Yet another random statistical measure of batsmen

[Spark]

...i don't understand

 

[wellAlbidarned]

after much analysis I have concluded that scoring runs is better than not scoring runs

 

[weldone]

after much analysis I have concluded that scoring runs is better than not scoring runs

Ya, and also scoring more runs is better than scoring less runs; but the main finding is that

The difference between scoring too much and scoring well is less than the difference between scoring well and nothing.

 

[ankitj]

I consider myself a math geek but can someone please explain this to me

 

[weldone]

I consider myself a math geek but can someone please explain this to me

The final finding is the below:

.. the difference between 0 and 35 is actually the biggest difference of 35 that exists.

i.e., the difference between scoring 70 and 35 (or between 100 and 65, or 235 and 200 for example) is less than the difference between scoring 35 and 0 in terms of the chance of your side not losing the match.

 

[ankitj]

The final finding is the below:



i.e., the difference between scoring 70 and 35 (or between 100 and 65, or 235 and 200 for example) is less than the difference between scoring 35 and 0 in terms of the chance of your side not losing the match.

Wow

I posted after reading the first post though.

 

[weldone]

The first post is based on Spark's initial idea, which was the opposite. (i.e. scoring 160 is more than twice as important as scoring 80).

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I think the frustration with batsmen who get a start and then don't go on isn't because runs score from 35-70 or whatever are more valuable - it's because those first 35 runs are undoubtedly the most difficult so it makes sense to cash in even if there's techinically diminishing returns. [/captainobvious]

 

[viriya]

Very interesting stuff.. I think not outs should be removed from this analysis to get a clearer picture though. I already knew that runs past 200 didn't mean much, but I'm surprised to see how non-linear the curve is throughout.. gonna do some work on my end and probably use this to modify my "Runs Scored" factor to not overvalue higher scores.

 

[viriya]

I'm currently re-running my Test ratings with changes to the runs scored factor based on some of the thoughts on this thread. I redid what PEWS did with just dismissed scores and based on that I came up with an "equivalence table" that had three tiers:
0-40: linear
41-200: discounted, with 50 => ~49, 100 => ~91, 150 => ~127, 200 => ~157
201-400: heavily discounted, with 250 => ~191, 300 => ~212, 400 => 223

0-40 is linear for ratings purposes, in terms of odds changes going from 0 to 10 is the most significant, but I wanted a cut-off to avoid overrated low scores.

I also did a similar exercise with wickets taken for bowling innings out of curiosity and the % win rate increases quite linearly with the # of wickets taken unsurprisingly.

Making 100 instead of a duck increases win odds by ~15% or so, while a 5-fer over going wicketless increases it by ~25%.
Making 100 instead of a duck increases win or draw odds by ~30% while a 5-fer over going wicketless only increases it by ~9%

^ Those numbers are just interesting observations, I'm not suggesting that one player making a hundred literally increases your team's win odds - this is for each innings, and each test match has a lot of batting/bowling innings that affect these odds.

 

[honestbharani]

But a batsman making a hundred instead of a duck DOES increase the chances of his side winning. Isn't that a given?

 

[viriya]

Yea but not by the % I give here. If a side's batting was a single player's single innings then these numbers would be more insightful.

 

[Furball]

I wonder how Root's last couple of years look in this.

 

[srbhkshk]

This is very interesting, Prince EWS can you do it by taking only the highest (or top 3 highest) scores for each team in a given test? - the reason is that right now zero gives you 50% + in the at least graph, which is a bit misleading, some zeroes or even 50s are meaningless in the context of a game because there might have been some other score of say 250, but presumably the top three innings are always going to be valuable in terms of deciding the match.