the best at going big- a little system to work out the best at getting big daddy 100s

[mr_mister]

so this doesnt take into accounts conversaion rates or frequency or whatever. its just about who could notch up the biggest numbers overall, over an entire career.

its simple - get a player's 7 highest test scores then find the mean number. not outs dont matter here. this mean score is a player's big daddy rating.

i went with 7 because 5 seems like it could allow for flukes to sneak a good rating, where 10 seems like it'd be unfair on the earlier era players who had less tests to play. as it stands it still very much favoured the later era players


a few to start off

Big Daddy ratings


Bradman - 292.2 (254, 334, 299, 304, 244, 270, 234)
Lara - 275.4
Sanga 254.4
Sehwag - 250.1
Hammond - 223.1
Ponting - 219.9
Sachin - 216.9
Attapattu - 211.7


now Jack Hobbs - 174


now Mark Waugh - 136.2

 

[kingkallis]

Smith 216.1
Hutton 215.2
Amla 214.8
Sobers 207.2
Hayden 198
Richards 197.4
de Villiers 191.4
Kallis 186.8

 

[honestbharani]

Won't it just be easier to pool all their 100+ scores and average it out?

 

[Daemon]

Won't it just be easier to pool all their 100+ scores and average it out?

Karun Nair likes this method

 

[Spark]

Won't it just be easier to pool all their 100+ scores and average it out?

Yeah, this is way more fair for obvious reasons. You're always going to get an enormous bias towards modern-day players the way it's currently set up.

 

[straw man]

Best way to do this would be to calculate something like a Gini coefficient for all batsmen i.e. a single number to represent the distribution of their career scores.

 

[ankitj]

Take median, not average. Or xth percentile.

 

[Black_Warrior]

so this doesnt take into accounts conversaion rates or frequency or whatever. its just about who could notch up the biggest numbers overall, over an entire career.

its simple - get a player's 7 highest test scores then find the mean number. not outs dont matter here. this mean score is a player's big daddy rating.

i went with 7 because 5 seems like it could allow for flukes to sneak a good rating, where 10 seems like it'd be unfair on the earlier era players who had less tests to play. as it stands it still very much favoured the later era players


a few to start off

Big Daddy ratings


Bradman - 292.2 (254, 334, 299, 304, 244, 270, 234)
Lara - 275.4
Sanga 254.4
Sehwag - 250.1
Hammond - 223.1
Ponting - 219.9
Sachin - 216.9
Attapattu - 211.7


now Jack Hobbs - 174


now Mark Waugh - 136.2

now Younis Khan 230 (313, 267, 218, 213, 200, 200, 199)

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Need more to it than just a score, have to take into account the opposition, pitch, series score etc...

Lara's is huge but he got his 2 highest scores on motorways in dead rubbers.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Yeah but thought the OP was clear what this thread is about - biggest daddy hundreds period. This is not a Official Tendulkar vs Lara vs Ponting licensed whorehouse

 

[Spark]

Best way to do this would be to calculate something like a Gini coefficient for all batsmen i.e. a single number to represent the distribution of their career scores.

I did something like this (not really a Gini coefficient, though) a while back.

 

[NUFAN]

How did you get 292.2 for Bradman? It should be 277.

Elgar just hit his 7th ton and his big daddy rating is 120.1

 

[AndrewB]

How did you get 292.2 for Bradman? It should be 277.

292.2 is the average of Bradman's 5 biggest innings.

 

[indiaholic]

I did something like this (not really a Gini coefficient, though) a while back.

link

 

[NUFAN]

292.2 is the average of Bradman's 5 biggest innings.

Yes it is but OP says 7 and specifically states that 5 could allow for flukes. Is mister suggestion Bradman was flukey?

 

[OverratedSanity]

link

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...other-random-statistical-measure-batsmen.html

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah but thought the OP was clear what this thread is about - biggest daddy hundreds period. This is not a Official Tendulkar vs Lara vs Ponting licensed whorehouse

If it's just big daddy hundreds, period. Just list who scored the most of them. (Tendulkar the better batsman by the way.)

 

[straw man]

I did something like this (not really a Gini coefficient, though) a while back.

link

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...other-random-statistical-measure-batsmen.html

Good point, I'll have to go back and read that.

 

[mr_mister]

Yes it is but OP says 7 and specifically states that 5 could allow for flukes. Is mister suggestion Bradman was flukey?

no that's a mistake i forgot to fix up. originally i was gonna have it be top 5 scores but then wanted to tinker with it further. never correctly adjusted Bradman's big daddy rating



and yeah the system could use some tweaking for sure.

 

[mr_mister]

If it's just big daddy hundreds, period. Just list who scored the most of them. (Tendulkar the better batsman by the way.)

ah but where do you draw the line for what qualifies as BDH? 150?