Top 10 ODI batsmen since the 90s

[flibbertyjibber]

Kohli
Sachin
Ponting
ABDV
Dhoni
Bevan
Gilchrist
Lara
Gayle
Jayasuriya

 

[venkyrenga]

You want a logical discussion, fair enough -

One batsman is on zero not out. Another is on 20 not out. Other things being the same - who do you expect will add more runs to his score?

If a batsman is on 42 not out and another is on zero not out, I would expect the one with zero not out to score more runs. If you do a statistical analysis considering all the top batsmen that is result you will get.

 

[srbhkshk]

If a batsman is on 42 not out and another is on zero not out, I would expect the one with zero not out to score more runs. If you do a statistical analysis considering all the top batsmen that is result you will get.

Why do you expect the one on zero not out to score more runs? And please point me to that statistical analysis.

 

[ankitj]

Take any practical case and you will know. In case of Bevan you would have to assume 55 more runs every time he remained not out. Out of all the innings Bevan was dismissed he averaged 32. And out of all the innings he remained not out his runs/ innings is 42. So you are saying he would have averaged 95+ in those matches. Which is highly unlikely or I would say practically impossible.

That's precisely what will happen. Fact that Bevan averages higher in not out innings is completely in agreement with the predictions memorylessness property will make. I'm sure Bevan is not special case here. This will be true for almost all batsmen with reasonably large number of games.

So I went all geeky and performed simulation to prove this. Here's the spreadsheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8ZtJBijVofRhdX1JnqDiyfvpzy5Xy7z/view

I assumed a hypothetical batsman B who would average 53.6 if allowed to bat endless so that that is his true average. Simulated 1000 "untruncated scores" by B assuming geometric distribution. Then simulated random and uncorrelated to score truncation for each of the 1000 innings. This truncation is modeled as uniform distribution between 0 and 150 assuming that's max of what B (who is uncannily similar to Bevan) would get to score ever given his batting position. Anytime "truncation limit" is smaller than "untruncated score", the innings is assumed to be not out and the truncation limit becomes the "Actual score".

Here are the results for B that have an uncanny similarity to actual figures for Bevan:

Average untruncated scores	53.47
% of not outs	33.4%
Average of scores that are not truncated (Out)	31.02
Average of scores that are truncated (not out)	43.66
Average with Outs in denominator (conventional batting average)	52.92
Average additional runs that would have been scored if no truncation happened	54.57
Average score in not out innings if they were allowed to be continued	98.24
Average runs per innings	35.25

Average of untruncated scores is unsurprisingly close to actual average -- 53.47 vs. 53.6
% of not outs -- 33.4% vs. 34.2% [no reason for this to match but validates that selecting 150 as the upper limit of truncation is fair]
Average of scores that are not truncated or equivalent of out -- 31.02 vs. 32
Average of scores that are truncated or equivalent of not out -- 43.66 vs. 42
Average with only outs in denominator (conventional batting average) -- 52.92 vs. 53.6
Average additional runs would have been scored if no truncation happened -- 54.57 vs. 53.6
Average score in not out innings if there was indefinite time -- 98.24 vs. 95+ you hypothesized
Average runs per innings -- 35.25 vs. 35.27

I hope no one ever again makes an argument that not outs inflate batting averages.

 

[venkyrenga]

Why do you expect the one on zero not out to score more runs? And please point me to that statistical analysis.

That is based off my reasoning. If you have the resources to do that analysis, you can.

In Bevan's case it's quite simple. I am dividing his career into 3 parts. The innings with not outs (where he averaged 42), the innings where he got out before 42 and the innings he got out after scoring 42 (where he averaged 62). Now I want to deduce how many more runs on average Bevan would have scored in those innings he was not out had the match continued. So I am using the third part of his career which tells me 62. Which is 20 more runs and not 55.

 

[srbhkshk]

That is based off my reasoning. If you have the resources to do that analysis, you can.

In Bevan's case it's quite simple. I am dividing his career into 3 parts. The innings with not outs (where he averaged 42), the innings where he got out before 42 and the innings he got out after scoring 42 (where he averaged 62). Now I want to deduce how many more runs on average Bevan would have scored in those innings he was not out had the match continued. So I am using the third part of his career which tells me 62. Which is 20 more runs and not 55.

Dude, are you actually telling me that if Bevan scored 105 not out , you aren't gonna take that innings into account as to what he might do after he gets to 42?

 

[Jack1]

That is based off my reasoning. If you have the resources to do that analysis, you can.

In Bevan's case it's quite simple. I am dividing his career into 3 parts. The innings with not outs (where he averaged 42), the innings where he got out before 42 and the innings he got out after scoring 42 (where he averaged 62). Now I want to deduce how many more runs on average Bevan would have scored in those innings he was not out had the match continued. So I am using the third part of his career which tells me 62. Which is 20 more runs and not 55.

All that matters is getting out (or not) for average. After that think about who they played for, where they played, the pitch, the opposition, the role, the batting number etc. You can't do anything about average it's fair. The only time I don't like it is Dhoni batting for his average and taking the game too slow in the first innings or too deep in the second. Obviously a good player but at the same time blatantly logs into cricinfo daily to check his own stats lol. Problem is Dhoni forgot so much about S/R it's not looking particularly clever for his role in the era(s) he's played in currently.

 

[Red]

Idea that not outs boost your average is dumb.

Bill Johnson topped the batting averages for Australia in one Ashes series....

 

[stephen]

Bill Johnson topped the batting averages for Australia in one Ashes series....

Small sample size.

Ankitj is completely correct in his reasoning/ simulation here.

Playing ODIs in the 90s was very different to playing today. Middle order batsmen who got set would have to protect their wicket, particularly at night because the ball would be very hard to see for new batsmen due to discoloration. Having a high proportion of not outs was actually really good in that regard (provided you scored enough to win).

 

[Burgey]

Stephen talks drivel, we all know this and it's an established fact. Nonetheless calling for mod intervention on that post is horrendous. Even Spark, who is currently the David Warner of moderation, would not censor opinion to that degree. So can it.

He’ll probably have a fair crack at it tbh

 

[Burgey]

Sachin Tendulkar
Virat Kohli
AB de Villiers
Ricky Ponting
Michael Bevan

MS Dhoni
Brian Lara
Mark Waugh
Aravinda de Silva
Saeed Anwar

This is a pretty good list imho

 

[TheJediBrah]

An average boosted by a lot of not outs is indicative of a player not being as good as another player with the same average not boosted by not outs. This is simple reasoning.

simple-minded reasoning maybe.

If anything the opposite of what you say is the truth.

 

[aussie tragic]

Watching the Qld vs NSW one day game and they flashed the leading run scorers for NSW. Bevan has 2400 runs @ 61.54, holy crap!

 

[venkyrenga]

Dude, are you actually telling me that if Bevan scored 105 not out , you aren't gonna take that innings into account as to what he might do after he gets to 42?

No, I am not going to take that innings into account. Because we are not discussing what Bevan might do after he gets to 42. We are discussing what Bevan might do after he gets to 42 and is given a chance to bat till he gets out. You are missing the second condition. That 105 not out is inclusive in the average of 42.

Let me break it down for you. Split all of Bevan's innings into three parts,

Part I - Average of 18 (All the innings he got out before 42)
Part II - Average of 42 (All the innings he was not out)
Part III - Average of 62 (All the innings he got out after 42)

Now, the logic is so simple. You either get Bevan's wicket at 18 or if you let him cross 42 he would score 62.

I have nothing against Bevan. Someone said I am downplaying Bevan so I can include Sehwag because I am an Indian fan. Not at all. I would say the same for Dhoni. He is not as good as his average makes him out to be. Let's do the same split for him,

Part I - Average of 20 (All the innings he got out before 50)
Part II - Average of 50 (All the innings he was not out)
Part III - Average of 70 (All the innings he got out after 50)

Again it's 20 more runs and not 50.

But upon reconsideration I think I was a bit overreacting to the fact that people overrate Bevan based on his average. So I am actually going to edit my OP and include Bevan in my top 10 instead of Jayasuriya. But if anybody tries to claim Bevan or Dhoni is better than the likes of Lara and Ponting based on their average I would strongly disagree.

 

[venkyrenga]

Oops, I am unable to edit the OP. So I am going to post it here.

Sachin

De villiers
Kohli
Lara

Ponting
Anwar
Gilchrist
Sehwag
Dhoni
Bevan

Honorable mentions: Jayasuriya, De Silva, Azharuddin, Amla and R Sharma

 

[aussie tragic]

Take a break dude, no-one is listening to your over complicated theories. We who watched Bevan live were happy for his contribution to Australia wins, whether not out or not.

 

[venkyrenga]

You just sound like a salty Bevan/ Australian fan. I have watched him play live more than you think.

 

[aussie tragic]

You just sound like a salty Bevan/ Australian fan. I have watched him play live more than you think.

I doubt anyone thought Bevan was the best batsman in his team never mind best over 3 decades. He won a lot if games for Aus though.

 

[h_hurricane]

I doubt anyone thought Bevan was the best batsman in his team never mind best over 3 decades. He won a lot if games for Aus though.

Stephen clearly thinks so though. On a lighter note, I think Stephen is actually Bevan.

 

[venkyrenga]

Bevan was the best Australian batsman until Gilchrist and Ponting came along.