Do wins matter or averages?

[USHK]

I see people are not appreciating wins nowadays. Does the average of the last five years matter? At that time we were losing left and right. Misbah constantly choked from the winning position. Do we really need to remind Mohali semi final or wc T20 07 final? For me, average dont matter as long as we win. Finally we have started winning matches if not series and we are able to score 200 above. Dont forget we could not chase 200 target with selfish players in the past.

Malik averages 36 but in win average, 38. He is best chaser in town so who cares if he averages 36 or 30 if he wins matches for us. Should we call Misbah back to lose us more matches so we can talk about his inflated average? We need youth that should follow winning formula not personal average formula at the expense of team interest.

 

[Ph_11]

I see people are not appreciating wins nowadays. Does the average of the last five years matter? At that time we were losing left and right. Misbah constantly choked from the winning position. Do we really need to remind Mohali semi final or wc T20 07 final? For me, average dont matter as long as we win. Finally we have started winning matches if not series and we are able to score 200 above. Dont forget we could not chase 200 target with selfish players in the past.

Malik averages 36 but in win average, 38. He is best chaser in town so who cares if he averages 36 or 30 if he wins matches for us. Should we call Misbah back to lose us more matches so we can talk about his inflated average? We need youth that should follow winning formula not personal average formula at the expense of team interest.

View attachment 73634

View attachment 73635

View attachment 73636

Simple but loaded question. Wins.
Averages are for losers.

 

[Big Mac]

I see people are not appreciating wins nowadays. Does the average of the last five years matter? At that time we were losing left and right. Misbah constantly choked from the winning position. Do we really need to remind Mohali semi final or wc T20 07 final? For me, average dont matter as long as we win. Finally we have started winning matches if not series and we are able to score 200 above. Dont forget we could not chase 200 target with selfish players in the past.

Malik averages 36 but in win average, 38. He is best chaser in town so who cares if he averages 36 or 30 if he wins matches for us. Should we call Misbah back to lose us more matches so we can talk about his inflated average? We need youth that should follow winning formula not personal average formula at the expense of team interest.

Was Inzi a selfish choker too, seeing as he has fewer runs at a lower average than Misbah in the above table?

 

[msb314]

From a players POV - averages matter far more than wins.

Wins/losses are eventually forgotten after a while and as few people and pundit s remember the result of a game. Even in iCC tournaments - rarely is a defeat attributed to a single player.

However, averages stay with a players records and becomes a talking point amongst experts, pundits and analysts. Although occasionally a player can become categorized as "selfish" - stats matter far more for his record and legacy.

 

[Pete Rose]

It's not really that complicated. Great batsmen win matches against big teams and it shows up in their average.
But there are players who make a career out of dominating weaker teams or winng matches when there's an easy target to chase. Your table becomes very paltry if you (a) remove Sri Lanka and (b) add win/loss ratio

 

[super hitter]

Exactly! and now go in a little bit more depth and see who won us the most no. of LOI's since 2015 WC

 

[USHK]

[MENTION=136528]super hitter[/MENTION] There you go.

 

[USHK]

It's not really that complicated. Great batsmen win matches against big teams and it shows up in their average.
But there are players who make a career out of dominating weaker teams or winng matches when there's an easy target to chase. Your table becomes very paltry if you (a) remove Sri Lanka and (b) add win/loss ratio

That stats is win ratio average with minnow teams removed from the equation. I suggest you pay attention to the stats with background.

 

[USHK]

Now Sri Lanka is removed from win avg equation.

 

[USHK]

Was Inzi a selfish choker too, seeing as he has fewer runs at a lower average than Misbah in the above table?

Misbah did choke but Inzimam was not choker. His average suffered prolonging his long career where he should have retired time time ago.

 

[Ph_11]

Cricket averages are done incorrectly. I dont want to derail the thread but cricket average method is outdated and meaningless. It gives very little meaningful information.

 

[Pete Rose]

That stats is win ratio average with minnow teams removed from the equation. I suggest you pay attention to the stats with background.

Don't really care about average in wins. I want to know how many wins

 

[Indiafan]

I see people are not appreciating wins nowadays. Does the average of the last five years matter? At that time we were losing left and right. Misbah constantly choked from the winning position. Do we really need to remind Mohali semi final or wc T20 07 final? For me, average dont matter as long as we win. Finally we have started winning matches if not series and we are able to score 200 above. Dont forget we could not chase 200 target with selfish players in the past.

Malik averages 36 but in win average, 38. He is best chaser in town so who cares if he averages 36 or 30 if he wins matches for us. Should we call Misbah back to lose us more matches so we can talk about his inflated average? We need youth that should follow winning formula not personal average formula at the expense of team interest.

View attachment 73634

View attachment 73635

View attachment 73636

Classic statistical fallacy here, attributing team performances an comparing with individual performances. Wins/losses are factors of teams, it depends on other things like bowlers, catches being taken, and other things. Runs scored and averages are function of individual performance. I think we learn this in class 6-7 how two completely different things cannot be equated. To compare X and Y, all other factors must be same. You cannot compare Batsmen A with batsmen B based on team results, as team results do not just depend on A and B but on a hundred other factors. Batsman A doing well or B doing well depends on their form but team doing well in match 1 or 2 depends not just on batsmen but a 100 other things

I feel amused when team results are used to compare individuals. Its a classic statistical fallacy. As someone who is a data scientist, these kind of comparisons are laughable at best.

 

[Indiafan]

If we create an equation here. The comparison of player A and B would be something like -

K1*Aform+K2*Askill+K3* Aluck + Y = Performance A. You can see the factors are few enough and consistent enough to compare

Team performance will be something like

K1*TForm+K2*Teambatsman1+K3*Teambatsmen2.......+K8*Teambowlers1.....+K12*Team fielder1.....+Y = Team performance 1

You can see that too many factors are involved for one individual to make that much of a difference even if the batsman's performance is dominant. It still might not be enough to get a one on one comparison unless all other factors are same

 

[AlizeeFan]

Great teams have better averages and poor teams have poor averages.

Find one successful team with poor averages then you can say that averages don't matter.

 

[USHK]

Classic statistical fallacy here, attributing team performances an comparing with individual performances. Wins/losses are factors of teams, it depends on other things like bowlers, catches being taken, and other things. Runs scored and averages are function of individual performance. I think we learn this in class 6-7 how two completely different things cannot be equated. To compare X and Y, all other factors must be same. You cannot compare Batsmen A with batsmen B based on team results, as team results do not just depend on A and B but on a hundred other factors. Batsman A doing well or B doing well depends on their form but team doing well in match 1 or 2 depends not just on batsmen but a 100 other things

I feel amused when team results are used to compare individuals. Its a classic statistical fallacy. As someone who is a data scientist, these kind of comparisons are laughable at best.

I dont understand but maybe you should post your revised stats to make your point to justify your example. It is selective stats overall leaving minnow teams out of equation. Should we be discontented given the history of Pakistan in choking?

 

[USHK]

Don't really care about average in wins. I want to know how many wins

You dont care about average in wins but you care about win? You sound confused and bitter. That is overall the average of the entire career in win ratio taking SA, Aus, NZ, India, Eng into the equation. In his entire career, he averages 50 in win. It means he won ton of matches thus average 50 in win ratio.

 

[Pete Rose]

You dont care about average in wins but you care about win? You sound confused and bitter. That is overall the average of the entire career in win ratio taking SA, Aus, NZ, India, Eng into the equation. In his entire career, he averages 50 in win. It means he won ton of matches thus average 50 in win ratio.

I will help you out because you want to hide. He has not been instrumental in winning us any matches against the big boys. But since you don't have any integrity in your arguments you are hiding the win loss ratio

 

[umerz]

One cannot just filter out stats with out any references. Every innings is played against different opposition under circumstances and results and not just dependent upon one individual. Case in point Basit Ali's 127 in Sharjah, IIRC he came on crease with Pakistan at 96/4 after 30 overs. At the end of 50 overs Pakistan were 270+ and Basit had played one gem on an innings 127 not out of 79 deliveries against a brilliant attack but Pakistan lost the match.

Another innings that comes to my mind, recently Sarfraz came on to bat against Eng in Eng at 2/3 with ball swinging. Sarfraz scored a brilliant hundred, Pakistan lost the match.

There is very little that Sarfraz or Basit could have done after scoring these runs for Pakistan to win the match.

 

[super hitter]

Now Sri Lanka is removed from win avg equation.

View attachment 73639

View attachment 73640

That is not after 2015 WC...

but the first one is a clear view of who has been winning it for Pakistan. Same goes for the t-20's

 

[Pete Rose]

One cannot just filter out stats with out any references. Every innings is played against different opposition under circumstances and results and not just dependent upon one individual. Case in point Basit Ali's 127 in Sharjah, IIRC he came on crease with Pakistan at 96/4 after 30 overs. At the end of 50 overs Pakistan were 270+ and Basit had played one gem on an innings 127 not out of 79 deliveries against a brilliant attack but Pakistan lost the match.

Another innings that comes to my mind, recently Sarfraz came on to bat against Eng in Eng at 2/3 with ball swinging. Sarfraz scored a brilliant hundred, Pakistan lost the match.

There is very little that Sarfraz or Basit could have done after scoring these runs for Pakistan to win the match.

Basit Ali's innings was special because all the West Indies were playing a first choice attach. Whereas Pakistan were missing akram if I recall.
Player pedigree is very easy to judge
1- What his average, whats his strike rate
2- Same as above but against the big boys
3- How many MOM's
4- How many MOM's against the big boys
5- Win/Loss ratio of team while he plays
6- Win/Loss ratio of team against the big boys when he plays.
7- All the above stats in world cup matches
8- All the above stats in world cup matches against big boys

Most of us have played enough cricket or watched enough cricket to know what makes a match-winning great player vs. honest trier with good figures.

 

[USHK]

I will help you out because you want to hide. He has not been instrumental in winning us any matches against the big boys. But since you don't have any integrity in your arguments you are hiding the win loss ratio

You have integrity that is why you cannot prove it through stats. I am hiding because i can prove the stats. You are confused and bitter. Clearly you dont understand win ratio average against big club teams.

 

[USHK]

Basit Ali's innings was special because all the West Indies were playing a first choice attach. Whereas Pakistan were missing akram if I recall.
Player pedigree is very easy to judge
1- What his average, whats his strike rate
2- Same as above but against the big boys
3- How many MOM's
4- How many MOM's against the big boys
5- Win/Loss ratio of team while he plays
6- Win/Loss ratio of team against the big boys when he plays.
7- All the above stats in world cup matches
8- All the above stats in world cup matches against big boys

Most of us have played enough cricket or watched enough cricket to know what makes a match-winning great player vs. honest trier with good figures.

Afridi has average of 23 with the highest MOMs in his career. That is acceptable to you?

 

[Pete Rose]

Afridi has average of 23 with the highest MOMs in his career. That is acceptable to you?

no read the list above. its not about owning one or some of these stats...the degree to which you own them all determines how good a player you all. afridi is as mediocre as they get.

 

[Pete Rose]

You have integrity that is why you cannot prove it through stats. I am hiding because i can prove the stats. You are confused and bitter. Clearly you dont understand win ratio average against big club teams.

so , still avoiding win/loss ratio? i would too with this flimsy argument.

 

[Chrish]

That's why Tendulkar should always be rated below Steve Waugh and Allan boredom

 

[Pete Rose]

That's why Tendulkar should always be rated below Steve Waugh and Allan boredom

in which format of the game?

 

[USHK]

so , still avoiding win/loss ratio? i would too with this flimsy argument.

Those stats are based on win ratio. The reason you cant see because you are confused and bitter. Otherwise you would have proved me wrong by now. Grow up

 

[Chrish]

in which format of the game?

Ultimate format

 

[Pete Rose]

Ultimate format

Test cricket?
Yes, that's a tricky one. Over time (especially in the last decade as cricketers' careers have become longer and more cricket has been played) the definition of greatness in test batting has also taken on longevity, and run tally also as a virtue.

 

[USHK]

I have underlined especially for you since you cannot see stats on win ratio average.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

wins.

thats why I like players like Sarfraz and Pujara etc who play for the team even though they are limited.