DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen: Discussion thread

[TheJediBrah]

I think career strike rate can be taken into account as well as the number of Cowans a batsman gets. If the batsmen are rewarded for facing 100 balls but are also rewarded for a high strike rate them isn't that what we'd love to see in a batsman - someone who strikes quickly and occupies the crease? Consistency and aggression?

But again they will, while not directly, more or less cancel each other out and you might as well just not do either and get the same result.

You can't give points for Strike rate and for balls faced/crease occupation

 

[Starfighter]

The real thing with RPI is:

1) Does the average gain from remaining not out cancel out that from the runs foregone for doing so?
2) Is the average gain from remaining not out less than that from the runs foregone for doing so?
3) Is the average gain from remaining not out greater than than that from the runs foregone for doing so?

Using RPI as a measure only makes sense if 3 is true.

 

[stephen]

The real thing with RPI is:

1) Does the average gain from remaining not out cancel out that from the runs foregone for doing so?
2) Is the average gain from remaining not out less than that from the runs foregone for doing so?
3) Is the average gain from remaining not out greater than than that from the runs foregone for doing so?

Using RPI as a measure only makes sense if 3 is true.

I think with some players *cough*SteveWaugh*cough* their average is definitely boosted by throwing the tail to the wolves and not farming the strike properly or changing gears near the end of the innings. While some players, like Steve Smith, throw away their wickets at the end in an attempt to maximise the team score. Imagine how much Smith's average would have been boosted in the recent ashes if he'd played for red ink.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think with some players *cough*SteveWaugh*cough* their average is definitely boosted by throwing the tail to the wolves and not farming the strike properly or changing gears near the end of the innings. While some players, like Steve Smith, throw away their wickets at the end in an attempt to maximise the team score. Imagine how much Smith's average would have been boosted in the recent ashes if he'd played for red ink.

That's the issue though, you're using it to measure every single batsman because of a personal bias against 1 or 2 (eg. Steve Waugh and Chanderpaul). Even if that bias is well founded it still makes no sense to use it for everyone.

 

[Victor Ian]

I think with some players *cough*SteveWaugh*cough* their average is definitely boosted by throwing the tail to the wolves and not farming the strike properly or changing gears near the end of the innings. While some players, like Steve Smith, throw away their wickets at the end in an attempt to maximise the team score. Imagine how much Smith's average would have been boosted in the recent ashes if he'd played for red ink.

This is commonly said to discredit Steve Waugh. Does it actually hold up? How does Steve Waugh's performance with a tail compare to other batsmen? Waugh's mindset was to back all of his team to perform. Sure, he could have protected the tail more, and then perhaps the tail would have acted like a tail and done nothing while he did nothing and, while lasting more balls, nothing was achieved. I recall a few hundreds made with the dregs of the tail, and that was done while throwing them to the wolves, as you say.

I'd like to see evidence that his faith in the tail statistically made the tail average less, or him average more. Is that something that statsguru can show?

 

[Burgey]

Yeah I genuinely can't recall too many occasions where Waugh batted with the tail and the innings ended with me thinking "He should have farmed the strike more." Plus the tails he batted with were usually pretty handy from about 93 onwards, which was the period where his average and performances took off. He had the likes of Warne, Reiffel, Lee, Dizzy and Bichel who could all hold the bat, and guys like Kaspa could hang around a bit as well. It would take some pretty interesting stats digging to be able to put together some sort of metric which established him batting the way he did was to the detriment of the team compared with if he'd farmed the strike.

 

[mr_mister]

Also, farming the strike usually means turning down singles, sometimes to the detriment of the team total.

When you've got Ben Stokes type players able to completey deal in boundaries like he did with Leach it's all good, but Waugh might have found it hard to justify turning down runs as its only worth it if you can make up the difference with consistent boundaries

Only with McGrath I think would it truly have been worth it to starve him of strike.

His most famous **** up was in the 1998 MCG ashes test where in his words he let MacGill have too much strike in the 2nd innings then both him and McGrath got skittled by Gough in a flash

But in Waugh's defence Macgill had hammered a test best 43 in the first dig as Waugh reached 122* so he had high confidence in him.

 

[stephen]

I was mostly being facetious wrt Tugga. I do remember it being a big criticism of him but I'm not sure it made a huge difference to results. Basically a tail needs to be just good enough that the number 6/7 is out before they are half the time. If the last recognised batsman is left stranded more often than not, the tall isn't doing their job, but if they're never left stranded you either need better batsmen or you've probably sacrificed bowling impact for a longer tail.

 

[Days of Grace]

The paranoia that RPI and strike-rate will totally affect the results in favor of top order attacking batsmen will be unfounded.

 

[Starfighter]

The paranoia that RPI and strike-rate will totally affect the results in favor of top order attacking batsmen will be unfounded.

If it's unfounded then it's pointless to include them full stop.

 

[Days of Grace]

The point is to separate those with high averages built on a lot of not outs from those with similar averages who scored a lot more runs.

 

[Victor Ian]

Do your thing DOG. These bitches are going to complain about your rankings even if you served up nothing than raw averages. I'm with Burgey on the Border thing so that is all you need to tweak for.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The point is to separate those with high averages built on a lot of not outs from those with similar averages who scored a lot more runs.

I'm all for it as an exercise in curiosity but let's not all pretend that it's going to more accurately rate how good batsmen are/were, it's going to do the opposite

These bitches are going to complain about your rankings

This too. It's in our nature.

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah 100% hope we're not bringing you down DOG. I'll enjoy the list whatever the order is and whatever formula is used. I just like giving my two cents on certain hot topics that pop up time to time on CW like RPI

 

[Burgey]

Do your thing DOG. These bitches are going to complain about your rankings even if you served up nothing than raw averages. I'm with Burgey on the Border thing so that is all you need to tweak for.

I don't think anyone is bitching tbh. The fact people are engaging with the process before DoG has begun discussing the names on the list is a sign they're interested in the process and invested in the project as a whole. I don't think anyone has insulted DoG, they've just expressed views sincerely held. Reasonable minds (and TJB for that matter) can differ on such things.

I'm looking forward to seeing who's ranked third behind Bradman and Border. Should promote a lot of discussion just when the Southern summer is getting underway. Good stuff.

 

[stephen]

Not really Burgey. It's quite clearly TPC. 4th place is the interesting one.

 

[Days of Grace]

Ironically I have dropped points per innings which would have favored batsmen with less not-outs more than any other measure.

 

[Burgey]

Shut up, ****! How the **** could you possibly do that?!?!

 

[stephen]

Ironically I have dropped points per innings which would have favored batsmen with less not-outs more than any other measure.

Was that to keep Hayden out of the top 10?

 

[OverratedSanity]

The paranoia that RPI and strike-rate will totally affect the results in favor of top order attacking batsmen will be unfounded.

I'd be against the strike rate thing even if it changed nothing in the rankings from your existing list tbh.