Batsmen Impact Per Series

[NUFAN]

I was pretty happy to find Sachin on top and Im normally someone who tries to find a reason not to rate Sachin as the absolute elite above others from the past 25 or so years.

 

[Coronis]

Others like Sobers, Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton, Chappell would be awesome to know. Guys like Headley and Pollock wouldn’t have enough tests right?

 

[Daemon]

1.4286

ah, like my GPA then

 

[Prince EWS]

How is it calculated exactly?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Seems to disproportionately reward batsmen playing in a ****ty team and punishes those playing in good teams

 

[Starfighter]

That's really what you'd expect though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

@Nufan Did you rate each series purely by averages? And was it done in brackets (like a rating of 4 for 60+ average, 3 for 40-60,etc. or something like that).

It'd make sense that Sachin would be rated high if the highest bracket was in the 50-70 range. Guys like Sanga and Kallis had more dominant series averaging 150+ but that wouldn't count for any more than a 60 average series would.

 

[NUFAN]

How is it calculated exactly?

Basically ive given 8 different ratings depending on series average from minus 3 to plus 4 and worked out the average.

Minus 3 is a woeful series and plus 4 is high quality.

Seems to disproportionately reward batsmen playing in a ****ty team and punishes those playing in good teams

The only way it benefits players in ****** teams is that they may play against easier attacks more often which means they are less likely to perform poorly

 

[NUFAN]

@Nufan Did you rate each series purely by averages? And was it done in brackets (like a rating of 4 for 60+ average, 3 for 40-60,etc. or something like that).

Sorry I didnt see this until after my post. Yes I rated each series by average in brackets.

 

[Prince EWS]

Basically ive given 8 different ratings depending on series average from minus 3 to plus 4 and worked out the average.

Minus 3 is a woeful series and plus 4 is high quality.

Haha yes I know that, I was after exact figures.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's really what you'd expect though.

Yeah I just realised this. Kind of a dumb comment on my part. Of course a good batsman is going to have more of an impact when he's the rest of the team performs poorly.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I just realised this. Kind of a dumb comment on my part. Of course a good batsman is going to have more of an impact when he's the rest of the team performs poorly.

I don't really know why this is obvious. It's just working on series averages rather than percentage of runs or anything else. If anything you'd imagine batsmen in good teams might end up with some buffed averages due to demoralised bowlers and general downhill skiing opportunities.

 

[Burgey]

That probably explains how de Villiers made the list tbh, particularly his efforts up to about 2012-2013.

 

[Borges]

Contrary to popular CricketWeb belief, this also true for good bowlers who are part of a strong attack; it's much easier to do well when there is sustained pressure on the batting.

 

[Burgey]

Ok everyone, rest easy. Borges has just provided a compelling case which definitively ends one of CW's longest standing and polarizing debates.

Stand down all.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't really know why this is obvious. It's just working on series averages rather than percentage of runs or anything else. If anything you'd imagine batsmen in good teams might end up with some buffed averages due to demoralised bowlers and general downhill skiing opportunities.

I guess I don't really understand the point of the thread then. What does it tell us that players' averages don't already?

 

[NUFAN]

I guess I don't really understand the point of the thread then. What does it tell us that players' averages don't already?

Yeah Im confused about the point of it too.

The idea was to just look at the series as a whole and work out whether the batsmen had an atrocious, very bad, bad, mediocre, ok, good, great or brilliant series and the guys who regularly had more brilliant series (or less bad/very bad type series) are rewarded.

With Sachin and Lara finishing 1 and 2 from the top 20 its served a purpose imo.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The idea was to just look at the series as a whole and work out whether the batsmen had an atrocious, very bad, bad, mediocre, ok, good, great or brilliant series and the guys who regularly had more brilliant series (or less bad/very bad type series) are rewarded.

Seems like a very convoluted way of ranking what standard stats would have told us anyway doesn't it? Still interesting though

 

[NUFAN]

Seems like a very convoluted way of ranking what standard stats would have told us anyway doesn't it? Still interesting though

Nah BIPS goes to 4 decimal places and averages out series averages not averages out runs per dismissal.

BIPS..

 

[TheJediBrah]

Those extra 2 decimal places are where the action happens