Yeah, what my system is suggesting is that Hadlee was a better cricketer than Imran but Imran was the better allrounder of the two. Obviously I disagree with it on its first conclusion.I like the multiplication thing better since it brings Imran ahead of Hadlee
Yeah, a lower strike rate is statistically desirable for a bowler who is better than the mean rating of the best of his team, as (assuming all the bowlers bowl roughly the same amount of overs) it increases the impact that bowler has over the attack - the game moves faster when he's bowling if his strike rate is better, and you want it to because when he's not bowling your attack is worse on average. Once you get down to support bowlers though it's statistically desirable for them to be more economy based as to lessen their impact on the attack, and basically just put the game on hold until the better bowlers are back into the attack. This "support bowler" theory ignores the effects of long-term fatigue though and basically assumes all bowlers will be at prime fitness as long as they aren't bowling more than 25% of the overs in a day, which arguably makes it rubbish.
Yeah, what my system is suggesting is that Hadlee was a better cricketer than Imran but Imran was the better allrounder of the two. Obviously I disagree with it on its first conclusion.
I will get to this in the next day or two, by the way. It's not quite as simple as you'd imagine to stop the thing after a certain point.
That is just absurd.
Once I gave a long thought about how to measure longevity of cricketers. And I came up with a formula which according to me is very fair to all. The formula worked like this:So I've been working on a few ways to make this take longevity and team influence (wickets per match mainly) into account here so it's not just based on averages, and in fact of measure of how valuable a player's performances were throughout his career. I spent quite some time working on a formula I thought was fair to all eras of cricket and accounted for the changing nature of cricket scheduling, and implemented it into my system.
The results suggested that Jack Cowie was the greatest bowler, and fourth greatest cricketer, in the history of Test cricket. Eek. So much for that then.
The problem with that seems to stem from the fact that even though he only played nine Tests, they were over a twelve year period and in fact the only nine Tests New Zealand played. It treats him the same as, for example, someone who played for twelve years without missing a single Test for England between 1998 and 2010 - that'd be 167 Tests or so. And given his standardised bowling average ended up below 20 (better than Barnes or in fact anyone with a decent number of wickets), it's easy to see why I got the results I did with that. Not sure if it's worth posting them up until I find a way around that particular anomaly.
Yeah, I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Given they only played one match, it was impossible to truly determine how good a side that World XI outfit was, so the match was excluded.
They were **** FTR. Harmison Flintoff and Kallis as a pace attack? No thanks.
While you're at it, can you go through all the top batsmen in the list and rework it to include things up to their highest point, in the interests of comparability.I will get to this in the next day or two, by the way. It's not quite as simple as you'd imagine to stop the thing after a certain point.
I've been working on a way to isolate a player's peak - to find their best possible standardised average in a period of a certain number of Tests (working on 15 at the moment but I could change it). Merely finding their career high standardised average would give an unfair advantage to players who started well and finished poorly.
Thanks.I will get to this in the next day or two, by the way. It's not quite as simple as you'd imagine to stop the thing after a certain point.
Take your time.If you want to perform a comparison, that wouldn't work - the time periods compared have to be the same.
Might be able to help you with that.
So I just applied this formula to all my stats. I'd like an explanation of why players really should get 0 for playing either side of a year in which their country played no Tests though, because the first thing I wanted to do after looking at the data was change that - even if not to 1, maybe to 0.5 or something. Seems harsh to players like Bruce Mitchell who played 40 odd consecutive Tests and no doubt would've been playing in those missing years if South Africa actually played any Tests.
Take the imaginary case of player A and player B: both start their careers in 1925 for different countries, play all matches till 1933. Both the countries don't play any test matches in 1934 and 1935. However, in 1936 A's country plays one test (where A also plays and retires after that), but B's country doesn't - however, B is still bossing it in FC and would have walked into the side. B's country, in fact, plays the next test in 1938 by which time B has just retired. Now, is it fair to B if A gets 3 more maturity years than him?
