• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Sabermetrics in Cricket

Jungle Jumbo

International Vice-Captain
But... he won't. Very few have managed to perfect the art of batting in the lower-order and getting lots of n\os. Most who bat down there regularly get out cheaply because they have to play strokes from-ball-one and that's not an easy task at all.

Therefore the Kluseners et al of this World deserve a hell of a lot of credit for the not-outs IMO.
That's where SR comes into the TBV. Klusener's SR is high and is then boosted slightly (but substantially) by his number of not outs.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
But the likes of Bevan who don't have such high SRs will be penalised for getting 70* where others have got 68.
 

FRAZ

International Captain
Top effort Jumbo, although one factor that appears to be ignored is the era in which the batsmen played. I've always maintained that Viv Richards and Zaheer Abbas must be 2 of the best ODI batsmen of all time given their remarkable averages and strike rates in an era where 200 was a solid score.
Excellent post ! Wait let me read again !!!
 

Jungle Jumbo

International Vice-Captain
Top effort Jumbo, although one factor that appears to be ignored is the era in which the batsmen played. I've always maintained that Viv Richards and Zaheer Abbas must be 2 of the best ODI batsmen of all time given their remarkable averages and strike rates in an era where 200 was a solid score.
That's pretty much impossible to remove. Just as a Test average of 50 today is worth less than a Test average of 50 twenty years ago. The TBV only really works with modern players, since adjustments to lessen the importance of SR would have to be made to the formula. It is designed purely as a modern-day comparison and should even be limited to, say, the player's last 150 ODI, since Jayasuriya, Tendulkar et al played when 250 was still a large total.
 

FRAZ

International Captain
Social is in that late category . Never thought like that and I kept on talking casually thinking as if he is younger than me . I apologize !!!!
 

thierry henry

International Coach
Simply because one of the most logical ways in determining how 'good' a player is his average. A middle or low-order batsman will have more not-outs in ODI cricket, therefore inflating his average. In Test cricket it is useful as only one batsman can usually be not out and so demonstrates that this batsman can bat for a long amount of time without being dismissed (in the case of batsmen, not bowlers).

That doesn't answer the question at all. Not-outs don't "inflate" an average. Regardless of how many not outs you have, your average shows how many runs you make between each dismissal.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
The easiest way to deal with strike rate would be to weight them according to the bowling economy rates of the time. That would give a relative value that is usable across time.

Purely Hypothetical numbers below

Ie. If Richards had a SR of 85 and the bowling econ rate for the period was 4.00 then that would equate to 85/4= 21.25. Therefore speed of scoring index for Richards= 21.25

If Afridi had a SR of 100 and the bowling econ rate for the period was 5.00 then that would equate to 100/5= 20.00. Therefore speed of scoring index for Afridi= 20

Its a way of evening out relatively fast scoring in a period of lower economy rates and slower scoring.
 
Last edited:

Jungle Jumbo

International Vice-Captain
That doesn't answer the question at all. Not-outs don't "inflate" an average. Regardless of how many not outs you have, your average shows how many runs you make between each dismissal.
But increasingly they do 'inflate' the average. On a flat wicket on the subcontinent, the top four may all make fifties. Number five and six are then left to bat for the last five overs, during which they both make 20 each. Their averages will then rise more than those of the top order, despite not making as many runs. Yes, it is balanced out by the times they come in and lose their wickets straight away going for big shots, but not completely. When I removed the adjusted average from the metric and added the regular average instead, a substantial number of lower middle-order batsman rose up the table. It is designed to give the player's value to the team, not the player's individual ability, even if that means that he is often not out.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
But increasingly they do 'inflate' the average. On a flat wicket on the subcontinent, the top four may all make fifties. Number five and six are then left to bat for the last five overs, during which they both make 20 each. Their averages will then rise more than those of the top order, despite not making as many runs. Yes, it is balanced out by the times they come in and lose their wickets straight away going for big shots, but not completely. When I removed the adjusted average from the metric and added the regular average instead, a substantial number of lower middle-order batsman rose up the table. It is designed to give the player's value to the team, not the player's individual ability, even if that means that he is often not out.
Still missing the point. If a player makes 25 not out and then 25 out, how is that inferior to a guy who makes 50, out, in a single innings? You could even argue that it's harder to accumulate runs over several innings because you have to get set again, adjust to different conditions, etc.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
The easiest way to deal with strike rate would be to weight them according to the bowling economy rates of the time. That would give a relative value that is usable across time.

Purely Hypothetical numbers below

Ie. If Richards had a SR of 85 and the bowling econ rate for the period was 4.00 then that would equate to 85/4= 21.25. Therefore speed of scoring index for Richards= 21.25

If Afridi had a SR of 100 and the bowling econ rate for the period was 5.00 then that would equate to 100/5= 20.00. Therefore speed of scoring index for Afridi= 20

Its a way of evening out relatively fast scoring in a period of lower economy rates and slower scoring.
Interesting stuff all in all. I like this theory Goughy

I couldn't open the main spreadsheet though, possibly because of restrictions at work. I'll have to get a good look at it at home sometime.

It would be interesting if a similar thing could be done for bowlers. There's often debate on these parts whether 10-40-0 or 10-63-3 is better.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
But increasingly they do 'inflate' the average. On a flat wicket on the subcontinent, the top four may all make fifties. Number five and six are then left to bat for the last five overs, during which they both make 20 each. Their averages will then rise more than those of the top order, despite not making as many runs.
Not true. 75 will increase most averages (all other things being equal) more than 22* will.

Unless I'm much mistaken? :unsure:
 

Jungle Jumbo

International Vice-Captain
Not true. 75 will increase most averages (all other things being equal) more than 22* will.

Unless I'm much mistaken? :unsure:
Yes, because in general, a score of 75 is more valuable than a score of 22*. However, if an opener averaging 35 makes 30, before a middle-order batsman averaging 45 makes 22*, then one player's average will decrease, the other increase. It's not a huge factor, but it is definitely significant, hence why I take four parts raw average with one part regular average. If you just use the regular average or use any other combination, the TBV becomes skewed.

GeraintIsMyHero said:
It would be interesting if a similar thing could be done for bowlers. There's often debate on these parts whether 10-40-0 or 10-63-3 is better.
I'm working on that at the moment. I got somewhere with it this evening, but unfortunately the stats are elsewhere. Again it has the problems caused by players with short but successful careers, with Shane Bond sitting easily top of the pile. Vettori is also a bit low down for my liking, but his one-day stats aren't actually that impressive.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, because in general, a score of 75 is more valuable than a score of 22*. However, if an opener averaging 35 makes 30, before a middle-order batsman averaging 45 makes 22*, then one player's average will decrease, the other increase. It's not a huge factor, but it is definitely significant, hence why I take four parts raw average with one part regular average. If you just use the regular average or use any other combination, the TBV becomes skewed.
That's before you start to think about the fact that a quick 22* (off, say, 15 balls) is probably a more useful innings than, say, 30 off 50 balls at the top of the innings (unless the ball was doing plenty).
 

Jungle Jumbo

International Vice-Captain
That's before you start to think about the fact that a quick 22* (off, say, 15 balls) is probably a more useful innings than, say, 30 off 50 balls at the top of the innings (unless the ball was doing plenty).
Which is why the formula is also weighted heavily towards strike rate. ;)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Oh, quite, I wasn't decrying your formula here, just pointing-out that, as far as traditional average is concerned, the difference between 22* and 30 isn't huge for anyone who's played much.
 

Top