Batsmen Impact Per Series

[stephen]

This rewards consistency rather than having a ridiculous peak. I like it.

 

[Bolo]

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

BIPS..

How are you awarding points though? Averaging 50 and 50 vs 70 and 30 vs 100 and 0 across two series, who ends up with what points?

 

[the big bambino]

4 is awarded for 60 plus it seems if you go by the Bradman stat. To get 3.090 he needs to get a score of 43 out of a possible 44 for his 11 series. So I'm guessing the series he missed out was bodyline (ave 56). So 50-59 is a 3 ranking I'm guessing.

 

[NUFAN]

4 is awarded for 60 plus it seems if you go by the Bradman stat. To get 3.090 he needs to get a score of 43 out of a possible 44 for his 11 series. So I'm guessing the series he missed out was bodyline (ave 56). So 50-59 is a 3 ranking I'm guessing.

Bingo.

 

[Coronis]

Bingo.

Any chance to see some more batsmen? Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond spring to mind.

 

[Starfighter]

Barrington too.

 

[NUFAN]

Updated with additional names

3.9091 - DG BRADMAN
2.6250 - JB HOBBS
2.5000 - H SUTCLIFFE
2.4286 - KF BARRINGTON
2.2121 - SR TENDULKAR
2.1905 - WR HAMMOND
2.0952 - L HUTTON
2.0571 - BC LARA
2.0000 - AB DE VILLIERS

1.9487 - AR BORDER
1.9318 - YOUNIS KHAN
1.9286 - R DRAVID
1.9259 - KC SANGAKKARA
1.9048 - GS SOBERS
1.8983 - JH KALLIS
1.8696 - GS CHAPPELL
1.8333 - INZAMAM-UL-HAQ
1.7742 - SM GAVASKAR
1.7241 - IVA RICHARDS
1.7193 - S CHANDERPAUL
1.7069 - DPMD JAYAWARDENE
1.6981 - RT PONTING
1.6579 - JAVED MIANDAD
1.6452 - ML HAYDEN
1.6389 - MJ CLARKE
1.6170 - SR WAUGH
1.5581 - GC SMITH

1.4884 - HM AMLA
1.4865 - V SEHWAG
1.4681 - AN COOK
1.3333 - GA GOOCH
1.3256 - VVS LAXMAN

 

[Burgey]

So if TPC didn’t play another test he’d be about third all time.

 

[NUFAN]

So if TPC didn’t play another test he’d be about third all time.

2.2500 so he would he 5th from the batsmen ive looked at.

 

[Starfighter]

Someone who was often compared with Barrington: Peter May would be nice. Zaheer Abbas too, and the three W's.

 

[Bolo]

60 is an extremely low series average for maximum points considering the scope of the point system. A huge proportion of series for top bats are well above this. Averaging 120 for a series isn't too uncommon, but there is a zero point range for this 60 run swing compared to the 7 or 8 points assigned for the first 60 runs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

60 is an extremely low series average for maximum points considering the scope of the point system. A huge proportion of series for top bats are well above this. Averaging 120 for a series isn't too uncommon, but there is a zero point range for this 60 run swing compared to the 7 or 8 points assigned for the first 60 runs.

Hence why:

This rewards consistency rather than having a ridiculous peak.

You could micro-manage it further like you suggest but then you'd just defeat the purpose of the exercise (such as it is) and you might as well just compare career averages.

Also Nufan forgive me if this is already explained or obvious, you said that you average out series performances; does this take into account the number of matches in the series? Or is a 2 match series given the same weight as a 6 match series? And if so does it possibly disproportionately reward players who performed better in shorter series rather than longer series?

 

[Bolo]

You have to set a reasonable cutoff for maximum points. Follow your argument to its extreme conclusion, take the 8 points and assign one per one run series average such that a series average of 8 gets you maximum points. Sounds unreasonable. But so does 60 when it is common to average multiples of this, and multiple bats have the vast majority of their series above this level.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You have to set a reasonable cutoff for maximum points. Follow your argument to its extreme conclusion, take the 8 points and assign one per one run series average such that a series average of 8 gets you maximum points. Sounds unreasonable. But so does 60 when it is common to average multiples of this, and multiple bats have the vast majority of their series above this level.

I don't really agree with any of that. Regardless it's an exercise that already has tenuous value. As I said put in more tiers of points to cover a wider range of series average and you might as well just forgo the exercise entirely and look at career averages. It pretty much just reflects career averages already.

 

[Bolo]

There are plenty of tiers already. They are just too narrowly grouped. They are under 10 runs per tier, which probably means some of them are sitting at 5 per tier. 6 runs in series average difference (which is almost inconsequential) will gain you 2 points. With an even distribution you could make max points at 120 or 80 with 15/10 per tier, either of which would be more sensible values IMO.

For value as an exercise you can asymmetrically award points depending on whether you want to value brilliance in series (and corresponding failures in others) or consistency more, and it doesn't become a way of expressing overall averages (although they obviously still play a role). I hold consistency in high regard, so I see the merit if it's done this way. Maybe it is already- if the 5 point tiers are in the middle it would work this way. But it doesn't work for me at the low cap.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There are plenty of tiers already. They are just too narrowly grouped. They are under 10 runs per tier, which probably means some of them are sitting at 5 per tier. 6 runs in series average difference (which is almost inconsequential) will gain you 2 points. With an even distribution you could make max points at 120 or 80 with 15/10 per tier, either of which would be more sensible values IMO.

For value as an exercise you can asymmetrically award points depending on whether you want to value brilliance in series (and corresponding failures in others) or consistency more, and it doesn't become a way of expressing overall averages (although they obviously still play a role). I hold consistency in high regard, so I see the merit if it's done this way. Maybe it is already- if the 5 point tiers are in the middle it would work this way. But it doesn't work for me at the low cap.

I get what you're saying but I just think it defeats the purpose, trying to "fix" BIPS in that way. If you want BIPS to be a perfect measure then just forget about BIPS and use career averages.

 

[NUFAN]

Bolo, I went 60 as the highest on purpose. You are a star batsmen if you average 60 and its hard to say you havent had an excellent series.

Might as well give the points
0 - 9.99 = -3
10 - 19.99 = -2
20 - 29.99 = -1
30 - 34.99 = 0
35 - 39.99 = 1
40 - 49.99 = 2
50 - 59.99 = 3
60+ = 4

I totally understand how someone can luck in or luck out by just making or missing the next tier.

The other day I went through the type of series from terrible to terrific (or whatever adjectives I used) and I feel like they fit with the tiers above. Of course not always.

I had fun doing this - end of the day the cream rises to the top.

 

[NUFAN]

Also Nufan forgive me if this is already explained or obvious, you said that you average out series performances; does this take into account the number of matches in the series? Or is a 2 match series given the same weight as a 6 match series? And if so does it possibly disproportionately reward players who performed better in shorter series rather than longer series?

If someone averaged 52 in 2 Tests or 5 Tests in the series, they both got 3 points. Its just a simple total points divided by the number of series.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bolo, I went 60 as the highest on purpose. You are a star batsmen if you average 60 and its hard to say you havent had an excellent series.

Might as well give the points
0 - 9.99 = -3
10 - 19.99 = -2
20 - 29.99 = -1
30 - 34.99 = 0
35 - 39.99 = 1
40 - 49.99 = 2
50 - 59.99 = 3
60+ = 4

I totally understand how someone can luck in or luck out by just making or missing the next tier.

The other day I went through the type of series from terrible to terrific (or whatever adjectives I used) and I feel like they fit with the tiers above. Of course not always.

I had fun doing this - end of the day the cream rises to the top.

Can I post the full list now that you've posted the points?

 

[Bolo]

Bolo, I went 60 as the highest on purpose. You are a star batsmen if you average 60 and its hard to say you havent had an excellent series.

Might as well give the points
0 - 9.99 = -3
10 - 19.99 = -2
20 - 29.99 = -1
30 - 34.99 = 0
35 - 39.99 = 1
40 - 49.99 = 2
50 - 59.99 = 3
60+ = 4

I totally understand how someone can luck in or luck out by just making or missing the next tier.

The other day I went through the type of series from terrible to terrific (or whatever adjectives I used) and I feel like they fit with the tiers above. Of course not always.

I had fun doing this - end of the day the cream rises to the top.

The tier issue is fine.

60 is an excellent series average, but it's a below average performance for a few bats and a barely above average one for just about everyone being considered. It's also not a number that you could say would impact on result with any degree of confidence, so it's pretty low