The Battlers Prince
International Vice-Captain
Although I disagree with statistical analysis as a sole judge, I’m always fascinated by your countdowns DoG.
Looking forward to the rest of the list
Looking forward to the rest of the list
DoG, can you explain how kaneria came out as level as Lyon despite being outperformed significantly in average and strike rate? What was the levelling factor here? Just really curious to understand the rankings a bit more.No.95
Danish Kaneria (Pakistan) 655
Quality Points: 579
Career Points: 76
Career: 2000-2010
Wickets: 261
Gold Performances: 1
7/118 vs. Sri Lanka at Karachi 2004 (16.67)
Silver Performances: 12
Bronze Performances: 4
Overall Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 31.01 (34.80) 69.35 (67.80) 4.56
50 Innings Peak Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings (2000-2005): 27.42 61.36 5.16
Non-Home Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 32.17 69.26 4.24
Quality Opposition Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 33.41 73.98 4.32
Different strokes for different folks. Overall and away (plus quality adjusted) averages are what really count to me.Interesting start. Im loving the gold performances feature.
The overall/peak/away averages dont interest me so much but the quality opposition average does.
Points per innings for Kaneria were significately higher (or wickets per innings)DoG, can you explain how kaneria came out as level as Lyon despite being outperformed significantly in average and strike rate? What was the levelling factor here? Just really curious to understand the rankings a bit more.
Edit: also, 12 silver performances is a hell of an achievement. Do number of overs come into a performance rating at all?
Um, what do you mean that gold performances are a negative?Different strokes for different folks. Overall and away (plus quality adjusted) averages are what really count to me.
Gold performances are an interesting novelty- fun to look at, but wouldn't factor them into assessing how good a player is- there's every chance they are a negative.
An outstanding performance will be counterbalanced by below par performances elsewhere. Effectively it rewards inconsistency. As a general rule, I think consistency is preferable. It's hard to say it holds true for all players though, and your method likely gives less problems than something like 5 wicket hauls. Maybe it outweighs the inconsistency issue; I'm not sure.Um, what do you mean that gold performances are a negative?
I see that now. That really surprises me, he has a higher points per innings than bond!Points per innings for Kaneria were significately higher (or wickets per innings)
Not true. 4.56 vs 5.68 for Bond.I see that now. That really surprises me, he has a higher points per innings than bond!
I meant higher ppi vs quality oppositionNot true. 4.56 vs 5.68 for Bond.
Ah, yes. Well he played against a lot more quality opposition than Bond did. And Bond’s best performances were against West Indies and Zimbabwe.I meant higher ppi vs quality opposition
Just to clarify, overall stats are so important, I just meant I find it less interesting to read and not important when working out DOGs rankings.Different strokes for different folks. Overall and away (plus quality adjusted) averages are what really count to me.
Gold performances are an interesting novelty- fun to look at, but wouldn't factor them into assessing how good a player is- there's every chance they are a negative.