DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen: Discussion thread

[h_hurricane]

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

Same here. This is a herculean effort and we all should back DoG. Waiting for #100 by the way Random shout - Dilip Vengsarkar.

 

[venkyrenga]

This sounds like a fun and interesting exercise but I honestly don't think the results are going to indicate how good the batsmen were.

Firstly, rewarding batsmen for having a higher SR is very wrong. A higher SR can help to convert a draw into a win. But a lower SR/ longer innings can help to avoid a loss, build more partnerships and win matches as well. I will give you a simple example using Dravid and Sehwag. If Sehwag was in Dravid's place and scored the same number of runs in the 2001 Kolkatta match, India wouldn't have won the match. Because Sehwag would have scored his 180 quicky and got out early, and Laxman would have run out of partners and the Indian innings would have ended earlier with Laxman scoring less than 200. Do you see how wrong it is? Dravid is highly praised here for his ability to form more partnerships than any other batsmen. And you are simply penalizing him for it. Wrong, plainly wrong.

I am fine with using RPI because two batsmen with same avg and innings count but different runs scored should not be given same points. But I think your formula gives too much weightage for RPI.

Using peak record should be done in a better way. Because batsmen having a peak record with a longer innings count should be rewarded more.

Overseas record should get more weightage than just 10%. Because it is what separates the good from the great.

Lastly, we can't use the total career record as it is. If a batsman continues to play past his retirement age and brings his stats down I don't think he should be penalized for that. If Bradman continued to play till he was 60 and brought his avg down to 40 that does not change the fact that he was the best ever. But your formula will. There have been plenty of batsmen who played past their retirement age and it is not their fault that their team could not find a replacement for them. You can't penalize them for it.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

This sounds like a fun and interesting exercise but I honestly don't think the results are going to indicate how good the batsmen were.

Firstly, rewarding batsmen for having a higher SR is very wrong. A higher SR can help to convert a draw into a win. But a lower SR/ longer innings can help to avoid a loss, build more partnerships and win matches as well. I will give you a simple example using Dravid and Sehwag. If Sehwag was in Dravid's place and scored the same number of runs in the 2001 Kolkatta match, India wouldn't have won the match. Because Sehwag would have scored his 180 quicky and got out early, and Laxman would have run out of partners and the Indian innings would have ended earlier with Laxman scoring less than 200. Do you see how wrong it is? Dravid is highly praised here for his ability to form more partnerships than any other batsmen. And you are simply penalizing him for it. Wrong, plainly wrong.

I am fine with using RPI because two batsmen with same avg and innings count but different runs scored should not be given same points. But I think your formula gives too much weightage for RPI.

Using peak record should be done in a better way. Because batsmen having a peak record with a longer innings count should be rewarded more.

Overseas record should get more weightage than just 10%. Because it is what separates the good from the great.

Lastly, we can't use the total career record as it is. If a batsman continues to play past his retirement age and brings his stats down I don't think he should be penalized for that. If Bradman continued to play till he was 60 and brought his avg down to 40 that does not change the fact that he was the best ever. But your formula will. There have been plenty of batsmen who played past their retirement age and it is not their fault that their team could not find a replacement for them. You can't penalize them for it.

Does optimal retirement age vary during different eras of the game?

 

[venkyrenga]

And holy cow! Where are the points for longevity? Are we saying that a batsman who scored double the no. of runs in double the no. of innings and double the no. of years gets same points as the other batsman with same avg but half everything else? This is really something now.

Does optimal retirement age vary during different eras of the game?

We can't have an optimal retirement age. What if a batsman continues to play well even after that age. It should be an individual thing. We should draw a line when the batsman's stats starts to go subpar for his standards. I know it's a lot of work. But if DoG is doing this exercise to determine how good the batsmen were, he really is doing it wrong.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

We can't have an optimal retirement age. What if a batsman continues to play well even after that age. It should be an individual thing. We should draw a line when the batsman's stats starts to go subpar for his standards. I know it's a lot of work. But if DoG is doing this exercise to determine how good the batsmen were, he really is doing it wrong.

Something a Gaussian curve would solve?

 

[venkyrenga]

lol

 

[Coronis]

We can't have an optimal retirement age. What if a batsman continues to play well even after that age. It should be an individual thing. We should draw a line when the batsman's stats starts to go subpar for his standards. I know it's a lot of work. But if DoG is doing this exercise to determine how good the batsmen were, he really is doing it wrong.

You can’t just ignore parts of a batsman’s career to suit your personal views on said batsman. Can I remove the first few years from a statistical analysis because in my opinion the player was brought in too soon? Thats whats the peak rating is there for.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

If you're way past your prime, then it is on you to retire. Stop being selfish. Put the team first, introduce new talent.

 

[venkyrenga]

You can’t just ignore parts of a batsman’s career to suit your personal views on said batsman. Can I remove the first few years from a statistical analysis because in my opinion the player was brought in too soon? Thats whats the peak rating is there for.

First off there is no "said batsman". Now do you realize how dumb it is to say that a batsman would rank higher if he retired earlier. Retiring early does not make one a better batsman. Plain and simple. If I were doing this, I would also remove the first few years if the stats are subpar in that period. Because you can't tell me that a batsman ranks lower because he took more time before he became a top batsman. I only care about what he did as a top batsman and for how long. Notice I am not saying we should only consider a players' peak. There is a huge middle ground between peak and subpar.

If you're way past your prime, then it is on you to retire. Stop being selfish. Put the team first, introduce new talent.

Being selfish is a personal trait that has nothing to do with a players' batting ability.

 

[Coronis]

First off there is no "said batsman". Now do you realize how dumb it is to say that a batsman would rank higher if he retired earlier. Retiring early does not make one a better batsman. Plain and simple. If I were doing this, I would also remove the first few years if the stats are subpar in that period. Because you can't tell me that a batsman ranks lower because he took more time before he became a top batsman. I only care about what he did as a top batsman and for how long. Notice I am not saying we should only consider a players' peak. There is a huge middle ground between peak and subpar.



Being selfish is a personal trait that has nothing to do with a players' batting ability.

I don’t rate players higher for retiring early. I rate players based on their whole career. Its not my fault or anybody else’s that any player chose to play on despite declining skills. I’m not going to simply ignore that part of their career.

 

[mr_mister]

Longevity is one thing but run aggregettes and total centuries need to be looked at on a batting average and centuries per test basis. You can't blame the 1930s batting stars for not getting to play 150 tests in their careers which sometimes lasted as long as modern players in terms of years

 

[venkyrenga]

Longevity is one thing but run aggregettes and total centuries need to be looked at on a batting average and centuries per test basis. You can't blame the 1930s batting stars for not getting to play 150 tests in their careers which sometimes lasted as long as modern players in terms of years

Longevity does not necessarily mean more no. of matches. You can also take the no. of years active for that.

And why would you want to reward a batsman for scoring more centuries? If one batsman scores 50 & 50 in a match and another one scores 100 & 0 how does that make the later a better batsman? If you want to reward a batsman for high scores, where is the reward for being more consistent?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Being selfish is a personal trait that has nothing to do with a players' batting ability.

As selfishness increases, batting ability decreases.

This is only for when the batsman is not considered the "star" in the team.

This is not true for Misbah ul Haq.

 

[venkyrenga]

I don’t rate players higher for retiring early. I rate players based on their whole career. Its not my fault or anybody else’s that any player chose to play on despite declining skills. I’m not going to simply ignore that part of their career.

But that is what you do when you choose to consider the tail end of a batsman's career when he is playing past his time. That is not what you want to do and it is not your fault. But that is what this method does.

 

[Days of Grace]

And holy cow! Where are the points for longevity? Are we saying that a batsman who scored double the no. of runs in double the no. of innings and double the no. of years gets same points as the other batsman with same avg but half everything else? This is really something now.



We can't have an optimal retirement age. What if a batsman continues to play well even after that age. It should be an individual thing. We should draw a line when the batsman's stats starts to go subpar for his standards. I know it's a lot of work. But if DoG is doing this exercise to determine how good the batsmen were, he really is doing it wrong.

Longevity is 10% of the rating. Your Tendulkars and Walsh’s will do fine.

 

[stephen]

Longevity does not necessarily mean more no. of matches. You can also take the no. of years active for that.

And why would you want to reward a batsman for scoring more centuries? If one batsman scores 50 & 50 in a match and another one scores 100 & 0 how does that make the later a better batsman? If you want to reward a batsman for high scores, where is the reward for being more consistent?

First innings runs aren't worth more per se but they do swing the momentum more to their team, giving the rest of the team something to build off. It's rare that the team that has conceded a first innings deficit will go on to win.

So I'll take the 100/0 player over the 50/50 player.

 

[Days of Grace]

Let me give you an example:

Batsman A:
Ave: 50.00
RPI: 45.00
S/R: 40.00

Batsman B:
Ave: 47.50
RPI: 40.50
S/R: 70.00

They will have identical overall career points. So batsman B having an average 5% less than Batsman A must have a strike-rate more than double that of Batsman A to be equal with Batsman A.

 

[stephen]

I feel like I want median score to be used in the formula. Median measures a batsman's consistency in a way that average and rpi don't.

 

[ataraxia]

Let me give you an example:

Batsman A:
Ave: 50.00
RPI: 45.00
S/R: 40.00

Batsman B:
Ave: 47.50
RPI: 40.50
S/R: 70.00

They will have identical overall career points. So batsman B having an average 5% less than Batsman A must have a strike-rate more than double that of Batsman A to be equal with Batsman A.

Not more than double. 40 plus 40 does not equal less than 70.

 

[Days of Grace]

Not more than double. 40 plus 40 does not equal less than 70.

Apologies. Almost double.