Having never been a fan of batting averages, here Dave proposes a possible alternative.
Cricket Web - Features: Batting Medians
So there you have it, Shane Watson > Viv, Sanga, Hammond and Hutton
I see a major blip in that analysis. This basically treats a long innings as a probability innings, which is not the case.
Member of the Sanga fan club. (Ugh! it took me so long to become a real fan of his)
If Brian Lara scored 8 (9?) double hundreds and a bucket-full of sigle-digit scores that doesn't make those double centuries fluke only because most of the times he was out for low scores.
"I want to raise my hand and say one thing. Those who complain about my love for the game or commitment to the game are clueless. These are the only 2 areas where I give myself 100 out of 100."
- Sachin Tendulkar, as told in an interview published in Bengali newspaper Anandabazar Patrika after his 100th International century (translated by weldone)
And the first example of Bannerman is an outright pathetic attempt to show that median can be a better measure than mean. There can be no measure for such 'SMALL SAMPLE SIZE'.
that's ridiculous because then u are under appreciating batsmen who score giant scores now and then (lara). Maybe if u want u can have batting average + standard deviation.
I'm no statistician and I have always assumed that batting averages are the time honoured way of measuring a batsman's worth as much for the fact that even I can readily understand and calculate them as for how accurately they enable comparisons between individual batsmen to be made.
In particular I too struggle with the idea that Bradman is as much as 50% and more better than all comers.
A graphic illustration of how poor a measure averages can be, that this analysis sorts out, is Bill Johnston's achievement in 1953 when, over as many as 17 innings, he averaged 102 (against a career average of 12)
Thus I really enjoyed reading this interesting and thought provoking piece and neither the fact that it too may have flaws, nor that I don't suppose for one moment that batting medians are going to become a part of the graphic that TV producers use, detracts from that.
It's interesting thing to look at, but like others, I won't rate players based on medians.
RIP Phil Hughes. Forever 63*
Agree, interesting stuff. It really is an underrated & underused statistic that I've never given much thought to
The median just says, assuming a reasonable sample size, that there is an approximately 50% chance that the batsman will exceed that score. It doesn't take into account by how much the batsman is likely to exceed their median score. As such it might be a better measure of reliability, but it isn't a better measure of ability. That someone like Katich has a higher median than say Lara and Tendulkar is a good example of this.
Last edited by Adamc; 23-11-2011 at 04:50 AM.
"Under the spreading chestnut tree,
I sold you and you sold me."
And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW
Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)