Batting Average vs Batting RPI

[Coronis]

Based AI

Not a great quote to use where it states incorrect average.

 

[shortpitched713]

If you go with a sample size of 80+ innings then the top 5 by average:

Bradman
Sutcliffe
Barrington
Weekes
Hammond

@Coronis , I don't know where the hell you got runs per innings data (generative AI literally refuses to consider using it, good to see it take a stand on something lol), but I imagine for an 80+ innings sample size you'd end up with almost the same RPI list.

 

[shortpitched713]

Not a great quote to use where it states incorrect average.

And Labuschagne love too. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it's determinations.

 

[Coronis]

If you go with a sample size of 80+ innings then the top 5 by average:

Bradman
Sutcliffe
Barrington
Weekes
Hammond

@Coronis , I don't know where the hell you got runs per innings data (generative AI literally refuses to consider using it, good to see it take a stand on something lol), but I imagine for an 80+ innings sample size you'd end up with almost the same RPI list.

I have my own spreadsheet. Its one of the stats.

For 80 innings it’d be

Bradman
Weekes
Sutcliffe
Sangakkara
Hobbs

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Oops, fair enough. Sorry Slifer.

No worries

 

[OverratedSanity]

Batting average is a better measure but I refuse to ignore RPI entirely like some people do. How many runs you actually get matters to me when rating a batsmen, rather than the hypothetical runs you may have gotten if you had the chance to complete your innings.

 

[Aussie_Giant]

It’s down to the batting style of player. However, a player is supposed to try and impact the game by maximising his runs scoring in the context of the game, so not outs become irrelevant to teams cause.

You play for your country and not for yourself.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It’s down to the batting style of player. However, a player is supposed to try and impact the game by maximising his runs scoring in the context of the game, so not outs become irrelevant to teams cause.

You play for your country and not for yourself.

Bruh, then should we just all use RPM?

 

[Aussie_Giant]

Bruh, then should we just all use RPM?

You mean, Runs per match?

Honestly, there is no objectively correct answer but I feel runs per innings is likely more closer.

Batsmen should look to score as many as possible when they bat with no.11. Only those cases where you are playing for saving a test match is where staying not out is good. I can’t consume situations where a batsman scores 30 not out and 40 out and get an avg of 70.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You mean, Runs per match?

Honestly, there is no objectively correct answer but I feel runs per innings is likely more closer.

Batsmen should look to score as many as possible when they bat with no.11. Only those cases where you are playing for saving a test match is where staying not out is good. I can’t consume situations where a batsman scores 30 not out and 40 out and get an avg of 70.

What about situations when a batsman is on 10* and the team declares or batting at 60* and runs out of partners??

 

[Coronis]

Bruh, then should we just all use RPM?

rpm is inherently flawed because not all batsmen play the same amount of innings per match. In fact you get punished for playing on a good team.

 

[capt_Luffy]

rpm is inherently flawed because not all batsmen play the same amount of innings per match. In fact you get punished for playing on a good team.

So is RPI to a lesser extent. All innings aren't the same, especially when you are NO

 

[Aussie_Giant]

What about situations when a batsman is on 10* and the team declares or batting at 60* and runs out of partners??

It is a bit harsh on them but at the same time, one player might get out trying to score faster at 60 because team is planning to declare. Another player may not be keen in scoring fast and care about his milestone and stay not out at 40. But in terms of importance, the former was of higher value. Hence, I feel RPI is more valuable. Ultimately, if a player is too good that he more often than not runs out of partner, it is better to use him higher up the order.

There is no correct answer but I feel RPI is more closer to what is best measure of a batsman quality.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

I'm with OS above. If you could only ever look at one of these metrics, then average would be the one to keep, but that doesn't mean that RPI is irrelevant.

The main role of a batsman is absolutely to maximise the chances of their team winning matches (or drawing them if a win isn't possible), and not to maximise their personal average per dismissal. Usually those two things are so closely correlated that measuring the latter tells you how good the batsman is at the former.

But there are definitely times where playing optimally for average is *not* optimal for the team - batting with the tail being the most obvious one, where maximising your team's score likely means adjusting your approach and taking more risks. Getting your team to a higher total than they otherwise would even if it means you lose your wicket is fundamentally better batting than securing red ink in a lower team score.

Other common match situations where batting for your average isn't the best way of batting: if time is an issue and your team is pushing for a win, being able to increase your RR is a mark of a better batsman. Similarly if trying to save a game, batting time is likely more important than runs added (RPI would be an even worse measure than average for this scenario).

Then there's stuff like being able to hit an opposition bowler out of the attack - can be extremely valuable to your team overall even if it isn't rewarded in your own batting average.

Tl;dr, I guess I disagree with this from ataraxia:

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.

 

[Randomfan]

I'm with OS above. If you could only ever look at one of these metrics, then average would be the one to keep, but that doesn't mean that RPI is irrelevant.

The main role of a batsman is absolutely to maximise the chances of their team winning matches (or drawing them if a win isn't possible), and not to maximise their personal average per dismissal. Usually those two things are so closely correlated that measuring the latter tells you how good the batsman is at the former.

But there are definitely times where playing optimally for average is *not* optimal for the team - batting with the tail being the most obvious one, where maximising your team's score likely means adjusting your approach and taking more risks. Getting your team to a higher total than they otherwise would even if it means you lose your wicket is fundamentally better batting than securing red ink in a lower team score.

Other common match situations where batting for your average isn't the best way of batting: if time is an issue and your team is pushing for a win, being able to increase your RR is a mark of a better batsman. Similarly if trying to save a game, batting time is likely more important than runs added (RPI would be an even worse measure than average for this scenario).

Then there's stuff like being able to hit an opposition bowler out of the attack - can be extremely valuable to your team overall even if it isn't rewarded in your own batting average.

Nicely put. If just one then sure its avg, but that's not everything when it comes to how you are rated as a batsman.

 

[ataraxia]

I'm with OS above. If you could only ever look at one of these metrics, then average would be the one to keep, but that doesn't mean that RPI is irrelevant.

The main role of a batsman is absolutely to maximise the chances of their team winning matches (or drawing them if a win isn't possible), and not to maximise their personal average per dismissal. Usually those two things are so closely correlated that measuring the latter tells you how good the batsman is at the former.

But there are definitely times where playing optimally for average is *not* optimal for the team - batting with the tail being the most obvious one, where maximising your team's score likely means adjusting your approach and taking more risks. Getting your team to a higher total than they otherwise would even if it means you lose your wicket is fundamentally better batting than securing red ink in a lower team score.

Other common match situations where batting for your average isn't the best way of batting: if time is an issue and your team is pushing for a win, being able to increase your RR is a mark of a better batsman. Similarly if trying to save a game, batting time is likely more important than runs added (RPI would be an even worse measure than average for this scenario).

Then there's stuff like being able to hit an opposition bowler out of the attack - can be extremely valuable to your team overall even if it isn't rewarded in your own batting average.

Tl;dr, I guess I disagree with this from ataraxia:

These factors are all very real but I don't think we have the statistics to cope with them. RPI isn't it (because in relation to average it just measures not outs per game which is random++ with regard to both the number of not outs and the situations in which those not outs occur). So I think it's best to look at such things match-by-match. Pretty much that's my "pretty much".

 

[Aussie_Giant]

Some examples where looking at RPI is more important than batting averages.

Lara vs Kallis
Stokes vs Jadeja
Botham vs Imran
Kapil vs Pollock

 

[DrWolverine]

Imran vs Botham is a great example.

Botham was a genuine match winner with the bat whereas Imran was a supporting act at best