DoG's top 100 test bowler countdown: Adjust for wickets per innings

[DrWolverine]

5:3:2
Avg : WPM : SR

 

[honestbharani]

@Days of Grace I honestly think you should disregard this poll, and just do it however you feel like doing it.

Sure people cribbed a bit about strike rate in the batsmen ranking, but in the end it was still a vastly appreciated effort, and the process of putting out the list, debates, predictions, etc. was a load of fun. Back yourself and whatever your gut is feeling, and I'm sure this next bowlers list will be the same!

Yeah I think the first one at least has to be your list. We can maybe work our way around to some kind of a CW consensus method and list which evolves from that. But you have earned the right </Baz> to do this your way first.

 

[kyear2]

I agree with this for limited overs cricket. But in test cricket, wickets win matches, and the time is limited, so a bowler who takes wickets quickly is better than a containing bowler. In addition, economy-rate is reflected in a bowler's average, the runs they concede per wicket.

Exactly.

 

[Randomfan]

.

 

[Days of Grace]

In terms of adjusting wickets per innings, I meant adjusting the wicket volume in terms of the support (or lack thereof) a bowler had from his peers and how the percentage of team overs bowled. I did not mean adjusting the WPI by opposition strength of match conditions.

 

[Randomfan]

In terms of adjusting wickets per innings, I meant adjusting the wicket volume in terms of the support (or lack thereof) a bowler had from his peers and how the percentage of team overs bowled. I did not mean adjusting the WPI by opposition strength of match conditions.

Yes, that can capture it to some extent. If you are going to bowl a lot more oves compared to others in a team, you are bound to pick up more wickets than others with everything else being equal.

 

[Jane Austen]

bowling strike rates hold value because they can demonstrate wicket-taking-ability of a bowler, many times it's likely the player with the lower strike rate would end up with higher wickets accross career, for example Steyn and Donald take more an innings than McGrath and Ambrose, now obviously you have your Hadlee or Barnes who utterly and completely dwarf Steyn or Donald in wicket taking and their SR just doesn't matter as they make up for it by bowling way more balls. However, batting strike rate has nothing to do with demonstrating how many runs one makes, that's RPI, it's all about the pace of getting things done.

While bowling strike rate often influences a factor that actually matters (number of wickets taken), batting SR and ER are completely related to pace of the game and have no value in reality. Bowling SR should hold more value than either, bowling ER and batting SR are equivalent as they are entirely related to the pace of the game.

Johan---a clever,semantic illusion cannot disguise the irrefutable logic that the quicker the scoring rate the more chance of winning a match.... and a win is is rated proportionately better to a draw than achieving the draw is to losing.
This is reflected in other sports.
"" Winning is everything" thus the Premier League has 3 points for a win and only 1 point for a draw.
A draw doesn't win the challenger a share of the World Heavyweight Title.
American sports will have play-offs to avoid drawn situation
Over the years the points system of The County Championship has tried to encouraged teams to try and win rather than play for a draw.
But for your entertainment Johan I suggest that you obtain a video of England v Australia,4th Test at Old Trafford,July 1964.
It will be orgasmic watching for you.Australia,656 for 8 wickets declared from255.5 overs,England,611 all out from 293.1 overs.Oh and Australia managed to safely achieve a well-earned draw by being 4 for no wicket come the end of the match!
THAT was the attitude of Test teams in the 1960s----DON'T LOSE!
More than a few of my generation turned away from cricket because of its caution and the sleep-inducing boredom.
One of the popular photos of the time was to show just one spectator at the game and HE HAD HIS EYES CLOSED---
I assume you recognise that as being a metaphor for how boring cricket was perceived to be---the sort of cricket which you seem to endorse.
Not only is your dismissal of the value of faster scoring illogical but if such a supportive attitude to negative cricket is supported, then where will Test and first-class cricket go from here!

 

[Johan]

Johan---a clever,semantic illusion cannot disguise the irrefutable logic that the quicker the scoring rate the more chance of winning a match.... and a win is is rated proportionately better to a draw than achieving the draw is to losing.
This is reflected in other sports.
"" Winning is everything" thus the Premier League has 3 points for a win and only 1 point for a draw.
A draw doesn't win the challenger a share of the World Heavyweight Title.
American sports will have play-offs to avoid drawn situation
Over the years the points system of The County Championship has tried to encouraged teams to try and win rather than play for a draw.
But for your entertainment Johan I suggest that you obtain a video of England v Australia,4th Test at Old Trafford,July 1964.
It will be orgasmic watching for you.Australia,656 for 8 wickets declared from255.5 overs,England,611 all out from 293.1 overs.Oh and Australia managed to safely achieve a well-earned draw by being 4 for no wicket come the end of the match!
THAT was the attitude of Test teams in the 1960s----DON'T LOSE!
More than a few of my generation turned away from cricket because of its caution and the sleep-inducing boredom.
One of the popular photos of the time was to show just one spectator at the game and HE HAD HIS EYES CLOSED---
I assume you recognise that as being a metaphor for how boring cricket was perceivedto be---the sort of cricket which you seem to endorse.
Not only is your dismissal of the value of faster scoring illogical but if such a supportive attitude to negative cricket is supported, then where will Test and first-class cricket go from here!

I actually disagree, I'd say a loss is about as much worse than a draw as a draw is worse than a win.

Now, the worst and most insulting piece of Cricket I've ever watched has come from a team whose entire philosophy revolves around chasing wins regardless of context and always being positive and aggressive. Regardless, I'm not in favour of either championing an overtly negative or overtly positive approach to the game, neither too conservative nor too radical, therefore I'm critical of both approaches to the game and as everything, the perfect approach probably lies in the middle of the two extremes. In my eyes, praising aggressive Cricket makes no more sense than praising defensive one, I don't really think I would ever rate a player for their default scoring rate, praising a Sehwag or Brook for their scoring rate just makes as much sense to me as praising a Hanif or Bruce Mitchell for their scoring rates, regardless that's just my perception of the game.

Clearly, people have grown agitated to the strike rate debates, so please let's just agree to disagree as I don't think either party would be willing to concede much (if anything at all) regarding their fundamental mindset toward Cricket.

 

[Jane Austen]

I actually disagree, I'd say a loss is about as much worse than a draw as a draw is worse than a win.

Now, the worst and most insulting piece of Cricket I've ever watched has come from a team whose entire philosophy revolves around chasing wins regardless of context and always being positive and aggressive. Regardless, I'm not in favour of either championing an overtly negative or overtly positive approach to the game, neither too conservative nor too radical, therefore I'm critical of both approaches to the game and as everything, the perfect approach probably lies in the middle of the two extremes. In my eyes, praising aggressive Cricket makes no more sense than praising defensive one, I don't really think I would ever rate a player for their default scoring rate, praising a Sehwag or Brook for their scoring rate just makes as much sense to me as praising a Hanif or Bruce Mitchell for their scoring rates, regardless that's just my perception of the game.

Clearly, people have grown agitated to the strike rate debates, so please let's just agree to disagree as I don't think either party would be willing to concede much (if anything at all) regarding their fundamental mindset toward Cricket.

Johan---You have politely requested that we discontinue our debate and,of course,I will do so.
Thank you for an interesting discussion.

 

[Bolo.]

In terms of adjusting wickets per innings, I meant adjusting the wicket volume in terms of the support (or lack thereof) a bowler had from his peers and how the percentage of team overs bowled. I did not mean adjusting the WPI by opposition strength of match conditions.

Adjusting WPI is going to be very complicated. What is a better measure here to judge competition? Their averages or their SRs? The strength of your batting might make more difference than your bowling, as well as a bunch of other factors.

I think for a Hadlee/Murali, they benefit in WPI from low competition. But having to bowl dry/long drags their averages up. Hopefully these balance out for overall rating.

 

[Days of Grace]

Yes, that can capture it to some extent. If you are going to bowl a lot more oves compared to others in a team, you are bound to pick up more wickets than others with everything else being equal.

I feel that decreasing the WPI due to overs bowled would be penalizing spin bowlers, who usually have higher averages and strike-rates than fast bowlers.

 

[The Sean]

I understand the desire to include strike rate and it's completely fair enough as taking wickets is how you win games of cricket (my Captain Obvious award should arrive any day now, I'm very excited).

However, I'm not sure of the statistical justification for including strike rate but excluding economy rate due to it already being factored into the bowling average. I mean, yes it is, but so is strike rate - bowling average is literally a function of the two!

 

[The Sean]

Bottom line though @Days of Grace is that this is your list mate and you should do it the way you want to.

I'm open minded enough to wait to see where my personal favourites end up before I tell you how wrong it is.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm open minded enough to wait to see where my personal favourites end up before I tell you how wrong it is

Or be pleasantly surprised like I was after the batsmen's list.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I feel that decreasing the WPI due to overs bowled would be penalizing spin bowlers, who usually have higher averages and strike-rates than fast bowlers.

I think the WPI adjustments should be Era specific, not overs bowled or anything like team strength. I mean, if you are bowling a **** ton to get those wickets, please be my guest. No way am gonna penalize for that.

 

[The Sean]

Or be pleasantly surprised like I was after the batsmen's list.

Ha, true - though I don't have high expectations for my boy Keith, for example. He'll take a hit on longevity (not really his fault, but still...) and WPM, and didn't have much of a pronounced peak either.

He'll do well on average, top opposition, and being generally awesome, but I fear that the limitations of a purely statistical exercise mean that only two of those three things will be factors in his ranking.

 

[honestbharani]

Extra points for being on the winning side of a world war, perhaps?

 

[DrWolverine]

I think for a Hadlee/Murali, they benefit in WPI from low competition. But having to bowl dry/long drags their averages up. Hopefully these balance out for overall rating.

This is true. A lone gun may have a higher WPM, but the longer spells will eventually take a toll on him. Shouldn’t that be taken into consideration?

 

[Randomfan]

Bottom line though @Days of Grace is that this is your list mate and you should do it the way you want to.

I'm open minded enough to wait to see where my personal favourites end up before I tell you how wrong it is.

Great one. Had me rolling on the floor.

 

[kyear2]

Johan---a clever,semantic illusion cannot disguise the irrefutable logic that the quicker the scoring rate the more chance of winning a match.... and a win is is rated proportionately better to a draw than achieving the draw is to losing.
This is reflected in other sports.
"" Winning is everything" thus the Premier League has 3 points for a win and only 1 point for a draw.
A draw doesn't win the challenger a share of the World Heavyweight Title.
American sports will have play-offs to avoid drawn situation
Over the years the points system of The County Championship has tried to encouraged teams to try and win rather than play for a draw.
But for your entertainment Johan I suggest that you obtain a video of England v Australia,4th Test at Old Trafford,July 1964.
It will be orgasmic watching for you.Australia,656 for 8 wickets declared from255.5 overs,England,611 all out from 293.1 overs.Oh and Australia managed to safely achieve a well-earned draw by being 4 for no wicket come the end of the match!
THAT was the attitude of Test teams in the 1960s----DON'T LOSE!
More than a few of my generation turned away from cricket because of its caution and the sleep-inducing boredom.
One of the popular photos of the time was to show just one spectator at the game and HE HAD HIS EYES CLOSED---
I assume you recognise that as being a metaphor for how boring cricket was perceived to be---the sort of cricket which you seem to endorse.
Not only is your dismissal of the value of faster scoring illogical but if such a supportive attitude to negative cricket is supported, then where will Test and first-class cricket go from here!

Not only as you've said, that it's undeniably valuable, but the "tied test" series did so much to try to reverse that trend and even start to save the game.

Batting at that pedestrian pace not only isn't more difficult, it certainly doesn't come close to being more valuable.

Saw this the other day and thought it was, well...

He said: My side requires courage and impeccable technique from the opening batsmen, genius and attacking flair from three to seven in the order, a brilliant and effervescent wicket-keeper, and bowlers to cover every possible eventuality...Eight of the ten fielders are natural athletes who would catch anything above ground.

it proves and means nothing, but isn't that kind of the goal?