The Minnow bashers

[Migara]

POINTS ALLOCATED: BATSMEN
Average: x7.5 - Your former calculation took it as 6.5. Since I have adjusted the averages, I took as 7.0, the mid point between two calculations
Runs:
8000+: 50
5000-7999: 35
3000-4999: 20
2000-2999: 13
1000-1999: 8
500-999: 4
Here I used a linear equation of Points = runs * 0.005 + 0.441 equation
Centuries: x5
Consistency in reaching fifty (%): x3 Here also, I used number of innings
Strike Rate: x3.5 - Here I used 4.0, the mid point in your calculations

Less than 50 matches: -10% of rating
Less than 40 matches: -20% of rating
Less than 30 matches: -30% of rating
Less than 20 matches: -40% of rating
For the above I took number of innings. Lower order batsmen have less chanes than openers in ODIs. Used number of innigs to counter the disadvantage.

 

[Migara]

The top 30 appeared as following

[B]Pos	Player			Points[/B]
1	SR Tendulkar (India)	950
2	IVA Richards (WI)	932
3	Zaheer Abbas (Pak)	888
4	RT Ponting (Aus)	850
5	ST Jayasuriya (SL)	804
6	MG Bevan (Aus)		801
7	AC Gilchrist (Aus)	793
8	KP Pietersen (Eng/ICC)	793
9	BC Lara (ICC/WI)	790
10	MEK Hussey (Aus)	789
11	DM Jones (Aus)		789
12	Saeed Anwar (Pak)	789
13	DL Haynes (WI)		788
14	CG Greenidge (WI)	782
15	JH Kallis (ICC/SA)	778
16	ML Hayden (Aus)		768
17	ME Waugh (Aus)		755
18	A Symonds (Aus)		754
19	SC Ganguly (India)	750
20	GS Chappell (Aus)	746
21	Javed Miandad (Pak)	742
22	MS Dhoni (India)	738
23	Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pak)	735
24	G Kirsten (SA)		727
25	R Dravid (ICC/India)	726
26	AJ Lamb (Eng)		726
27	HH Gibbs (SA)		711
28	PA de Silva (SL)	707
29	V Sehwag (ICC/India)	706
30	MJ Clarke (Aus)		702

Jayasuriya over Bevan and Gilchrist, I am quite satisfied with it. This is runs against non-minnows mind you.

 

[Uppercut]

Great job on the points adjustments, although I don't agree with some of it. For example, wickets per innings, because the bowler can't help it if the captain doesn't give them the ball. Well...if the captain doesn't rate them, then it tells a lot, doesn't it? The top bowlers in the rankings would never miss out on bowling in a full ODI innings, anyway.
.

Not necessarily true at all, just say, for instance, Australia are playing England. McGrath bowls 5 overs at the start of the innings, takes 1-15 and is held back to keep it tight at the end. Warne comes on in the middle overs and bowls England out before McGrath has the chance to come back into the attack.

I've always been unsure of wickets per innings/per match as a statistic. It has a clear tendency to underrate bowlers who bowled in very strong attacks.

 

[Goughy]

I've always been unsure of wickets per innings/per match as a statistic. It has a clear tendency to underrate bowlers who bowled in very strong attacks.

How so?

I have not looked at the info but if it is such a clear tendancy then could you provide 5 examples of average bowlers in poor attacks averaging more wickets per game than 5 very good bowlers in strong attacks?

 

[Uppercut]

How so?

I have not looked at the info but if it is such a clear tendancy then could you provide 5 examples of average bowlers in poor attacks averaging more wickets per game than 5 very good bowlers in strong attacks?

Off the top of my head, Stuart Clark has a bowling average of 21 and strike rate of 50. But never has he taken ten wickets in a match and only twice in 18 matches has he taken 5 in an innings.

 

[Uppercut]

Another example is that if comparing Warne and Murali, they've both bowled about 6700 overs in test cricket, but Murali has played 24 less matches. So going by wickets per match, Murali's case is exaggerated (it looks like Warne has had much more opportunity to take wickets when really they've had the same amount of bowling to do so with.)

Besides, what's wrong with strike rate + average as a way of judging a bowlers effectiveness?

 

[Migara]

Another example is that if comparing Warne and Murali, they've both bowled about 6700 overs in test cricket, but Murali has played 24 less matches. So going by wickets per match, Murali's case is exaggerated (it looks like Warne has had much more opportunity to take wickets when really they've had the same amount of bowling to do so with.)

Besides, what's wrong with strike rate + average as a way of judging a bowlers effectiveness?

What is the certificate that you can give if Warne bowled more, he would get more wickets accoring to the excess he bowled? He might not have lasted the final year due to heavy work if that has appened.

 

[Ikki]

What is the certificate that you can give if Warne bowled more, he would get more wickets accoring to the excess he bowled? He might not have lasted the final year due to heavy work if that has appened.

Conversely, how do you know Murali would keep his SR if he was forced to have a more limited quota?

Only statistics that break up their wicket taking per over would answer this question, and even then not entirely.

 

[Migara]

Conversely, how do you know Murali would keep his SR if he was forced to have a more limited quota?

Only statistics that break up their wicket taking per over would answer this question, and even then not entirely.

SR won't change much IMO. But he'll pick less wickets per match. But once more these terrories are obscure to stats.

 

[Ikki]

SR won't change much IMO. But he'll pick less wickets per match. But once more these terrories are obscure to stats.

That's the whole point Uppercut was making. Even if SR doesn't change at all, he will take less wickets per match. Does this mean Murali is of less quality? No. So wickets per test on it's own is a useless stat.

 

[Richard]

Posts for the move.

 

[Days of Grace]

POINTS ALLOCATED: BATSMEN
Average: x7.5 - Your former calculation took it as 6.5. Since I have adjusted the averages, I took as 7.0, the mid point between two calculations

Actually, my current ratings have the average as x8. Before that, it was x7.5, so I don't know where you got x6 from?

 

[Days of Grace]

POINTS ALLOCATED: BATSMEN

Consistency in reaching fifty (%): x3 Here also, I used number of innings
Strike Rate: x3.5 - Here I used 4.0, the mid point in your calculations

Less than 50 matches: -10% of rating
Less than 40 matches: -20% of rating
Less than 30 matches: -30% of rating
Less than 20 matches: -40% of rating
For the above I took number of innings. Lower order batsmen have less chanes than openers in ODIs. Used number of innigs to counter the disadvantage.

Consistency: umm, I used number of innings too.

Strike-rate: what do you mean by mid-point in my calculations? You mean that average and strike-rate have the same weighting? I don't think they should. In my current ratings, strike-rate has about a 83% weighting of the average rating. I still think that average is worth a little more then strike-rate, because I would take a Nick Knight over a Shihad Afridi. A batsman averaging 40 with a S/R of 70 is still better then a batsman averaging 20 with a S/R of 90.

Number of matches I will defend my number of matches, because in the end top order batsmen are there to score runs, so they should get the higher ratings. If you only get 3 innings per 10 matches, it probably means that you aren't needed and if you were actually a good batsmen you would be used more.

 

[archie mac]

I also think you are very hard on NZ, a lot of the Tests they played in England were limited to just three days, this led to a lot of draws, some of which they may have converted into wins

 

[nightprowler10]

From feb-march 2007 they have been minnows.

Interesting to see Zaheer Abbas ranked higher than Ponting in Migara's list.

 

[Uppercut]

What is the certificate that you can give if Warne bowled more, he would get more wickets accoring to the excess he bowled? He might not have lasted the final year due to heavy work if that has appened.

I'm not interested in guesswork. The point was that he never got the chance, and is statistically penalised for it when you use wickets per innings as the measure of a bowler's effectiveness.

 

[Migara]

Actually, my current ratings have the average as x8. Before that, it was x7.5, so I don't know where you got x6 from?

I never got a x 6. I used x 7.0
http://www.forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1422076&postcount=7

The weighting for the average used to be 6.5 and the weighting for s/r used to be 4.5. They are now 7.5 and 3.5 respectively, so batsmen from the 1980s such as Haynes and Greenidge can now move up the order.

 

[Migara]

Number of matches I will defend my number of matches, because in the end top order batsmen are there to score runs, so they should get the higher ratings. If you only get 3 innings per 10 matches, it probably means that you aren't needed and if you were actually a good batsmen you would be used more.

The lower order batsmen will be in a great disadvantage if their top order is very goos, if number of matces considered. And when the top order has finished tha match, lower order players will not have a chance to bat