Which statistics did you value most in cricket as a kid? And which ones now?

[kiwiviktor81]

I've basically been all about the averages, as that is simply the strongest statistic for telling you roughly how good a player is. Started caring less about it when I realised how much variability there was in cricket (i.e. I learned more about statistics) and then started using my eye more.

I don't see eyes and spreadsheets as being opposing however, to me they complement each other and both are capable of shedding insight.

Strike rate started mattering to me in ODIs when I heard Glenn Turner point out that if neither team is bowled out, the highest strike rate wins. Now SR is as important to me as average in ODIs.

 

[Immenso]

These days.

I like to add average and strike rate, then divide by bat width (in inches) squared X boundary average radius (in metres). Minus mandatory players in circle average per n overs.

By this calculation I tend to find Astle always pips Guptill as an ODI bat.

(Ave + SR) / (bat x radius) - ((11 - y)/n)

 

[harsh.ag]

Number of sixes hit in an innings really floated my boat for some reason

 

[Athlai]

These days.

I like to add average and strike rate, then divide by bat width (in inches) squared X boundary average radius (in metres). Minus mandatory players in circle average per n overs.

By this calculation I tend to find Astle always pips Guptill as an ODI bat.

(Ave + SR) / (bat x radius) - ((11 - y)/n)

I think your calculations overlooked that Eden Parks boundaries are longer now. #Edenparksobig #Guptill>Astle