Elephant in the room

[zen]

That is a logical fallacy. You are comparing Lara's projected score to what Tendulkar has currently and concluding that the variance in the forecasting system is small. That should be compared to actual data - the runs scored by Lara in 131 tests - which is an error of 1300 runs from the predicted data when the time period is in the range of 60 tests. Its pretty obvious that runs/test is useless for both comparing as well as forecasting a player's future performance and not too different from a poster on ICF who said Harbhajan Singh is better than Akram because he has a higher number of wickets per test. Saying that SRT has more runs than everyone else because he played more tests, is very different from saying that anyone who gets to play that many number of tests would get to SRT's tally. To prove the latter you again need to first prove the fact that the rpt metric is infallible or atleast has low error rates which has clearly not been proved yet. In other words you are basing your conclusion on an original premise which itself is not watertight. .

I know all you are trying to show is that rpt is useless (because it "probably" doesn't fortify Tendulkar's position) but those comments in itself are useless because you haven't provided an alternate So basically what you are saying is that the system is useless and Tendulkar cannot be touched .... And that's pretty much like saying that xyz argument is useless, and Tendulkar cannot be touched I am pretty much willing to not use 'rpt' if someone has a better alternative but the problem is that most people are good at finding problems than solutions, which is why I have to use it until someone 'smart' actually shows a better system

[Sachinism]

:facepalm: You do know how averages work, dont you? It gives preference to not outs. So if Matty hayden (or any other player) stays not out even 2 times in 10 matches, his average will be higher than the indicative runs scored in those test matches. Runs per test treats out and not out exactly the same way. Like I said before, you are making further illogical assertions to justify an original premise which in itself makes no sense.

Till he doesn't realise this, things aren't moving forward. Someone take rett some Mary J, to give him some clarity of thought

[akshayxyz]

That is a logical fallacy. You are comparing Lara's projected score to what Tendulkar has currently and concluding that the variance in the forecasting system is small. That should be compared to actual data - the runs scored by Lara in 131 tests - which is an error of 1300 runs from the predicted data when the time period is in the range of 60 tests. Its pretty obvious that runs/test is useless for both comparing as well as forecasting a player's future performance and not too different from a poster on ICF who said Harbhajan Singh is better than Akram because he has a higher number of wickets per test. Saying that SRT has more runs than everyone else because he played more tests, is very different from saying that anyone who gets to play that many number of tests would get to SRT's tally. To prove the latter you again need to first prove the fact that the rpt metric is infallible or atleast has low error rates which has clearly not been proved yet. In other words you are basing your conclusion on an original premise which itself is not watertight. Pompous statements like these are very amusing.

In case of wickets, # per test can still be a good metric, with few exceptions of course. - as one has to take 20 wickets in a match. You can't just declare, that we have taken enough wickets, now we want to bat :). Unless there are weather issues, one has to bowl, unlike the batting, where one may/may-not get to bat. And even if one has to bowl more, to get more wickets, it still is respectable (spinners naturally have higher SR than fast bowlers). In this case, it would be appropriate to compare apples with apples - i.e. spinners with spinners and fast bowlers with fast bowlers. And if you have a look at the bowlers data - you would see Murali is significantly better than every other spinner on that metric. Anyway - it is just a quick thought and I would not want to argue on this :).

[ganeshran]

I know all you are trying to show is that rpt is useless (because it "probably" doesn't fortify Tendulkar's position) but those comments in itself are useless because you haven't provided an alternate So basically what you are saying is that the system is useless and Tendulkar cannot be touched .... And that's pretty much like saying that xyz argument is useless, and Tendulkar cannot be touched I am pretty much willing to not use 'rpt' if someone has a better alternative but the problem is that most people are good at finding problems than solutions, which is why I have to use it until someone 'smart' actually shows a better system

I am saying that the RPT metric is useless and you using that to justify Lara > SRT is wrong. There may well be other arguments to justify Lara's superiority over SRT, but the one which you are using is wrong. Rpt being easy to calculate doest mean its accurate enough to forecast the future tally of a batsmen and certainly doesnt mean that we accept its forecast as a fact in a discussion.

[zen]

I am saying that the RPT metric is useless and you using that to justify Lara > SRT is wrong. There may well be other arguments to justify Lara's superiority over SRT, but the one which you are using is wrong. Rpt being easy to calculate doest mean its accurate enough to forecast the future tally of a batsmen and certainly doesnt mean that we accept its forecast as a fact in a discussion.

So if I want to know (hypothetically atleast) how many runs Gavaskar would have scored if he played 150 tests instead of 125, how should I go about it? At the moment, I will use rpt to determine that. Do you have any alternatives? If not, rpt is not useless

[Jersey #10]

Good find. Looks like it is natural for readers to start thinking about more parameters as 'Ram' did here http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1315218&postcount=114 and I did in this thread. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1706488&postcount=61 btw - here is another genius, who could predict w/o even using any data related to cricket...using some complex mathematics, that he can not teach, others can not understand. http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=272367&highlight=numerology

the guy has a criminal record coming into this thread! why am I not surprised? :cheer:

[akshayxyz]

Talking about forecasting, this year the business accounts I manage would bring in revenues of a little over US$100M .... For production planning and insurance purposes, I submitted 2012 forecast of my business at a number close to US$150M .... Seniors Management couldn't believe it so asked me to make a presentation to them and after the presentation, we took insurance based on US$150M That's the beauty of the internet. Here is a guy who is paid 1000s of dollars to make the right call (or the company and his job is on the line), resolve complex issues, etc (working in pressure situations) but on the internet he is being advised on what right by a bunch of folks who probably are getting started in life :(( But it is good to see how passionatily some of you put your points and probably have a brighter future ahead. I come here to keep connected to India and also learn how the new bunch, the ones recently in college is coming up. So far from what I have seen, I am not too disappointed :proud:

Now you have started predicting/judging people's background/career/education/...? There lies another problem with you - you are trying to judge the quality of arguments/points on the basis of *what you think* others'/your background is. (Ad Hominem is the keyword). And as always, your assumptions are most likely far from the reality.

[Jersey #10]

So if I want to know (hypothetically atleast) how many runs Gavaskar would have scored if he played 150 tests instead of 125, how should I go about it? At the moment, I will use rpt to determine that. Do you have any alternatives? If not, rpt is not useless

what's wrong with averages? Takes care of most possible circumstances :fishing:

[ganeshran]

Talking about forecasting, this year the business accounts I manage would bring in revenues of a little over US$100M .... For production planning and insurance purposes, I submitted 2012 forecast of my business at a number close to US$150M .... Seniors Management couldn't believe it so asked me to make a presentation to them and after the presentation, we took insurance based on US$150M That's the beauty of the internet. Here is a guy who is paid 1000s of dollars to make the right call (or the company and his job is on the line), resolve complex issues, etc (working in pressure situations) but on the internet he is being advised on what right by a bunch of folks who probably are getting started in life :(( But it is good to see how passionatily some of you put your points and probably have a brighter future ahead. I come here to keep connected to India and also learn how the new bunch, the ones recently in college is coming up. So far from what I have seen, I am not too disappointed :proud:

This is yet another in the line of many pompous statements you make to convince others that you are right. Like Sachinism posted, you cant win an argument simply by being right. I posted the same thing in response to vaibhav_delhi's posts about working at Microsoft and getting 99 percentile in CAT. You can be an authority in your line of work - no one is refuting that. But that doesnt mean that a claim you make about the unrelated field of cricket would be accepted at face value. People give respect to a doctor's claim in medicine, but not the same respect to the doctor's claim in economics. Authority outside the field of discussion is irrelevant.

[ganeshran]

So if I want to know (hypothetically atleast) how many runs Gavaskar would have scored if he played 150 tests instead of 125, how should I go about it? At the moment, I will use rpt to determine that. Do you have any alternatives? If not, rpt is not useless

rpt lets you comes up with a number easily. And the absence of an easy alternative doesnt mean its right. Maybe for 5-10 tests your predictions would be closer to actuals, but more than that you are risking a huge error. Maybe a statistical model could be built which is able to take care of variables like oppositions, grounds, age, and others to make the prediction more accurate. This could be an interesting problem for statistics grads to approach, but that isnt my field so I dont know much about it.

[zen]

rpt lets you comes up with a number easily. And the absence of an easy alternative doesnt mean its right. Maybe for 5-10 tests your predictions would be closer to actuals, but more than that you are risking a huge error. Maybe a statistical model could be built which is able to take care of variables like oppositions, grounds, age, and others to make the prediction more accurate. This could be an interesting problem for statistics grads to approach, but that isnt my field so I dont know much about it.

For the purpose for our discussion and what we are trying to show and estimate, rpt is fine Human mind is good enough to know whether a Gavaskar will get 12k if he played 150 tests or whether a Lara will get 15k if he played 180 tests It is just that when something doesn't suit what we want to show, we feel a need to propose a complex system to get a concensus so nobody can argue with the results

[zen]

Now you have started predicting/judging people's background/career/education/...? There lies another problem with you - you are trying to judge the quality of arguments/points on the basis of *what you think* others'/your background is. (Ad Hominem is the keyword). And as always, your assumptions are most likely far from the reality.

I just made a general statement .... that's what the profile of most forumers would be here .... Unless ofc I am posting this on a professional forum

This is yet another in the line of many pompous statements you make to convince others that you are right. Like Sachinism posted, you cant win an argument simply by being right. I posted the same thing in response to vaibhav_delhi's posts about working at Microsoft and getting 99 percentile in CAT. You can be an authority in your line of work - no one is refuting that. But that doesnt mean that a claim you make about the unrelated field of cricket would be accepted at face value. People give respect to a doctor's claim in medicine, but not the same respect to the doctor's claim in economics. Authority outside the field of discussion is irrelevant.

No such thing was intended

[ganeshran]

For the purpose for our discussion and what we are trying to show and estimate, rpt is fine Human mind is good enough to know whether a Gavaskar will get 12k if he played 150 tests or whether a Lara will get 15k if he played 180 tests It is just that when something doesn't suit what we want to show, we feel a need to propose a complex system to get a concensus so nobody can argue with the results

Again for a short period, your prediction might be close. But 50 test matches is too big a period to speculate given the number of variables involved. And this is not something unverifiable. If a batsmen has played T tests and you check his runs per test at T-50, and compare his actual tally with predicted (rpt * T), I am certain you will get huge variations. Its pretty obvious that rpt is useless to make any sort of claim about future performance and that is not because it shows that Lara > SRT.

[zen]

Again for a short period, your prediction might be close. But 50 test matches is too big a period to speculate given the number of variables involved. And this is not something unverifiable. If a batsmen has played T tests and you check his runs per test at T-50, and compare his actual tally with predicted (rpt * T), I am certain you will get huge variations. Its pretty obvious that rpt is useless to make any sort of claim about future performance and that is not because it shows that Lara > SRT.

if you look closely you will find that for the modern batsman (of the few I have seen), an avg in 50s, goes with an rpt in 80s. So even if you take an rpt of 80 over 50 tests, it gives you 4000 runs. Adding that to 12,000 and you can estimate something close to 16k runs (which is closer to Lara's runs based on rpt and more than Tendulkar's) .... Based on that batsmen of that league, would get around that mark (since this is an est. it is understood that we factor in for variances) Earlier, you had talked about having a complex system but don't forget that parameters in a complex system are still based upon human inputs (and thus his likes and dislikes). Since they system would be complex, many would not understand it and thus less questioned ask. Sometimes, the goal can be reached with simple solutions. Moreover if the usefulness of everything is questioned, then points like "he carries the pressures of a billion" render useless too and with that the parameters that an individual has set up in his mind to judge who is the greatest. If we are to go by averages, then there are many who have a higher avg than Tendulkar. To counter the lesser avg, many bring in factors like 'longevity' but that's subjective as well. So in the end the entire argument of who is the greatest falls apart. Personally, if there were no Bradman, there wouldn't be a who is the greatest batsman talk much like there is no who is the greatest bowler debate. Because more or less, everyone else is in the same league. To pick someone apart greatest apart from Bradman will be a very difficult process because like you many can argue on the uselessness of many other system w/o providing genuine solutions Therefore, your entire effort to render rpt useless is pointless in absence of an alternative and if we were to do similar exercise of other parameters, there would be nothing left to debate except wait for a system that automatically provides answers (albeit based on someone's input who would have his parameters built in to it but make us believe that it is fair) The absence of a complex system that you need doesn't stop the process of forecasting. People use the system they have access too. Like in olden days people made fire without lighters. Nor will an absence of proper system based on standardized parameters stop people from proclaiming someone as the greatest

[The Outsider]

Do we have a multi millionaire on ICF? rett bhaisahab, can you pay for the subscription costs of the forum for the next 100 years?

[Trichromatic]

Extrapolation of data to make a prediction in the future is not a simplistic product of the runs per test * the number of matches to be played in the future. More the number of tests, more the margin of error will be. In a short range like 5-10 tests, the actuals might match the predicted score, but on higher ranges like 50 tests, such predictions can be grossly inaccurate. Till his 110th test match, Ricky Ponting had scored 9368 runs at a runs per test of 85. After 45 test matches. He should have reached a total of 13200 in his 155th match. He is currently at 12495 runs which is a lesser by 700 runs than his predicted total. There would be 100s of such examples provided you apply your metric to existing data which can be verified, as opposed to making a prediction in the future which cant be verified.

Ponting's career can be divided into three phases. First 54 matches Runs : 3235 Avg : 43.71 100s : 9 50s : 15 Next 53 matches Runs : 5813 Avg : 75.05 100s : 24 50s : 20 Last 48 matches Runs : 3256 Avg : 39.22 100s : 6 50s : 21

Predicting his runs is tougher. Ponting's scoring in "next" 50 tests has changed drastically. Avg rise of 30 and then drop of 36.

[vamos_rafa]

Where is that guy who had scored a 99 %ile in CAT and is a MS certified programmer. I think we need him now.

[Raghav_12]

the guy has a criminal record coming into this thread! why am I not surprised? :cheer:

That is the beauty, despite having such proven criminal record, he finds his preys very easily on this forum. :haha:

[ganeshran]

Predicting his runs is tougher. Ponting's scoring in "next" 50 tests has changed drastically. Avg rise of 30 and then drop of 36.

This is exactly what I mean. If RPT was useful to forecast scores, then it should be applicable to historical data too, which it doesnt.

[zen]

It is hilarious to see the so folks discussing the usefulness of rot, which is just for est for the purpose of discussion .... I have seen ppl try to calculate tendulkars avg if he were transported to Bradman era and vice versa. The point is it possible to do that. Real world scenarios are totally different and everyone knows that but we still est. for the purpose of the discussion