Adjusting the batting average based on actual quality

[shortpitched713]

Isn't this what points rankings are meant to take into account. A guy who played mostly on roads and averages 50 is probably not as good as a guy who played mostly in England or NZ and averages 45....but rankings take into account those vagaries.

They do a better job for batting than they do for bowling, due to avoiding the problem of variable utilization, which bowling has.

That's why for models like Flem274*'s MVP model, or my own admittedly more back of the napkin metric are useful. But depending on different factors, for different high quality bowlers you might get different outcomes. The numbers I got for instance on the more ICC ratings oriented model I'd say are more "quality" biased, whereas the ones from my new formula are more "Impact" biased. The best bowlers still tend to end up circling around the top of the ratings, but the exact order can end up rather different.