PlayerComparisons
International Captain
Which metric is better for determining the quality of a test batsman?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Batting Average vs Batting RPI
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
Sliferxxxx
State Vice-Captain
Initially I think yes we look at batting average but once you sit down and look at the influence of not outs on said averages one will conclude that some have inflated averages due to not -outs (ignoring era conditions etc). Case in point, my favorite punching bag Chanderpaul vs someone like a Kohli Who here thinks Chanderpaul is better than Kohli. I dont despite Chanderpaul averaging a clear 6 runs more. Kohli actually scores more runs per innings: 44 to 42. At the other extreme is someone like Jack Hobbs who scored a ton of runs with very few not outs, so he's legitimately giving you around the same number of runs per innings as his average.
ataraxia
International Coach
If you're truly going all in on rating a batsman solely based on how valuable he was to his team, then sure, not outs are useless, dead runs are useless, runs in matches that are very likely for one team or the other to win are weighted poorly, and either sample size can be damned or aggregate run totals is the only thing that matters.
But if, like most people, you're rating batsmen based on how well they would perform in a hypothetical test match based on their past performances (like a selector), then average is pretty much the only thing that matters. Not outs might not be valuable to teams, but they're indicative of extra individual skills beyond what was on display.
But if, like most people, you're rating batsmen based on how well they would perform in a hypothetical test match based on their past performances (like a selector), then average is pretty much the only thing that matters. Not outs might not be valuable to teams, but they're indicative of extra individual skills beyond what was on display.
ataraxia
International Coach
Except in rare cases like Chanderpaul, there's no underlying reason to suspect that batsmen are particularly prone to wasting potential runs in not outs. If they bat low down in the order or in a good or bad team, that's not their fault.
Sliferxxxx
State Vice-Captain
...And batsmen in the lower order vs those facing the newer ball more ie those batting further up.
Batting position should be used to work out batting position. NOs are not going to be a very unrelaible indicator.
Sliferxxxx
State Vice-Captain
Are you sure you meant to say "unreliable"?
capt_Luffy
Hall of Fame Member
Btw, Kohli has a higher RPI than Allan Border too. Surely no one rated Kohli over Border for that??
sayon basak
International Coach
Nobody actually looks at either of only Average or RPI to rate a player. There's way more to that.
capt_Luffy
Hall of Fame Member
Weekes>>>>Voges, so ig RPI wins?
Coronis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nah. Besides Voges has low sample size
capt_Luffy
Hall of Fame Member
It was a joke obviously...... And you don't think Weekes was much better than Voges!?
Coronis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nah. Both beat up weak teams to boost their averages
Typos are only worth commenting on when they are funny, or change the meaning of a post.
ataraxia
International Coach
I think he meant your use of unreliable when you meant reliable.
Oops, fair enough. Sorry Slifer.
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
Hmm, I might be converting to an RPI guy... lol
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
Based AI