Clutch cricketers (statistical rating by Silentstriker)

[silentstriker]

Here goes another one: who helps their team win the most? Meaning, who are the most valuable cricketers?

For this, I would like to do:

To equalize:
ICC bowling rating: 30pt
ICC batting rating: 30pt
Batting Ave in wins: 20pt
Bowling Ave in wins: 20pt

Note: You have to be a bowler with >75 wickets & <35 average and a batsman with >1000 & >20 average runs for this to count. Otherwise Bradman with his 22 bowling average in matches won would ruin it.

Clutch criteria:
Bowling difference in wins: 35pts
Batting difference in wins: 35pts
Wickets/Match in games won vs. games lost: 15 pts
Centuries/innings in games won vs. games lost: 15 pts
(Higher the better. Lower or negative = bad)

Now, yes I realize the problem with this. A guy who averages 40 normally but 80 in wins is going to be rewarded while a guy averaging 55 no matter what will be penalized. And yes, all rounders will be the ones coming out ahead in this, as they should, because they can clutch games in multiple departments.

But thats what I'm trying to find out. And before certain posters get on the soapbox, I realize this is just a fun little thing and I am not doing it as the end-all and be-all of statistical ratings:

And for some damn reason, Bradman still comes out #1. The damn guy never loses, even though he got a rating of 0 in the bowling department (his obscene 286 rating in the batting made up for it).


With that said, here it goes:

How does one player's performance with the bat or ball correlate to his team winning and losing?

1. Bradman (276.476)
2. Sobers (256.95)
3. Dravid (173.99)
4. Inzy (168.87)
5. Botham (164.75)
6. Miller (151.11)
7. Waugh (125.43)
8. Khan (124.16)
9. Kumble (122.78)
10. Miandad (117.61)
11. Ponting (115.64)
12. SRT (116.12)
    

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Bradman (276.476)
Sobers (256.95)
Botham (164.75)
Miller (151.11)
Khan (124.16)
[/LIST]

Geez mate, that's a handy list of players. Even if you didn't do the details for any other cricketers and just said "here are the top 5" I don't reckon you'd get too many complaints.

[Dravid]

Sachin, Anil Kumble, Dravid, Ganguly, and Irfan Pathan please.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Dravid

Sachin, Anil Kumble, Dravid, Ganguly, and Irfan Pathan please.

I can see Dravid and Kumble rating very highly here. SRT, I fear, will sadly rate lower due to so many of his most breathtaking performances coming in losing causes before he got enough support from the rest of his team.

[nightprowler10]

I can see Ganguly being pretty decent in ODIs, not sure about tests though.

[Dravid]

Originally Posted by The Sean

I can see Dravid and Kumble rating very highly here. SRT, I fear, will sadly rate lower due to so many of his most breathtaking performances coming in losing causes before he got enough support from the rest of his team.

I know, I just wasnt to see where he stands.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not sure about this rating system. "Average in wins" has never been an accurate measure of the value of a player in clutch situations IMO. "Average in close games" would be more relevant, but obviously there's no simple way to calculate it. The fact is, I don't see a player as a "clutch player" if they made 40 not out in a chase of 150, or if they take a bunch of wickets in an innings victory. Clutch is runs and wickets against the odds, with the team in trouble, on difficult surfaces for the relevant discipline, facing off against the best players of the opposition, and shoring up the team when the support stuggles. Simply put, it's not something which is easily measureable by statistics - it's one of the subjective grey areas of our game.

The best clutch player I've seen in my time watching cricket would be Steve Waugh, pretty comfortably. There's other players like Lara, Warne, Thorpe and Ponting that seem to thrive under pressure as well, but at times it seemed like almost all of Waugh's good knocks came when he was in at 3/50 or 3/100 against a good team or on a dodgy wicket. You always looked to Waugh, even in a very strong Australian team, to make the runs that nobody else could make, and he led from the front so well it made up for his other deficiencies as captain.

I don't know if his average in wins is better than, say, Tendulkar's, but either way I don't think there's any doubt about who the "clutch player" is.

Incidentally, why include both batting and bowling for every player? Surely Lara or Warne could be a "clutch player" without contributing significantly in both disciplines.

EDIT: Note, you're welcome to make any sort of ranking system you want, I'm just saying that, for me, the stat used isn't particularly relevant.

[nightprowler10]

Would like to see the comparison between Inzamam and Miandad.

[PhoenixFire]

I guess that Murali and Sangakkara will have some of the highest ratings.

[nightprowler10]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Incidentally, why include both batting and bowling for every player? Surely Lara or Warne could be a "clutch player" without contributing significantly in both disciplines.

Agree with that.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Not sure about this rating system. "Average in wins" has never been an accurate measure of the value of a player in clutch situations IMO. "Average in close games" would be more relevant, but obviously there's no simple way to calculate it.

Yup, I completely agree.

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

The fact is, I don't see a player as a "clutch player" if they made 40 not out in a chase of 150, or if they take a bunch of wickets in an innings victory. Clutch is runs and wickets against the odds, with the team in trouble, on difficult surfaces for the relevant discipline, facing off against the best players of the opposition, and shoring up the team when the support stuggles. Simply put, it's not something which is easily measureable by statistics - it's one of the subjective grey areas of our game.

Completely agree.

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

EDIT: Note, you're welcome to make any sort of ranking system you want, I'm just saying that, for me, the stat used isn't particularly relevant.

You're probably right. But its fun anyway.

[silentstriker]

Incidentally, why include both batting and bowling for every player? Surely Lara or Warne could be a "clutch player" without contributing significantly in both disciplines.

Because a person contributing with both bat and ball will likely be more important to the team than a guy just with the bat or the ball. I want to measure how much each person is valuable to their team.

[silentstriker]

For example, the stat that weights as 70% is the difference between victories and defeats. A guy who averages 70 in both wins and losses is obviously going to be more important than a guy that averages 60 in wins and 25 in losses.

But the latter guy will be ranked higher in this system. I'm not really trying to ferret out the 'best' players during wins, just 'How important is this player's performance is to his team winning'? Does that make sense?

Or maybe a better way of saying "How does one player's performance with the bat or ball correlate to his team winning and losing?"


Because the guy who does the same no matter what his team does is obviously not the deciding factor in them winning or losing, ya know?

[silentstriker]

Dravid, SRT, Kumble added.

[silentstriker]

Miandad & Inzy added.