Cribbage's Standardised Test Averages (UPDATED November 2018 - posts 753-755)

[Migara]

I have seen the "friendliness" of each and every country. The issue with Sri Lanka is that it's spin "friendliness" comes from the back of Muralithara's stats. It's pace friendliness comes from that of Vaas. During Murali's career span, 1245 wickets at 31 has fallen in SL. Murali accounts for about 40% of them, 493 at 19.6. The rest has taken their 752 wickets at 39.5 (home and away spinners). I am sure, same issue happens when runs scored is considered during Bradman's time, because Bradman will account for half the runs that Australia has scored during that era, especially in Australia. Same may happen with Barnes I suppose. This makes a single star performer to skew the population statistics. Any way to correct this effect?

 

[Spark]

I wonder if there's a way to create a sort of "median" batsman/bowler to account for that.

 

[stephen]

Based on what I've seen of the methodology I personally believe that the era adjustment for modern batsmen is way too harsh. Smith should be much closer to the top of this list.

 

[Teja.]

Based on what I've seen of the methodology I personally believe that the era adjustment for modern batsmen is way too harsh. Smith should be much closer to the top of this list.

Dunno if that is the reason. Kohli is at 33, just below Ponting.

 

[Migara]

I have seen the "friendliness" of each and every country. The issue with Sri Lanka is that it's spin "friendliness" comes from the back of Muralithara's stats. It's pace friendliness comes from that of Vaas. During Murali's career span, 1245 wickets at 31 has fallen in SL. Murali accounts for about 40% of them, 493 at 19.6. The rest has taken their 752 wickets at 39.5 (home and away spinners). I am sure, same issue happens when runs scored is considered during Bradman's time, because Bradman will account for half the runs that Australia has scored during that era, especially in Australia. Same may happen with Barnes I suppose. This makes a single star performer to skew the population statistics. Any way to correct this effect?

And it gets worse when home spinners alone considered. Home spinners other than Murali has taken 321 wickets at 34.81. Murali has taken 61% of the wickets to fall for SL spinners in SL. It is his performance that makes SL "spin friendly". Other than for Murali, Warne, Ashwin, Vettori, Herath and Swann, all other spinners have struggled in SL, let it be against home or touring batsmen.

 

[Spark]

Based on what I've seen of the methodology I personally believe that the era adjustment for modern batsmen is way too harsh. Smith should be much closer to the top of this list.

That's not the era adjustment, that's the longevity multiplier.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's not the era adjustment, that's the longevity multiplier.

The australia pitches adjustment is probably affecting him too.

 

[Daemon]

I have seen the "friendliness" of each and every country. The issue with Sri Lanka is that it's spin "friendliness" comes from the back of Muralithara's stats. It's pace friendliness comes from that of Vaas. During Murali's career span, 1245 wickets at 31 has fallen in SL. Murali accounts for about 40% of them, 493 at 19.6. The rest has taken their 752 wickets at 39.5 (home and away spinners). I am sure, same issue happens when runs scored is considered during Bradman's time, because Bradman will account for half the runs that Australia has scored during that era, especially in Australia. Same may happen with Barnes I suppose. This makes a single star performer to skew the population statistics. Any way to correct this effect?

My spreadsheet actually takes care of this.

 

[Cabinet96]

From the last update (after the first test) Smith's average drops from 62.96 to 57.63 while Kohli's goes up from 53.76 to 54.45, which I'm guessing is down to the Australian pitches factor. I'm backing the differential between Smith's average and standardised average to be less after this series though. England has been very bowler friendly in recent seasons, and this is the first time he's completely pilled on the runs in a series there (if we consider his 2015 series to be average by Smith standards).

 

[Migara]

My spreadsheet actually takes care of this.

How?

 

[weldone]

If Pews recalculates it now, I'm sure Smith will end up much higher.

 

[Daemon]

Not sure it’ll be a lot higher. The 1 year ban must have hit him hard in the longevity nuts.

 

[weldone]

Yes the longevity will not increase much. But the standardised average will get a big boost (maybe close to 2nd among top 50 players after Bradman on std. average). Overall I'll be surprised if he's not in top 30 now.

 

[Burgey]

How?

Daemon's spreadsheet brings all the boys to the yard.

 

[Athlai]

Was that a reference to 2003 hit "Milkshake"?

 

[jimmy101]

Damn right... it's better than yours (assumedly)

 

[marc71178]

Other than jerking off over Muralitharan, I'm really not sure what point migara is trying to make.

 

[ankitj]

Other than jerking off over Muralitharan, I'm really not sure what point migara is trying to make.

It is a pretty straightforward point. Read again. If you don't get it, consider not posting about it.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have seen the "friendliness" of each and every country. The issue with Sri Lanka is that it's spin "friendliness" comes from the back of Muralithara's stats. It's pace friendliness comes from that of Vaas. During Murali's career span, 1245 wickets at 31 has fallen in SL. Murali accounts for about 40% of them, 493 at 19.6. The rest has taken their 752 wickets at 39.5 (home and away spinners). I am sure, same issue happens when runs scored is considered during Bradman's time, because Bradman will account for half the runs that Australia has scored during that era, especially in Australia. Same may happen with Barnes I suppose. This makes a single star performer to skew the population statistics. Any way to correct this effect?

It doesn't just look at the overall raw effectiveness of spin/pace/batting in a country in that lumped in way, otherwise that effect you speak of would be so large as to render the entire measure useless. Rather than standardising things I'd actually be introducing more valuables and making the results more rather than less skewed. You'd be entirely right if it worked in the way you're assuming. In fact it'd be such a large problem that I wouldn't include pitch adjustments at all if that was the only way I could do it.

Murali, Vaas, Bradman etc played the away games as well which is what it compares against. It doesn't just look at Murali taking lots of wickets at home and assume it's spin friendly because of that; it compares what the Sri Lankan spinners did at home compared to their away records, and also compares what touring spinners did there with their home records against the same batting lineup when Sri Lanka toured their countries.

 

[Migara]

It doesn't just look at the overall raw effectiveness of spin/pace/batting in a country in that lumped in way, otherwise that effect you speak of would be so large as to render the entire measure useless. Rather than standardising things I'd actually be introducing more valuables and making the results more rather than less skewed. You'd be entirely right if it worked in the way you're assuming. In fact it'd be such a large problem that I wouldn't include pitch adjustments at all if that was the only way I could do it.

Murali, Vaas, Bradman etc played the away games as well which is what it compares against. It doesn't just look at Murali taking lots of wickets at home and assume it's spin friendly because of that; it compares what the Sri Lankan spinners did at home compared to their away records, and also compares what touring spinners did there with their home records against the same batting lineup when Sri Lanka toured their countries.

OK, just pardon me for my ignorance. Is this comparison an absolute one or a relative one? Take below as an example. We have players X and y in teams A and B.

Player X
Against B at Home = 25
Against B away = 30

Player Y
Against B at Home = 20
Against B away = 25

I have used a difference of 5 in average. Can do the same as a ratio, where the numbers would be 25, 37.5, 20 and 30.

Would teams A and B rated differently?