Cribbage's Standardised Test Averages (UPDATED November 2018 - posts 753-755)

[weldone]

It's funny, this scenario almost seems the polar opposite of the criticism of players retiring to "protect their average" as it were. If Cribb's measure was officially in use by the ICC, I could see players being judged for playing on and on way beyond their best purely to go down on the official records as more valuable than far better cricketers who had had enough and decided to retire a few years earlier.

That would depend on how much weightage is given to longevity, isn't it?

For just a random example, if an average of 55 for 10 years is taken as equal to average of 53 for 15 years people will think 10 times before taking the decision to carry on for 5 more years just to enhance their 'value'.

 

[weldone]

Yeah, but he's not going to win the titles when he doesn't have the best available players.

Yes, Walsh' team didn't win a test match because of him

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes, Walsh' team didn't win a test match because of him

Please don't feed the Cevno.

 

[Flem274*]

Cevno should feel proud to have started his very own meme, especially one being used in a debate he isn't participating in.

Oh, and we should totally infract Cribb. Cevno to sue for libel.

 

[Howe_zat]

I suppose there's an argument that if you're picking an all-time XI, all you can ever have in the team is a player across one moment in time, as whenever you select in reality you're deciding it on how well each player is playing right now, not what they've done over the last 15 years (mostly). So I can say I'll pick Botham '81, Waqar '94, Ponting '06, etc.

 

[smash84]

Wasim has 13.39 longevity points compared to Walsh' 15.33. Walsh has a better adjusted average too (24.99 versus Wasim's 25.88).

So, PEWS' method would have rated Walsh ahead even if they had the same longevity.

Fair enough

Yes, Walsh' team didn't win a test match because of him

Please don't feed the Cevno.

 

[NUFAN]

This is definitely a Cevno now; we're no longer actually debating the issue - we're just debating whether or not something else you've dreamed up is actually the same as this or not.

Ultimately, longevity is listed separately to standardised averages on my charts. If you think I place too much importance on it then ignore it and just look at the standardised averages. It's there because it's what I value, and I've explained why. I'm not trying to change your mind here.

Harsh on the excellent poster Cevno IMO.

Debates obviously progress or we would just continue writing the exact same thing..

My point was illustrating why your longevity experiment is erroneous. I will forever ignore your incorrect longevity attempt and will just take into your excellent (so far) standardised averages.

 

[weldone]

Please don't feed the Cevno.

Seriously, and this was a bad Cevno.

A good Cevno would be to compare between 'winning 80% of your matches for 11 years and 50% of your matches for 4 more years' to 'winning 73% of your matches for 15 years' probably.

 

[smash84]

I suppose there's an argument that if you're picking an all-time XI, all you can ever have in the team is a player across one moment in time, as whenever you select in reality you're deciding it on how well each player is playing right now, not what they've done over the last 15 years (mostly). So I can say I'll pick Botham '81, Waqar '94, Ponting '06, etc.

That's an interesting idea.

Making an ATXI specifying what time period (their peaks) we want to pick the player from.

A 23 year old botham with a 21 year old waqar etc etc

 

[weldone]

Huh, longevity attempt was not incorrect by any means. Had PEWS given a slightly lesser weightage to longevity thereby keeping Walsh below Marshall and McGrath, people would not complain!

 

[Spark]

Seriously, and this was a bad Cevno.

A good Cevno would be to compare between 'winning 80% of your matches for 11 years and 50% of your matches for 4 more years' to 'winning 73% of your matches for 15 years' probably.

See the flaw in that is that you assume that the 4 more years is 50%. There's no reason to do so.

 

[NUFAN]

Yes, Walsh' team didn't win a test match because of him

McGrath's team didn't go without a win for 4 years after his retirement either.

My Rugby League example highlighted how being the best for a long time matters more than being bloody good but slightly less than the best for even longer isn't as valued in the grand scheme of things.

No one remembers any of the silver medalists from the last 15 years in the 100m sprint, but I bet you some people will remember a few of the gold medalists from the last 11 years.

 

[Prince EWS]

I suppose there's an argument that if you're picking an all-time XI, all you can ever have in the team is a player across one moment in time, as whenever you select in reality you're deciding it on how well each player is playing right now, not what they've done over the last 15 years (mostly). So I can say I'll pick Botham '81, Waqar '94, Ponting '06, etc.

Picking an all-time XI is a different exercise entirely for me (even though I made up mock ones based on these lists anyway), as you're not trying to evaluate who did well at Test level over an extended period, but in fact who would do level at a theoretical level above Test level over a set period. I think it'd be better to use 30-Test peak standardised averages (or something similar) for that exercise, rather than something like this. Something else I can work on in my spare time, I suppose. I get the feeling it'd bring up even more unconventional results than the ones we've got though, not that I'm really one to be bothered by that.

 

[benchmark00]

Finish him! Fiiiinishhh himmm!

 

[weldone]

See the flaw in that is that you assume that the 4 more years is 50%. There's no reason to do so.

Taking on from PEWS' earlier logic, I didn't assume anything. I only implied one would be better than the other more than half the time. If McGrath is replaced by Marshall well and good, but he could be replaced by Dodda Ganesh too. We just have to think which one has more chances of being better than the other. We are talking probability here.

50% is an unrealistic 'expected' number for test matches though, because of the no. of drawn matches. 50% for ODIs would be about right.

 

[NUFAN]

Huh, longevity attempt was not incorrect by any means. Had PEWS given a slightly lesser weightage to longevity thereby keeping Walsh below Marshall and McGrath, people would not complain!

Yeah but that's because we would be oblivious to it.

 

[Burgey]

Huh, longevity attempt was not incorrect by any means. Had PEWS given a slightly lesser weightage to longevity thereby keeping Walsh below Marshall and McGrath, people would not complain!

But there would nonetheless be disparities, as there must be in any rankings system across eras and allowing for preferences with regards to which measures are given more weight by the person devising the system.

 

[weldone]

Yeah but that's because we would be oblivious to it.

Do you really think keeping other things constant, averaging 50 for 20 years is same as averaging 50 for 10 years? If you don't think one is twice as good as the other that's fine (even I don't think the first is twice as good as the 2nd). But are they really one and the same to you?

Had Brian Lara been playing today in his prime (a very wishful thinking I know), would the West Indies cricket team be better? Yes. Does that mean Lara had a short longevity? No. But there is no end to being good. (just like a batsman averaging 60 could have done even better)

 

[NUFAN]

Do you really think keeping other things constant, averaging 50 for 20 years is same as averaging 50 for 10 years? If you don't think one is twice as good as the other that's fine (even I don't think the first is twice as good as the 2nd). But are they really one and the same to you?

Had Brian Lara been playing today in his prime (a very wishful thinking I know), would the West Indies cricket team be better? Yes. Does that mean Lara had a short longevity? No. But there is no end to being good.

No of course I don't. Longevity is a fine measure to use when comparing two cricketers of the same ability. However, with one playing for double the length of time, it's fairly obvious who the better player is.

Mate, I'm sure you can come up with a better example.

 

[weldone]

In my opinion once you get to a certain amount of Tests or been playing the game for X amount of years, surely that's enough.

To me, this is like saying once you get to a certain batting average, surely that's enough.

The point I am making is that a longevity of 10 years is surely very good, but it can certainly be better - just like a batting average of 55 is great, but that's no 99.94.