Cribbage's Standardised Test Averages (UPDATED November 2018 - posts 753-755)

[weldone]

Well, my formula has Vettori at number 64 among bowlers and at number 237 among batsmen. Do you think my formula rates him more correctly than yours, PEWS?

Just noticed that in my bowlers' list, Vettori, Sobers and Zaheer are all rated at similar levels. It is very interesting to me personally as I always imagined Sobers' bowling as a combination of Zaheer Khan's left arm fast medium and Vettori's slow left arm bowling.

 

[ankitj]

That does make Sobers a bloody good all-rounder. The doubts about his utility as a bowler can be rested. Imagine a cricketer that's Tendulkar's batting + Zaheer's bowling! Best of both discipline for one of the strong test teams.

 

[smash84]

isn't Sobers's bowling SR more than Tendulkar's?

 

[weldone]

isn't Sobers's bowling SR more than Tendulkar's?

Cevnoing alert: Kallis' batting SR is less than Afridi's too

Edit: Oops Sorry, batting SR will be comparable to bowling ER, not bowling SR. OK, let's say Mark Richardson played more deliveries per dismissal on average than Viv Richards. (There is no standard cricketing term for this.)

 

[smash84]

just edited my post. Now you edit your analogy

 

[weldone]

just edited my post. Now you edit your analogy

Done.

 

[Burgey]

Cribbage, I've tried to be polite about this, but we need to talk.

It seems from the bowling lists which you have compiled, that accoring to your standarised averages, Courtney Walsh is in fact a better bowler than Glenn McGrath.

Now, I realise you've put a lot of work into this, and that's a noble thing to do, so well done there. But did it stop you actually watching these people bowl?

 

[smash84]

better than Marshall and McGrath both

 

[Prince EWS]

Cribbage, I've tried to be polite about this, but we need to talk.

It seems from the bowling lists which you have compiled, that accoring to your standarised averages, Courtney Walsh is in fact a better bowler than Glenn McGrath.

Now, I realise you've put a lot of work into this, and that's a noble thing to do, so well done there. But did it stop you actually watching these people bowl?

McGrath is actually better than Walsh according to my standardised averages (McGrath 23.29 v Walsh 24.99). Walsh gets ranked higher on these lists due to longevity, and I've freely admitted that the way it combines standardised average and longevity on the list needs work - which is where all the discussion about Gilchrist and Vettori came from.

That said, that particular comparison is a view I personally hold anyway. The idea is that while an average McGrath performance was better than an average Walsh performance during their careers, teams would benefit more from having Walsh for the equivalent of 15 years than having McGrath for 11, and therefore Walsh's career was better.

 

[weldone]

According to my formula, Marshall is at no. 4, McGrath at no. 5 and Walsh at no. 7.

 

[weldone]

That does make Sobers a bloody good all-rounder. The doubts about his utility as a bowler can be rested. Imagine a cricketer that's Tendulkar's batting + Zaheer's bowling! Best of both discipline for one of the strong test teams.

Yeah, and a better SLA than Pragyan Ojha too.

 

[NUFAN]

Teams would benefit more from having Walsh for the equivalent of 15 years than having McGrath for 11, and thereby Walsh's career was better.

I hate this theory so much. There gets to a point where a Cricketer has done enough to show that longevity isn't debatable. McGrath played 124 Tests FFS and was the spearhead of one of the most successful bowling units the world has ever seen.

Now, the system is fine to diminish someone like Shane Bond due to his injury plagued career, but McGrath, wow.

 

[kyear2]

Which is why I was wondering why was longevity included at all. Any system that has Walsh ahead of Marshall and Mcgrath, is clearly flawed. Also is there not a way to filter the minnow bashers (batsmen and bowlers) and tail end wicket takers? Those are all better indicators than longevity imho.
Great job and effort though.

 

[Burgey]

McGrath is actually better than Walsh according to my standardised averages (McGrath 23.29 v Walsh 24.99). Walsh gets ranked higher on these lists due to longevity, and I've freely admitted that the way it combines standardised average and longevity on the list needs work - which is where all the discussion about Gilchrist and Vettori came from.

That said, that particular comparison is a view I personally hold anyway. The idea is that while an average McGrath performance was better than an average Walsh performance during their careers, teams would benefit more from having Walsh for the equivalent of 15 years than having McGrath for 11, and thereby Walsh's career was better.

Fair play.

 

[Prince EWS]

I hate this theory so much. There gets to a point where a Cricketer has done enough to show that longevity isn't debatable. McGrath played 124 Tests FFS and was the spearhead of one of the most successful bowling units the world has ever seen.

Now, the system is fine to diminish someone like Shane Bond due to his injury plagued career, but McGrath, wow.

There's a difference between a sample size argument and a longevity argument. Lots of people don't really value longevity at all; I on the other hand do.

 

[Prince EWS]

Which is why I was wondering why was longevity included at all. Any system that has Walsh ahead of Marshall and Mcgrath, is clearly flawed. Also is there not a way to filter the minnow bashers (batsmen and bowlers) and tail end wicket takers? Those are all better indicators than longevity imho.
Great job and effort though.

If you don't value longevity than don't take any notice of the longevity offsets. The standardised averages filter minnow bashers and tailend wickets. Only the "value" numbers incorporate longevity.

 

[weldone]

The standardised averages filter minnow bashes and tailend wickets.

Does it?

 

[Prince EWS]

Does it?

Actually no it doesn't; not one I've published anyway (I have a half-finished system that does). It does filter out minnow-bashing though, and home towning, and era benefiting - etc etc.

 

[weldone]

Actually no it doesn't; not one I've published anyway (I have a half-finished system that does). It does filter out minnow-bashing though, and home towning, and era benefiting - etc etc.

Ya I know that.

...look forward to your new system...

 

[The Sean]

McGrath's standardised average - even moreso than O'Reilly's - is really surprising to me. Given the batsman-dominated era he played in (for at least half of his career, anyway), I don't really understand how it can rise by 1.6 points. That's a substantial increase.