Skip to main content

The Third Lie: kicking off a new series

There are few things in this world that seem to polarise people more than statistics. Mark Twain's famous quote (from which this series takes its name as well) is probably the best example of the school of thought that derides the field and its use to explain things whereas most people of a scientific mind or training will almost always look at the statistics first. The truth as always probably lies somewhere in between.

My own more simplistic view on statistics is closer to what a character in one of Rex Stout's innumerable Nero Wolfe books says, "There are two kinds of statistics, the kind you look up and the kind you make up". I was never particularly strong on the higher mathematics side (= the kind you make up) of the statistics coin but when it came to numbers in sports (especially cricket), my thirst for looking up has been like a glass with no bottom. Poring over lists and numbers and comparing players across eras (often on meaningless parameters) has cumulatively taken up at least a few of my thirty five years. And of late, this poring is done almost exclusively on ESPNcricinfo's Statsguru which is the sort of thing I wish I could have built. Andy Zaltzman's paen to it really says it all and possibly the only thing I would add to it would be that (to paraphrase Douglas Adams): access to Statsguru is the second most massively useful thing a hitchhiker could have after a towel.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that I have decided to start sharing my joys of looking up beyond myself and this weekly (or sometimes more frequent) series will aim to share the result of one statsguru search with something at least mildly interesting/unusual that you might not have come across before. Now back to the crunching.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...

The Ashes part deux: series preview

While I admire the honest, outspoken style that Ian Chappell has in his commentary and writing I don't find myself agreeing with his views very often. This latest piece on ESPNcricinfo is an exception though. In what is a faintly ridiculous set of back to back Ashes series (to accommodate an ODI World Cup of all things), the build-up to the second round has been laughable almost. Anyone who hasn't followed the game for a few years might be forgiven if they thought that the Australian domination from the 1990s and early 2000s has continued and that they will win in a canter again. For a team that's lost seven of their last nine matches (and it should have been eight really), that's quite a good turnaround on paper (and digitally). The reality though is that unless they show a drastic improvement (especially in terms of scoring runs) and England have a bit of a shocker, its going to be well nigh impossible for Australia to win back the urn. Despite putting Buffoon Bo...

Quick singles: Why the double standards?

I'm no fan of David Warner's but for once, I'm firmly and squarely on his side . Sportspersons are probably treated the most unfairly by public opinion (and often the media) whenever they are involved in pay disputes. "Oh, look these millionaires are complaining about not getting paid enough" seems to be the gist of the general reactions. I find this attitude inexplicable at best and grossly hypocritical if I'm feeling less charitable. Like the rest of us, all athletes have the right to fight for what they think they should be paid. That is the fundamental part. In addition (and unlike many of the rest of us), most sportspersons operate in the knowledge that they only have a short period available as a performer, and therefore only a short period to maximise earnings. Most people that I know would behave exactly the same as Warner and his colleagues are doing. So why all the hue and cry?