Ram Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 The point is that your question has been answered :winky: See dude, this is the problem with you. You’re obviously still smarting from our, shall I say, friendly exchanges, which is why the moment you saw my response, your BP shot a few notches. My response to the OP would have been the same if anybody else had asked the same question, because it is, quite frankly, a dumb question (as others have pointed as well). Now, you don’t want to accept it because your ego is stopping you from doing so, which means you’re going to spend some solid time coming up with ‘mathematical calculations’ which I guarantee, will be 100% inaccurate. Take my suggestion – save your breadth, just say this was a bad idea in the first place and move on.
zen Posted February 11, 2011 Author Posted February 11, 2011 I really didn't mean a pun with that post. I think Morris is taking it a little overboard. I think it's a very time consuming challenge and only someone with 10 hours of free time would take on this challenge. True. It needs time (depending upon how good you are) and some good knowledge of stats.
zen Posted February 11, 2011 Author Posted February 11, 2011 See dude, this is the problem with you. You’re obviously still smarting from our, shall I say, friendly exchanges, which is why the moment you saw my response, your BP shot a few notches. My response to the OP would have been the same if anybody else had asked the same question, because it is, quite frankly, a dumb question (as others have pointed as well). Now, you don’t want to accept it because your ego is stopping you from doing so, which means you’re going to spend some solid time coming up with ‘mathematical calculations’ which I guarantee, will be 100% inaccurate. Take my suggestion – save your breadth, just say this was a bad idea in the first place and move on. Ah ha, so I have an ego problem :P .... It's not me who is wasting his time in trying to prove someone is dumb :winky:
The Outsider Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 ^ There is no knowledge of stats required. All you need is basic arithmetic and loads of time to do ghodagiri on stats guru.
Ram Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 I really didn't mean a pun with that post. I think Morris is taking it a little overboard. I think it's a very time consuming challenge and only someone with 10 hours of free time would take on this challenge. If you’re telling me that you have the mathematical models to factor in things like weather conditions on that day, probability of rain, injuries to cricketer, player form, fall of wickets etc, then I’d love to hear your theories. Plus, the question of our batsmen’s average against the opposition bowlers’ SR/average etc is completely irrelevant because those stats are collection of numbers across a period of time, from matches played in different conditions, at varying times, when the players themselves were in different ages and had different ‘forms’ (I mean the cricketing ‘form’). Here, we’re talking about a specific ground, on a specific day, with all the players at specific frames of mind and ‘forms’. There’s no way you can factor in all of those. The best we can do in this situation is maybe come up with a range of scores, which completely defeats the whole point of doing the calculations in the first place.
Jersey #10 Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 True. It needs time (depending upon how good you are) and some good knowledge of stats. I think all the stats you will ever need are provided by cricinfo. I think this is more about the time over knowledge when it comes to a challenge like this one. I don't know what you mean by "depending upon how good you are".
Jersey #10 Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 If you’re telling me that you have the mathematical models to factor in things like weather conditions on that day, probability of rain, injuries to cricketer, player form, fall of wickets etc, then I’d love to hear your theories. Plus, the question of our batsmen’s average against the opposition bowlers’ SR/average etc is completely irrelevant because those stats are collection of numbers across a period of time, from matches played in different conditions, at varying times, when the players themselves were in different ages and had different ‘forms’ (I mean the cricketing ‘form’). Here, we’re talking about a specific ground, on a specific day, with all the players at specific frames of mind and ‘forms’. There’s no way you can factor in all of those. The best we can do in this situation is maybe come up with a range of scores, which completely defeats the whole point of doing the calculations in the first place. I really didn't mean to tell you anything! I don't think rett really wanted to prove anything or claim that his way of finding stats would be 100% sufficient to assume outcomes. He just wanted to try something different. Having said that, I am not saying that you are wrong.
Ram Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Ah ha' date=' so I have an ego problem :P .... It's not me who is wasting his time in trying to prove someone is dumb :winky:[/quote'] I am still waiting for your ‘calculations’ hero. Lets see what you got. Trust me, its not looking good for you. :P
Ram Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 I think all the stats you will ever need are provided by cricinfo. I think this is more about the time over knowledge when it comes to a challenge like this one. I don't know what you mean by "depending upon how good you are". I don’t care what he wanted to prove or not prove, but my point is simply this – to contend that you can extrapolate numbers of certain players, from matches that were played at a)varying times b)varying conditions c)varying grounds d)varying player and opponent ‘form’ and apply the generalizations to SPECIFIC match (date, stadium, condition) is 100% flawed. How is the stats from match that Sachin played against say Anderson, in in England in 2007 (for example), relevant to the match he is going to play in B'lore in 2011, against the same bowler? There are too many variable to factor in and if you manage to do so, you can never, again, confidently claim that the weightages you have gave to the different variables are proportional and accurate.
zen Posted February 11, 2011 Author Posted February 11, 2011 I think all the stats you will ever need are provided by cricinfo. I think this is more about the time over knowledge when it comes to a challenge like this one. I don't know what you mean by "depending upon how good you are". You get stats on cricinfo, but then you have to put everything together, which is where how good you are comes in. It also depends up on how complex your analysis is. An analysis gets complex depending up on what factors you take into consideration Let's take Ind vs Eng for example: Here you could take a multitude of factors, it could be say 1. Tendulkar vs Eng bowlers (from the playing 11 you took) 2. Tendulkar vs Eng bowlers in B'ore or in Ind 3. Tendulkar vs Eng bowlers in D/N game (If you are assuming one or both teams batting 2nd). 4. Tendulkar in B'lore, Eng bowlers overall 5. Tendulkar in last year vs Eng bowlers in last year, or two years, .... There are infinte combinations one could take. Which is what makes this interesting :winky:
Ram Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 You get stats on cricinfo, but then you have to put everything together, which is where how good you are comes in. It also depends up on how complex your analysis is. An analysis gets complex depending up on what factors you take into consideration Let's take Ind vs Eng for example: Here you could take a multitude of factors, it could be say 1. Tendulkar vs Eng bowlers (from the playing 11 you took) 2. Tendulkar vs Eng bowlers in B'ore or in Ind 3. Tendulkar vs Eng bowlers in D/N game (If you are assuming one or both teams batting 2nd). 4. Tendulkar in B'lore, Eng bowlers overall 5. Tendulkar in last year vs Eng bowlers in last year, or two years, .... There are infinte combinations one could take. Which is what makes this interesting :winky: Or in plain English, makes it IMPOSSIBLE. I see that you're slowly gravitating towards the inevitable. Good, we're making progress here. :nice:
Jersey #10 Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 You get stats on cricinfo, but then you have to put everything together, which is where how good you are comes in. It also depends up on how complex your analysis is. An analysis gets complex depending up on what factors you take into consideration Let's take Ind vs Eng for example: Here you could take a multitude of factors, it could be say 1. Tendulkar vs Eng bowlers (from the playing 11 you took) 2. Tendulkar vs Eng bowlers in B'ore or in Ind 3. Tendulkar vs Eng bowlers in D/N game (If you are assuming one or both teams batting 2nd). 4. Tendulkar in B'lore, Eng bowlers overall 5. Tendulkar in last year vs Eng bowlers in last year, or two years, .... There are infinte combinations one could take. Which is what makes this interesting :winky: You can find exactly all of that on statsguru. Don't you think it would take more time to collect all this data than the time it takes to play the game? Stats can only comprehend till some extent. You can get a 100k job for doing these statistical explorations then the question rises if it's really worth it. Anyways, good luck with this I don't have the time to do this :hatsoff:
Jersey #10 Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Or in plain English' date=' makes it[b'] IMPOSSIBLE. I see that you're slowly gravitating towards the inevitable. Good, we're making progress here. :nice: Now I have to agree with the "impossible" part.
zen Posted February 11, 2011 Author Posted February 11, 2011 Or in plain English' date=' makes it[b'] IMPOSSIBLE. I see that you're slowly gravitating towards the inevitable. Good, we're making progress here. :nice: That's if your intrepretation is that this thread is about 100% accuracy :winky: You could have saved some time if you would have "understood" the OP It will be interesting to see how close we can get to reality by doing the above exercise. The excercise is to see how close you can get to reality and not about predicting reality 100% This is for those who want to see that the factors that they take into account are good enough for them to come close to reality This is not about being right :--D
Raghav_12 Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 I would have done that, what is being asked in OP, had I been working on to develop a computer game on cricket. To do this for prediction for matches of world cup would be quite idiotic exercise. If this kind of predictions made any sense many Mazhar Mazeed's would have developed these same.
Ram Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 ^ STILL not throwing in the towel, are you? Seriously dude, you’re impossible. :hysterical: That's if your intrepretation is that this thread is about 100% accuracy :winky: You could have saved some time if you would have "understood" the OP The excercise is to see how close you can get to reality and not about predicting reality 100% This is for those who want to see that the factors that they take into account are good enough for them to come close to reality This is not about being right :--D Apparently, the number of 'those' who think this is a worthwhile exercise and hence have put in some time giving some repsonses so far? = ZERO. Come on hero, enough of small talk. Show me the money, lets see your 'numbers'.
zen Posted February 11, 2011 Author Posted February 11, 2011 I would have done that' date=' what is being asked in OP, had I been working on to develop a computer game on cricket. To do this for prediction for matches of world cup would be quite idiotic exercise. If this kind of predictions made any sense many Mazhar Mazeed's would have developed these same.[/quote'] Are you telling me that all the stats some of you guys did to show that likes of Tendulkar would have averaged 100 in Bradman's time are false?! .... Surely, if you could do that then what's a big deal about predicting the score of a game :P
Ram Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Are you telling me that all the stats some of you guys did to show that likes of Tendulkar would have averaged 100 in Bradman's time are false?! .... Surely' date=' if you could do that then what's a big deal about predicting the score of a game :P[/quote'] Smoke screen ALERT! Smoke screen ALERT! No one’s bothered about what Sachin Tendulkar would have averaged in the 40s or the 70s now. Come on dude, lets your numbers for the ‘challenge’ you posed to the rest of us. Edit; A'right I am off. I know you're not going to show ANY calculations, partly because a)by your admission, you're not too good at stats (and boy, thinking about it, i should have guessed as much from our prior 'debates.'.) and b) even if you come up with something rudimentary, its going to look completely stupid and inaccurate.
zen Posted February 11, 2011 Author Posted February 11, 2011 ^ STILL not throwing in the towel, are you? Seriously dude, you’re impossible. :hysterical: Apparently, the number of 'those' who think this is a worthwhile exercise and hence have put in some time giving some repsonses so far? = ZERO. Come on hero, enough of small talk. Show me the money, lets see your 'numbers'. Appears as if it's too much for you to understand that this is not about throwing in the towel :giggle:
zen Posted February 11, 2011 Author Posted February 11, 2011 Smoke screen ALERT! Smoke screen ALERT! No one’s bothered about what Sachin Tendulkar would have averaged in the 40s or the 70s now. Come on dude, lets your numbers for the ‘challenge’ you posed to the rest of us.[/ The kid can't wait for my numbers :giggle: So what do you plan to do with the numbers I give? My goal was to see whether anyone can come close. What's yours? To see that whether I come close :hysterical:
Recommended Posts