the Yuvraj bubble that you live in does not burst, let's say I agree that a 6 point average warrants more scrutiny. Now as with any modeling exercise your model must at the very least meet the common sense tests - the one we have here is that Tendulkar was a far better performer over those 2 years. You can come up with a sliding points assignment system on a match to match basis, taking into account the importance of the match, quality of bowling, team situation etc. It won't be simple and frankly might not be worth the time, but just because averages don't fit into your alternate reality of Yuvraj being a distinctly inferior batsman, you come up with a method awarding 1 point to him for an "outstanding 50" in a 7 match series! That's just sophistry! Your method is distinctly worse than the pure averages method because it places someone averaging 50 at par with average 30, which does not make any cricketing sense at all. If you really want to do it, do it match by match by assigning points out of 10 and I am sure you'll come up with a much more sensible result.

[Ram]

Let's take it one step at a time. You are not happy with the average/SR method' date=' so you devise a method and apply it to a sample size of 2 years or so of two batsman, one averaging 50 the other averaging 30. Shouldn't you debunk that method as soon as you see that it is putting the two at par? Can there be any cricketing situation spanning over two years when two batsmen playing for and against the same teams roughly, with such disparate averages be even in the same league for your method to have any merit so it can be extended to a larger sample in order to draw some conclusion. [/quote'] I’ve all along maintained that I am absolutely open to the idea of tweaking my points assignment based on input from guys like you. I did not claim that a)my assignment was perfect and b)Because of this assignment, one player is better than the other. I’ve tried to be totally fair to both the players and tried to consider each and every on their performance in that time-line. The weightage I gave their respective innings may have been inaccurate, but at the least I am convinced that it is a far more scientific way of comparing them, rather than the extremely crude of way of looking at averages, without any context whatsoever.

Let's say I have 2 boxes that I want to weigh and just by basic common sense of lifting them I can make out one is much heavier than the other. Next, I engineer a scale to find out their exact weights but find that the scale I devised says both are about the same weight. Shouldn't it be obvious to me that the scale I devised is faulty?

Only, in this case, the original method (using averages) itself is faulty. Why do we have to, by default, buy into the notion that using averages are accurate way of comparing batsmen?

Alright just so that the Yuvraj bubble that you live in does not burst, let's say I agree that a 6 point average warrants more scrutiny. Now as with any modeling exercise your model must at the very least meet the common sense tests - the one we have here is that Tendulkar was a far better performer over those 2 years.

What Yuvraj bubble are you talking about? If anything, If I really wanted to blindly support him, I would have immediately dropped this stat comparison with Sachin, knowing that, in the first time-line, Sachin averages head and shoulders above Yuvraj. Yet, I continued with the exercise knowing that, in the end, it may show Sachin as more valuable to our ODI unit that Yuvraj (which could well end up happening).

You can come up with a sliding points assignment system on a match to match basis, taking into account the importance of the match, quality of bowling, team situation etc. It won't be simple and frankly might not be worth the time

That may well be the case, but please stop the insanity of ‘Well, he averages more than him, so he’s gotto be better than him’, especially since I have shown that Sachin’s and Yuvraj’s numbers are far more closer in the larger time-line of 2002-2009.

but just because averages don't fit into your alternate reality of Yuvraj being a distinctly inferior batsman, you come up with a method awarding 1 point to him for an "outstanding 50" in a 7 match series! That's just sophistry!

As opposed to your ‘How could you possibly give just 4 points to incredible Sachin for WC performance of 670 runs, as opposed to the extremely liberal 1 point given to Yuvraj for the match-winning 50 he scored against team X’, knowing that 373 of those runs came against Kenya, Namibia, Netherlands and Zimbabwe?

[Ram]

If you really want to do it, do it match by match by assigning points out of 10 and I am sure you'll come up with a much more sensible result.

I dunno if that is feasible, but lets see, maybe we can try to do it in phases.

[The Outsider]

I’ve tried to be totally fair to both the players and tried to consider each and every on their performance in that time-line. The weightage I gave their respective innings may have been inaccurate, but at the least I am convinced that it is a far more scientific way of comparing them, rather than the extremely crude of way of looking at averages, without any context whatsoever.

And what I am trying to impress upon you is that it's not more accurate than simply looking up the averages - it's worse. I don't even need averages to know that Tendulkar was a far superior performer to Yuvraj during that time so when I come across a method which places them at par, I'll call it junk. At least, averages more or less comply with the notion that Tendulkar was a far superior player than Yuvraj during that time.

Only, in this case, the original method (using averages itself is faulty). Why do we have to, by default, buy into the notion that using averages are accurate way of comparing batsmen?

So is estimating weight by lifting the two boxes. However, if I find that my scale is giving close readings to two boxes obviously disparate in weight, I would immediately conclude that my scale is faulty - even worse than estimating by hand.

That may well be the case, but please stop the insanity of ‘Well, he averages more than him, so he’s gotto be better than him’, especially since I have shown that Sachin’s and Yuvraj’s numbers are far more closer in the larger time-line of 2002-2009.

When the averages are so hugely disparate like 50 and 30 and your method is saying they are the same it's like Pakis talking about tailunt.

As opposed to your ‘How could you possibly give just 4 points to incredible Sachin for WC performance of 670 runs, as opposed to the extremely liberal 1 point given to Yuvraj for the match-winning 50 he scored against team X’, knowing that 373 of those runs came against Kenya, Namibia, Netherlands and Zimbabwe?

You gave 1 point to Yuvraj for scoring a 50 in the same WC against Kenya. If you want to do this, do it match by match assigning points out of 10 and there might be some consensus and common sense result. At the moment you are expecting others to follow a points system you just pulled out of your hat which places a batsman averaging 50 at par with someone averaging 30!

[DomainK]

Dhoni is nervous closing in on a milestone.:giggle: