# Thread: Total Batting Value - Updated February 2008

1. ## Total Batting Value - Updated February 2008

Thanks to Goughy for reminded me of this with his own thread trying to analyse the makeup of successful ODI sides.

The general idea remains the same as per this thread.

A reminder of the formula, for those absent-minded few who have forgotten it:

To begin with, a few terms I made up need explaining:
Regular average - the standard batting average (runs divided by times out).
Raw average - runs scored divided by innings batted, hence removing the not-outs.
100s per innings - the number of hundreds scored divided by innings batted.
50s per innings - the number of fifties scored divided by innings batted.

The sum of the raw average multiplied by four and the regular average multiplied by one is divided by five to give the weighted average.
(raw*4 + reg)/5

The 100s per innings (100/I) is multiplied by 450, to give the weighted 100/I.
100/I*450

The 50s per innings (50/I) is multiplied by 150 to give the weighted 50/I.
50/I*150

Matches played is also factored into the formula to reduce the anomalies caused by players with short careers (e.g. Pietersen, Dhoni).

Strike rate (SR) is divided by two to give the weighted SR
(runs/balls*100)/2

The TBV is composed as follows:
0.65 - weighted average
0.20 - weighted SR
0.09 - weighted 100/I
0.04 - weighted 50/I
0.02 - matches played

The entire formula is therefore:
(0.65*weighted average)+(0.20*weighted SR)+(0.09*weighted 100/I)+(0.04*weighted 50/I)+(0.02*matches played).
There is one small change to the above formula - matches played has been replaced by innings batted: the previous formula gave batsmen such as McGrath credit for not even batting, which isn't the point.

The threshold was a minimum of 30 career ODI innings AND an ODI appearance in 2007. All Test nations plus Zimbabwe were included.

2. Certainly a lot of thought and work has gone into it and the expected players are all round the top.

I do have 3 questions.

How were the weightings decided? How is it worked out that strike rate, for example, is worth only 10% of a players value or what is the rationale for 9% being for 100s per innings?

Were the weightings decided blindly and then player data inputted to produce the results or was the weighting revised slightly after a few looks to produces results closer to those desired.

How would the formula value a theoretical player that averaged 60 at a strike rate of 40? Obviously such a player would be a liability in reallife, and I was wondering if the formula would recognise this.

Despite those questions, its an interesting read.

3. Gotta question innings played - in OPS, batting average in baseball and cricket, it doesn't matter whether you do it off 1 PA or 162 PAs, 1 innings or 200 innings, the average is worked out similairly. If you know what I mean.

4. Originally Posted by Goughy
How were the weightings decided? How is it worked out that strike rate, for example, is worth only 10% of a players value or what is the rationale for 9% being for 100s per innings?
Yeah, that's the main problem.

Originally Posted by Goughy
Were the weightings decided blindly and then player data inputted to produce the results or was the weighting revised slightly after a few looks to produces results closer to those desired.
Pretty much the same question as above. To take both questions at once, I took (last year, used existing formula modified this year) a cross-section of different types of players (e.g. Tendulkar, Atapattu, Pietersen, Vaughan, Dhoni, Kallis, Dravid, Ganguly, can't remember exactly who) and then came up with a rough formula that ranked them accordingly. The formula was then altered more carefully once I had put all the data on there. Obviously this makes it subjective - it is artificial, I have roughly ranked the batsmen according to my own views, then changed the formula to suit it. This is the biggest drawback. Therefore, like you said, the weightings are also subjective - mathematically there is no evidence for 10% to be based on SR rather than 15%, for example. Which raises the question, can a statistical formula be subjective? Ideally I could use this in 10, 15 years time (assuming the game doesn't change as it has done in the last 10-15 years, which makes this hypothetical) on a 'new' bunch of players.

Originally Posted by Goughy
How would the formula value a theoretical player that averaged 60 at a strike rate of 40? Obviously such a player would be a liability in reallife, and I was wondering if the formula would recognise this
Theoretical player: 100 innings, averaging 60 at a strike rate of 40, with 8 hundreds and 20 fifties (not sure if the number of 100s/50s really corresponds with such a big average but it wouldn't deflate/inflate dramatically).

TBV of 25.05, which places the batsman below Brett Lee and above Mohammad Hafees. So the TBV is still appropriate in this case.

Originally Posted by Jamee999
Gotta question innings played - in OPS, batting average in baseball and cricket, it doesn't matter whether you do it off 1 PA or 162 PAs, 1 innings or 200 innings, the average is worked out similairly. If you know what I mean.
To remove anomalies - in last year's version, for example, Pietersen and Dhoni were miles clear of the rest; obviously this isn't the case as much now. I did try removing it last night and it was a bit skewed still. However, I think the experience factor is key and it does settle it down a bit. The ICC rankings use thresholds whereby maximum points cannot be gained until a certain figure is reached, so it's not too artificial.

Thanks for getting back to me guys, this thing won't improve unless it's criticised.

5. Originally Posted by Jungle Jumbo
Theoretical player: 100 innings, averaging 60 at a strike rate of 40, with 8 hundreds and 20 fifties (not sure if the number of 100s/50s really corresponds with such a big average but it wouldn't deflate/inflate dramatically).

TBV of 25.05, which places the batsman below Brett Lee and above Mohammad Hafees. So the TBV is still appropriate in this case.

Can you walk me through the steps and the formula to show how theoretical player A gets a TBV of 25.05?

If the weighted average constitutes 65% of the value how is it so low? I havent studied it in depth and you are far more familiar with the formula so if you could go step by step then that would be great

6. Originally Posted by Goughy
Can you walk me through the steps and the formula to show how theoretical player A gets a TBV of 25.05?

If the weighted average constitutes 65% of the value how is it so low? I havent studied it in depth and you are far more familiar with the formula so if you could go step by step then that would be great
Forget all of that, miscalculation. TBV of such a player would be 50.32. Formula is a bit skewed here then.