All time batting ratings (statistical analysis by Silentstriker)

[silentstriker]

Per this post, I've decided to rank the batsmen.

If you want a specific batsman ranked, let me know, and I just have to input his stats into the spreadsheet. I ranked some to get started...and here are the results:

Note: A rating of 100 based on this criteria implies the 'ideal' batsman (not 'perfect' because you can theoretically get >100 rating, but 'ideal').

And yes, Bradman was better than 'Ideal':

Retired players only:

1. Bradman (132.47)
2. Sobers (90.50)
3. Sutcliffe (89.16)
4. Barrington (88.08)
5. Hobbs (87.80)
6. Hutton (87.37)
7. Chappell (84.41)
8. Hammond (83.46)
9. Miandad (81.67)
10. Richards (81.67)
11. Gavaskar (80.20)
12. Waugh (79.53)

Current players included (take this with a grain of salt, as many players will decline before retirement):

1. Bradman (132.47)
2. Sobers (90.50)
3. Dravid (89.45)
4. Sutcliffe (89.16)
5. Ponting (89.13)
6. Barrington (88.08)
7. Hobbs (87.80)
8. Hutton (87.37)
9. Yousuf (86.40)
10. Chappell (84.41)
11. Hammond (83.83)
12. Tendulkar (83.55)
13. Hammond (83.46)
14. Kallis (83.46)
15. Lara (83.01)
16. Miandad (81.67)
17. Richards (81.67)
18. Gavaskar (80.20)
19. Waugh (79.53)
20. Chris Martin (2.44)

No flames please. This is just based on stats only, and how they are weighted is based on opinion.

Before you freak out:

Why is Dravid so high? My personal ranking does not have him in the top 25, so its not anything except the following:

• 4th innings average of 58.25 is very high.
• Away average of 65.28 beats almost everyone.
• His average in matches won is a ridiculous 78.72

Another note about both Dravid & Ponting: They haven't retired (along with Lara and Tendy and Yousuf) so it is very likely their numbers will decline before they do so.

[silentstriker]

Here is some raw data for those interested:

	Bradman	Sobers	Tendulkar Lara	Richards Chappell Hobbs	Ponting	Martin
Inn	80	160	211	232	182	151	102	178	41
50	13	30	41	48	45	31	28	35	0
100	29	26	35	34	24	24	15	33	0
200	12	2	4	9	3	4	1	4	0
300	2	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	0
Home	98.23	66.8	55.25	58.65	49.78	54.4	52.3	66.31	1.6
Away	102.85	50.73	55.52	47.8	50.5	52.96	59.91	53.22	2.46
Won	130.08	77.42	64.14	61.02	52.43	70.49	68	66.55	0
1st	113.67	57.96	70.53	70.18	53.85	52.46	56.68	72.6	2
2nd	85.56	61.42	51.89	59.01	48.81	66.06	67.65	57.47	2.8
3rd	130.42	57.9	52.44	40.43	49.5	45.31	35.84	44.72	2.29
4th	73.4	46.69	35.56	35.12	47.95	49.14	57.59	60.17	0.67
HS	334	365	248	400	291	247	211	257	7
ICC	961	938	898	911	938	883	942	940	27
									
Rating									
									
Home	16.37	11.13	9.21	9.78	8.30	9.07	8.72	11.05	0.27
Away	25.71	12.68	13.88	11.95	12.63	13.24	14.98	13.31	0.62
Won	32.52	19.36	16.04	15.26	13.11	17.62	17.00	16.64	0.00
Ratio	17.75	10.25	10.52	10.00	10.22	10.46	11.37	11.35	0.00
1st	2.17	1.29	1.07	1.02	0.87	1.17	1.13	1.11	0.00
2nd	2.85	2.05	1.73	1.97	1.63	2.20	2.26	1.92	0.09
3rd	6.52	2.90	2.62	2.02	2.48	2.27	1.79	2.24	0.11
4th	4.89	3.11	2.37	2.34	3.20	3.28	3.84	4.01	0.04
HS	4.18	4.56	3.10	5.00	3.64	3.09	2.64	3.21	0.09
ICC	25.29	24.68	23.63	23.97	24.68	23.24	24.79	24.74	0.71
									
Total	138.25	92.01	84.17	83.30	80.74	85.64	88.51	89.56	1.93

[adharcric]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Chris Martin (1.93)

Classic.

I'd like to know ratings for the following guys.

Sunil Gavaskar, Rahul Dravid, George Headley, Javed Miandad, Steve Waugh and Virender Sehwag.

[The Sean]

Love it - great start. Would be interested to see Headley and Pollock in there, I reckon they'd rank highly. Also Hutton.

I still wouldn't expect Martin to drop out of the top 10, but it will be good to see who fills the spaces below him.

Surprised to see Bradman at 1 as well.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by adharcric

Classic.

I'd like to know ratings for the following guys.

Sunil Gavaskar, Rahul Dravid, George Headley, Javed Miandad, Steve Waugh, Courtney Walsh and Venkatesh Prasad.

Will do, its a bit time intensive, so give me a little bit of time. I am going to ignore Courtney Walsh and Prasad for a little while until I can get the others in .

[silentstriker]

Err, one player that adharcric gave me just got ranked awfully higher than where I thought he'd go. Give me a sec to double check.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Err, one player that adharcric gave me just got ranked awfully higher than where I thought he'd go. Give me a sec to double check.

Headley? His averages and 50/100 and 100/innings rates are all incredible.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Headley? His averages and 50/100 and 100/innings rates are all incredible.

I am thinking about excluding Headley due to his low # of innings played. His average in matches won is ridiculous, and thats what causes him to go insane, but he only won 5 test matches, so I do not believe it is representative (He scores a 99 BTW).

[adharcric]

Well you put too much weight on average in matches won IMO. It should be 10% at most.

[silentstriker]

OK, less than >60 innings do not qualify. Its just not a good enough sample.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by adharcric

Well you put too much weight on average in matches won IMO. It should be 10% at most.

Yea, I am thinking so too...will re-adjust. I will make ICC rankings 30% to compensate.

[The Sean]

Not really Headley's fault he played in a team that lost most of the time!

[Burgey]

SS,

You and AT are to be congratulated on this effort and that with the bowlers. Great stuff!!

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

OK, less than >60 innings do not qualify. Its just not a good enough sample.

Aside from Headley and Pollock, who else of the usual suspects would that eliminate? Not too many I'm thinking, which is good.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Not really Headley's fault he played in a team that lost most of the time!

No, but its also unfair to call his stats a representative sample of his ability, ya know? He only had 40 innings, which is really just not enough.