Is this you are after?. Nice example too, I think why de Silva is better than what his average suggests!Or, rather, the last innings of a match, because sometimes, following on in the 3rd innings of a match, a batsmen is fighting to save the draw.
But, I don't think statsguru has a function for 'last innings'
An exponential curve? Yes, i think i could use one of those if i put my mind to it, but why not just invert the average and multiply by a constant? Is that any less accurate, because to me, it would appear a lot easier to set up?What Days of Grace has done is referred to as exxponential formula. With each unit of x gets away from zero or a set number, y increases more and more. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 is an example. Like wise 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21.... also can be set in to a function that is exponetial. That's easy maths I would think. We all learnt exponential series in our maths classes
That's actually not a bad point, there, bryce.
Converesely then, wickets on bad pitches (low scoring games) should value less than wickets on flatter tracks. Fast bowlers wickets on green seamers should worth less than ones on dustbowls.
Only thing is it is difficult to adjust. if you wanted Average of 19 to have twice points as 20, and 20 to have 1.9 points as 21, exponential curve is the only solution. The power curve you suggest, cannot be adjusted by that way Because of the adjustment you get a complex formular like constant1*e^(x*constant2) type equation
In a test match, i'd take this bowler any day of the week.
That's interesting, what do you mean by "technique"? I've always thought a good technique to be one with which you score a lot of runs, and a bad technique to be one with which you don't score many runs. I've heard people say players like Virender Sehwag, Shiv Chanderpaul, even Mike Hussey have a bad technique, but if their techniques are poor they wouldn't score such huge amounts of runs. Agree? Disagree?
You wouldn't have a bowler going at 3.5rpo in your one-day side? Mymy.
Interesting because Ian Chappell has been quoted as saying pretty much the opposite. He said his brother wasn't as good on unpredictable pitches because his technique was so rigidly 'correct' that he was less able to get ugly runs, a pre-requisite for scoring in tough conditions. Chappelli offered it as a reason for why Greg's average in England is 13 runs less than his overall average, seaming decks being his downfall with such a correct technique.
Also, aggressive players often excel on minefields because there's always a ball somewhere down the line with your number on it, and the Gilchrists have scored a lot more runs than the Boycotts by the time that ball comes.
This was a good suggestion, and so I changed it.
) is for this particular statistic I would not take not outs into account and work out the averages treating not outs as out.
Here, I would disagree. A batsmen finishing not out has the potential to score many more runs, particularly when he is 'set'.Oram definately is one to go on once he is set, mental fortitude as you mentioned. One slight adjustment I would make(you probaly do no want to hear this
That, there is no doubt. I just feel that it would elimate any possible inflation of average because a batsman with a few not outs can possibly end up with an inflated average because a not out is in theory easier to attain once a batsman is past 50. Plus I think it would level out against the times a not out batsman on 50+ has to up his agression when batting with the tailenders, thus increasing his risk of being dismissed. This is typically the case when a batsman has ended then innings on 50+ not out.