DoG Top 100 Test Batsmen : How much importance should be given to strike rate?

[howitzer]

Not really, if I make a model with certain parameters and that's the outcome, then I can say that for this particular model certain players outrank others. There's no right or wrong answer because there's no objective truth.

Yep. My own personal model gives batsmen who played exactly 99 innings, with exactly 62 of them at number 8 quadruple points. It isn't right or wrong because there's no objective truth.

 

[Jane Austen]

SR is important as far as player has ability to change gears. Some were incapaple and some had capacity. Batsmen, who could change gears based on team's need were simply superior than some who did not have skills to do it if other things were equal. That part is obvious to most people. Other part is less obvous but plays a part as well. That part is dominating batsmen can derail the opposition attack.

But I am not sure how much SR was important lets say before 2000. It probably had less impact on results. Some one like Sehwag has won games by simply batting at very high SR on totally flat wickets to allow more time to bowles to pick 20 wickets.

After all said and done, list is stats based. It's fine to say that here is ranking based on this and this. It can differ from consensus or personal liking. Great effort by DOG here. Thanks for doing it.

Well said Randomfan.
However strike-rate was JUST as important prior to 2000.
Going back to slow-slow days of the fifties and sixties a few more batters capable of faster strike-rates such as Pollock,Lloyd ,Milburn,Dexter and Walters ( he scored a century in a session in three succesive southern summers,all games won by Australia) and there would have been many more positive results than there actually were in the dreary-draw-decade that was the sixties.
Batting was even slower in the fifties but pitches were a lot more bowler-favourable.
Going back still further,there were Tests played over three days and then strike-rate was,if anything,even more important.
It speaks for itself that the versatile batters such as Hobbs and Root etc are of even more benefit to a teamfor their batting versatility in the same way that all-rounders add generally to their team.
Just consider the historic debates in the 50s and 60s as to whether Hobbs may be greater than Bradman because Hobbs got runs on tough pitches unlike Bradman.
Again proportionate balanceNOT dismissal of strike-rate as irrelevant!

 

[Days of Grace]

While I'm happy in-principle for the inclusion of strike-rate, I worry that in practice it has the potential to skew results if given too high a weighting.

Hammond was happy to trundle along at 35 runs/100 balls during 1928/29. Timeless matches, high over-rates and flat pitches made it the perfect risk-reward outcome. Should he be penalised for having batted to the prevailing conditions ?

Don't forget that strike-rate, like average and runs per innings, is adjusted in my analysis according to opposition bowling attack economy-rates and the runs per balls in each match.

If we take Hammond in the 1928/29 Ashes as an example, he scored 905 runs from 2521 balls (36 runs per 100 balls). This has been adjusted to 905 runs from 2080 balls (44 runs per 100 balls, a more acceptable strike-rate).

 

[honestbharani]

36 runs per ball

44 runs per ball

Whoaaaaaaaaa

 

[Randomfan]

Well said Randomfan.
However strike-rate was JUST as important prior to 2000.
Going back to slow-slow days of the fifties and sixties a few more batters capable of faster strike-rates such as Pollock,Lloyd ,Milburn,Dexter and Walters ( he scored a century in a session in three succesive southern summers,all games won by Australia) and there would have been many more positive results than there actually were in the dreary-draw-decade that was the sixties.
Batting was even slower in the fifties but pitches were a lot more bowler-favourable.
Going back still further,there were Tests played over three days and then strike-rate was,if anything,even more important.
It speaks for itself that the versatile batters such as Hobbs and Root etc are of even more benefit to a teamfor their batting versatility in the same way that all-rounders add generally to their team.
Just consider the historic debates in the 50s and 60s as to whether Hobbs may be greater than Bradman because Hobbs got runs on tough pitches unlike Bradman.
Again proportionate balanceNOT dismissal of strike-rate as irrelevant!

Versatile players are always better, no doubt about it. That's going by having watched cricket for the last 35 years. I tend to rate players who can't change gears much lower. Even for opener, once ball is old and bowlers are tired, if opener simply keeps playing slow all the time, I rate them lower. It shows lack of skill set. As an opposition I will always prefer such openers compared to others who can change gears to punish after it gets easier to bat.

I won't dismiss strike rate in any era. I was trying to simply think if it was less impact in older days. If impact was somewhat similar in older era as well then a constant proportional balance makes sense.

 

[Jane Austen]

Don't forget that strike-rate, like average and runs per innings, is adjusted in my analysis according to opposition bowling attack economy-rates and the runs per balls in each match.

If we take Hammond in the 1928/29 Ashes as an example, he scored 905 runs from 2521 balls (36 runs per ball). This has been adjusted to 905 runs from 2080 balls (44 runs per ball, a much more acceptable strike-rate).

Thank you for that post Days of Grace.
Your system encapsulates how strike-rate has a place in any assement and,in the specific example of Hammond,shows that dynamic stroke players can,and do,adapt their game according to its demands,This is because,by definition,it is easier for a batter to revert to the lower skill of batting time with less risk invoved.It is the greater skill of widening ones stroke play and accelerating the scoring rate which,obviously,is the more difficult.
Consider the innings of graft played by some of cricket's most brilliant batters-----de Villiers,Dexter,Sobers,Bradman,Compton,all flamboyant strokeplayers.They adjust when winning isn't a consideration.A Shahid Afridi may have more difficulty in doing so and this is reflected in his average.Conversely,very great batters such as Hobbs,Root and Tendulkar,do so regularly.
I think the notion of strike-rate being irrelevant when comparing batters to be so illogical and bizarre that its all just a fun wind-up by those posters who profess to advocate it.

,

 

[Johan]

Whatever the weightage be, when and if a bowler list is done, I would request an equal importance to be given to economy rate for bowlers as strike rate is to be given for batsmen.

 

[Coronis]

Thank you for that post Days of Grace.
Your system encapsulates how strike-rate has a place in any assement and,in the specific example of Hammond,shows that dynamic stroke players can,and do,adapt their game according to its demands,This is because,by definition,it is easier for a batter to revert to the lower skill of batting time with less risk invoved.It is the greater skill of widening ones stroke play and accelerating the scoring rate which,obviously,is the more difficult.
Consider the innings of graft played by some of cricket's most brilliant batters-----de Villiers,Dexter,Sobers,Bradman,Compton,all flamboyant strokeplayers.They adjust when winning isn't a consideration.A Shahid Afridi may have more difficulty in doing so and this is reflected in his average.Conversely,very great batters such as Hobbs,Root and Tendulkar,do so regularly.
I think the notion of strike-rate being irrelevant when comparing batters to be so illogical and bizarre that its all just a fun wind-up by those posters who profess to advocate it.

,

I think we all agree that being able to easily switch between attack and defense is important and ideal. However I don’t think a career strike rate encapsulates that. Its a game by game, session by session (or even less) basis. Therefore I don’t subscribe to higher = better. (note that I don’t also subscribe to lower = better - despite what some people might have you believe)


For me at least, its too situational to end up being quantified as a single number to be used in a statistical analysis.

Don’t get me wrong I love all the stuff DoG’s put out, I love Davis’ database with historical strike rates but I just can’t get behind the idea that higher = better, nor does that mean a player is more adaptable. They usually have their own natural pace, and almost every great batsman has innings where they played much faster or slower as needed (part of what makes them great).

I don’t think they should be “punished” for how little or often they needed to bat outside of their comfort zone (defending or attacking) or for how fast/slow their natural pace was.

 

[Abhay423]

Whatever the weightage be, when and if a bowler list is done, I would request an equal importance to be given to economy rate for bowlers as strike rate is to be given for batsmen.

It should be bowling SR. Batting SR means how quickly you are scoring your runs and bowling SR means how quickly you are getting your wickets. That's a direct comparison and these are good metrics.

Say in two different teams, both their best batters average 50 but one scores at SR of 65 and other at 40. Similarly both great bowlers average 22 but one has a bowling SR of 40 and other 65, so the team with better SR's is likely to win more games because they are not taking the extra time out of the game.

So, adjusted SR'S are a great metric both for batting and bowling list. It's just one of the many variables in our game.

Finally top effort from DOG in coming with this list. Cricket is probably one of the toughest sports to model because of all the unique variables, so it requires a lots of hardwork and diligence. Also, every statistical exercise is going to have its shortcomings, it's just the name of the game. Unless you run actual hawk eye data through the model, there is no sure way to judge a pitch's nature and there is definitely no easy route to factor in injuries. NBA's moneyline is considered one of the most efficient betting market in the world and they struggle to model injuries and these are some of the smartest minds in the world with great infrastructure and s**t loads of money to bet on each game.

Fantastic work. Much appreciated.

 

[Johan]

It should be bowling SR. Batting SR means how quickly you are scoring your runs and bowling SR means how quickly you are getting your wickets. That's a direct comparison and these are good metrics.

Say in two different teams, both their best batters average 50 but one scores at SR of 65 and other at 40. Similarly both great bowlers average 22 but one has a bowling SR of 40 and other 65, so the team with better SR's is likely to win more games because they are not taking the extra time out of the game.

So, adjusted SR'S are a great metric both for batting and bowling list. It's just one of the many variables in our game..

And a higher probability to lose, as the opposition have more time to win as well with the exact same aggregates.

Though, Economy rate is also well reflective of ability, a higher ability means more loose balls, and a lower economy rate indicates tighter bowling and less hittable bowling, the latter is obviously harder than a mix of wicket taking deliveries and looser balls. On top, all the psychological effects that people note to elevated scoring rates would be applied tenfolds more to the batting side if a bowler or two curb the scoring rates.

 

[Abhay423]

And a higher probability to lose, as the opposition have more time to win as well with the exact same aggregates.

Though, Economy rate is also well reflective of ability, a higher ability means more loose balls, and a lower economy rate indicates tighter bowling and less hittable bowling, the latter is obviously harder than a mix of wicket taking deliveries and looser balls. On top, all the psychological effects that people note to elevated scoring rates would be applied tenfolds more to the batting side if a bowler or two curb the scoring rates.

If you are playing to win from ball one, you have to risk losing.

Economy rate is also a good measure and I don't think there is anything wrong in giving it weightage in a statistical exercise but it should be factored with bowling SR. If you are bowling dry but not taking wickets at a quick enough rate, you are still doing a good job but not at the level of a strike bowler. I think spinners can be compared on this metric, if they are bowling on flat day one pitches then economy matters a lot compared to day 5 where SR matters more because then the goal is to win. All three metrics can be included imo, average, SR and economy.

 

[Randomfan]

Bowlers main job is to take wickets cheaply(Avg) and quickly(SR). Taking cheaply directly helps the team and taking quickly allows other bowlers to bowl to a new batsman. Low ER can put pressure and also gets you wickets, but it's less important in the test format than limited overs. Now if we were talking about limited overs then SR becomes second fiddle to ER. You can win limited overs by simply containing runs without picking a single wicket but you can't do it in the test format. In the test format, you got to pick 20 wickets.

Also, avg has input from ER and SR. They are mathematically linked. I think, most important is Avg and then SR and then ER in the test format.

 

[Johan]

Batting position imo is a lot more important than SR, that should definitely get a jump, can kick SR out for it.

 

[Johan]

If you are playing to win from ball one, you have to risk losing.

Why is this better than a conservative, never-lose approach?

 

[Abhay423]

Why is this better than a conservative, never-lose approach?

The goal of the game or for that matter any sport is to win, only when you are in a position where you realistically can't achieve that, the second best option i.e draw should be considered.

 

[Johan]

The goal of the game or for that matter any sport is to win, only when you are in a position where you realistically can't achieve that, the second best option i.e draw should be considered.

The goal is to avoid defeat, a team should always be okay with a draw and push for win when you can reliably not lose. Safety first

 

[Abhay423]

The goal is to avoid defeat, a team should always be okay with a draw and push for win when you can reliably not lose. Safety first

I don't believe that and don't watch or play with that perspective.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

The goal is to have fun actually.

 

[DrWolverine]

The goal is to have fun actually.

That’s for fans.

 

[Coronis]

I don't believe that and don't watch or play with that perspective.

Do you believe England have saved test cricket?

You’re essentially describing the Bazball philosophy.