How valuable is that wicket!

[Thala_0710]

Surprised by how low Murali turns

Yup, his avg wkt quality away from home is just 28.8 which is surprisingly quite low

 

[Thala_0710]

I think with spinners and even some pacers like Hadlee, Lillee etc. once you factor in WPM/workload they rise back up. Grimmett rises up quite a bit in that metric especially

 

[the big bambino]

Yes. Avg_wkt_quality just in itself wouldn't be a great metric though, definitely use it only for discount factor calculation

Thanks for that. All the same Md Asif's 5 AWQ is mighty impressive

 

[the big bambino]

Though I do see your point about its value as a metric - Sami's AWQ is also quite good and it is the discount factor telling the true story in quality.

 

[Thala_0710]

Though I do see your point about its value as a metric - Sami's AWQ is also quite good and it is the discount factor telling the true story in quality.

Yeah, if you sort by AWQ, the best bowler you'll get is Sreesanth and guys like DJ Bravo in the top 5

 

[Thala_0710]

Yeah, if you sort by AWQ, the best bowler you'll get is Sreesanth and guys like DJ Bravo in the top 5

Which is a reflection of them playing in a very flat era, and probably not statpadding against the tail enough, but definitely not great bowlers either.

 

[Thala_0710]

Overall average. That should be a better indication of a wicket's value perhaps. And it would be too much work, nearly impossible to take into account the average at the time of dismissal.

It would be quite tough, but theoretically if we could do it, wouldn't the cumulative average be better than overall average perhaps?

 

[Migara]

Here's the sheet if anyone is interested. Feel free to make a copy.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/0Bx5DR4ap92mFQW1tTUlqeW9TZzJ2LXZHNVFudEs3dw/

Needs permission it seems.

 

[Window]

Not convinced average at time of dismissal is necessarily a better measure of value tbh. If you want to evaluate the batsman likely runs contribution in the game they were dismissed, then the progressive average can still be misleading for batsmen in ascendance or descendence. You would probably want the average a window of period/games around the dismissal. However that’s going to be a lot of effort and still not necessarily a better measure than career average.

It could be interesting to include a min. innings qualifier for batsmen being considered in the quality of wickets and overall bowling averages / wickets though, to remove outliers but probably still too much work for something likely to have little impact on the end result.

 

[ankitj]

Not convinced average at time of dismissal is necessarily a better measure of value tbh. If you want to evaluate the batsman likely runs contribution in the game they were dismissed, then the progressive average can still be misleading for batsmen in ascendance or descendence. You would probably want the average a window of period/games around the dismissal. However that’s going to be a lot of effort and still not necessarily a better measure than career average.

It could be interesting to include a min. innings qualifier for batsmen being considered in the quality of wickets and overall bowling averages / wickets though, to remove outliers but probably still too much work for something likely to have little impact on the end result.

One could try ICC rating for the batsman at the time of dismissal. But dividing that by bowling average won't give an interpretable metric

 

[Coronis]

One could try ICC rating for the batsman at the time of dismissal. But dividing that by bowling average won't give an interpretable metric

It would also be very inaccurate for players who had their best form early in their career. For example it would vastly underrate dismissing Bradman in the 1930 Ashes.

 

[Ali TT]

It would also be very inaccurate for players who had their best form early in their career. For example it would vastly underrate dismissing Bradman in the 1930 Ashes.

Whatever measures you choose you need to control for the effect of the bowler in consideration on that measure. That is, if a batter had a terrible series or record in a particular country because there was a Broad-Warner, Athers-McGrath situation that would unfairly deflate the rating for that bowler.

 

[the big bambino]

I suppose there are many qualifications you could advance, but I think this is a pretty good measure. It's not unreasonable to judge a bowler's impact against a batsman's overall average even allowing for the vagaries of form over the extent of a career. I like the formula and appreciate all the work done as well as the qualifications mentioned by other posters. Well done the OP and Thala_0710 for their work.