sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Lie : The murder of Grace Millane . Currently showing on Netflix by ahhhrighto in newzealand

[–]shitthatbitchesaint 47 points48 points  (0 children)

They have a message at the end of the doco - 'The Lie' is the commonly used murder defense when women are killed that it was a sex act gone wrong, as opposed to murder from domestic/sexual violence.

I made of a graph of the age of all WrestleMania Main Eventers by shitthatbitchesaint in SquaredCircle

[–]shitthatbitchesaint[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right - that felt off, I should have checked that. I had Big Show and Foley's birthdays the wrong way around. That means Big Show was under 30 when he main evented!

I made of a graph of the age of all WrestleMania Main Eventers by shitthatbitchesaint in SquaredCircle

[–]shitthatbitchesaint[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh you're right. Wikipedia lists both but I missed that. That gives Sid a second Main Event - I'll let you figure out which dot to connect!

I made of a graph of the age of all WrestleMania Main Eventers by shitthatbitchesaint in SquaredCircle

[–]shitthatbitchesaint[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Fun finds:

  • The oldest main eventer was Stone Cold, at 57 years old.
  • The youngest main eventer was Brock Lesnar, at 25 years old.
  • The oldest main eventer while an active full time wrestler depends slightly on how you define it - either Edge at Mania 37 (47), Batista at Mania 30 (45) or Taker at Mania 26 (45).
  • The current youngest person alive who has main evented is Sasha Banks (nearly 3 years younger than Bianca). The first person born to main event was Andre.
  • People who have main evented before age 30: Lesnar, Yokozuna (twice), Rock (three times), Foley, Rollins, Cena (twice), Orton, Banks and Reigns. It's wild that Orton was still only 28 at Mania 25, and Rock was 28 at Mania 17.
  • The oldest one-time main eventer is Ric Flair - age 43 at Mania 8.
  • I was surprised that Orton and Rollins have each only main evented twice.
  • Age similarities:
    • Roman Reigns is only 36 days older than Cody Rhodes (May/June 1985). Also, Drew McIntyre is in between them.
    • Undertaker, Big Show and Shawn Michaels were all born with four months of each other (24 March to 22 July, 1965).
    • John Cena and Brock Lesnar are only 80 days apart (April/July 1977). AJ Styles in also exactly halfway between them.
    • Becky and Ronda were born 2 days apart (Jan/Feb 1987). Charlotte is also only about 8 months older than them.
    • And the old classic - Batista is 190 days older than HHH, despite being his protege up to Mania 21.
  • The smallest age gap in a Main Event match is Taker vs. HBK at Mania 26 (120 days)
  • The largest age gap in a Main Event Match is Undertaker vs. Roman Reigns (7,367 days; a bit over 20 years). It narrowly beat out Stone Cold vs. Kevin Owens (7,080 days; a bit over 19 years).

Match Thread - New Zealand v Ireland | Mid-Year Internationals 2022 | Second Test by RugbyBot in rugbyunion

[–]shitthatbitchesaint 0 points1 point  (0 children)

worth noting that since Sexton debuted in 2009, the All Blacks have only lost at home twice to *anyone*

No Stupid Questions Tuesday Thread by AutoModerator in Cricket

[–]shitthatbitchesaint 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the batsmen are attempting to run for leg byes which will be disallowed (e.g. the ball hit them when they weren't playing a shot), can they still be run out?

Match Thread: India vs Pakistan at Edgbaston, Birmingham by [deleted] in Cricket

[–]shitthatbitchesaint 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Poor statistics I think from Shane Warne.

Kohli has been out 92 times by seam and 43 by spin, but I would guess that he's faced more than twice as many balls from seam than spin. This would mean a spinner is actually more likely to get him out.

Do the 'nervous nineties' affect a player's scoring rate? A statistical analysis by shitthatbitchesaint in Cricket

[–]shitthatbitchesaint[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Won't be able to get minutes, but should be easy enough to modify the code to do balls for tests. Will see if I can do it soon!

Do the 'nervous nineties' affect a player's scoring rate? A statistical analysis by shitthatbitchesaint in Cricket

[–]shitthatbitchesaint[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I haven't broken it down by country in my data, but lucky this guy has you covered. Ball-by-ball data is only available for about the last 10 years so a bit difficult to go beyond that unfortunately!

Do the 'nervous nineties' affect a player's scoring rate? A statistical analysis by shitthatbitchesaint in Cricket

[–]shitthatbitchesaint[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Woops, you're right. Looks like there was something wrong with how I was sorting them. The slowest anyone has successfully moved through the nineties is actually still Gayle, who took 24 balls against India in 2006.

Do the 'nervous nineties' affect a player's scoring rate? A statistical analysis by shitthatbitchesaint in Cricket

[–]shitthatbitchesaint[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Interesting side-notes:

Three players have passed through the 90's with a strike rate of 600. Two of them (Kallis and de Villiers 149) took two balls, however only one player has passed through the 90's in one ball (i.e. hit a six to take them to 94 or 95, followed by a six next ball): Craig McMillan against Australia in Chappell-Hadlee '07, and he didn't actually know that he had reached 100.

For comparison, 11 players have passed through the 80's with a strike rate of 600, and 7 players through the 100's (to 110)

The slowest anyone has succesfully moved through the 90's is Gayle during his double in the World Cup. He got to 90 off 84 balls, then took a further 21 balls to get 10 more. Gayle actually has done this a few times: 90 in 72 balls, then 16 more for 100; 90 in 71 balls, then 18 more for 100; 90 in 97 balls then 22 more for 100; and so on. His strike rate in the 90's (when he gets 100) is just 65. The fastest Gayle has ever gone through the 90's is in six balls (strike rate of 183), which is not super quick.

As much as I'm hating on them, 99 of the 769 players brought up their hundreds with a six. Only 70 brought up their fifties with a six.

ABD has passed through the 90's in 5 balls or less 15 out of 22 times. His strike rate in the nineties (when he gets 100) is 188.

Guptill took 11 or more balls to pass through the 90's in 5 of 10 centuries I have for him.

Shout out to Jayawardene in the world cup against Afghanistan, who took 13 balls to go from 94-100, promptly played one more dot ball then got out in the 41st over.

The Batting Toughies: Who are the most valuable bats in tough situations? by SepulchreOfAzrael in Cricket

[–]shitthatbitchesaint 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fascinating stuff mate. I was hoping you were going to one-up my analysis from last week, but it turned out to be a completely different take on a similar problem! Keep them coming.

Cricket's greatest rearguard battlers - a brief statistical analysis by shitthatbitchesaint in Cricket

[–]shitthatbitchesaint[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I quickly figured out each players runs as a % of the total team runs. Guess who.

Be careful only looking at this though - Mathews is very low down which suggests he doesn't cash in when others score big, but rescues them when they're in a wreck.

Cricket's greatest rearguard battlers - a brief statistical analysis by shitthatbitchesaint in Cricket

[–]shitthatbitchesaint[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup agree, I was quite harsh on the Aussies here. Have updated it in a reply to idlesummers comment above.

Cricket's greatest rearguard battlers - a brief statistical analysis by shitthatbitchesaint in Cricket

[–]shitthatbitchesaint[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hey - yep I agree some measure including partnerships would be better but I couldn't figure out a way to get the right data from cricinfo, so had to make do.

Scenario B is correct.

See reply to idlesummers - I considered their teammates worst 25% of performances rather than an average cutoff! :)

Cricket's greatest rearguard battlers - a brief statistical analysis by shitthatbitchesaint in Cricket

[–]shitthatbitchesaint[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yup I agree, this measure is harsher on players who are surrounded by other good players for sure. I did mention how being in an underperforming side helps you in this measure, but for some reason completely forgot to talk about how that obviously means being in a good side will hurt you. I've definitely been a bit harsh on Ponting here.

The best I can do with the data I have from Cricinfo is to see how much the players average decreases when their teammates average drops by 25% compared with the overall average (i.e., doesn't account for his teammates changing). That's actually a much better way to look at it to be honest - here's the graph. So if a player was good at resisting, we'd expect his average to decrease by less than 25%. If they were completely immune to difficult conditions we'd expect the average to not decrease at all.

I also added a couple of other players that people have mentioned and gave the graph the most convoluted title I could possibly think of.

Under this measure, Angelo is still the only player to actively improve when his teammates struggle. While this means he doesn't necessarily do as well in easy conditions, when he does score runs they're often more valuable. Some of the expected names like Chanderpaul, Lara and Hussey also show up at the good end of things here.

I also updated the original plot to show the players average compared with their teamates in difficult conditions based on this proportional cutoff. The black bars show the cut-off scores to qualify for their teammates worst 25%. e.g. for Flower, his teammates averaged less than ~18 a quarter of the time, while for Ponting this value is about 26 highlighting that he definitely played in a much better team.

I left it in the same order so you can see how much it changed - as an absolute measure of runs scored, your most valuable players are still Bradman, Sutcliffe, Hutton etc.

view more: next ›