Top 30 batsmen of the modern era (1990s -Current)

[venkyrenga]

How would it be fair if I compulsorily included the first 1 or 2 years for current players when the guys we are ranking them against had the benefit of not having to include them?

 

[srbhkshk]

How would it be fair if I compulsorily included the first 1 or 2 years for current players when the guys we are ranking them against had the benefit of not having to include them?

Your methodology is fine - as a statistical exercise that involves some judgement calls - it will always be the case that some will disagree. Continue anyway - it's good work so far.

 

[Victor Ian]

Yep. Loving this. Hope Venky settles in and is part of CW for a long time. I'm curious who gets the highest peak.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So if they were so good, why they could not crack in to the team? The sentence itself is a contradiction. The players are not picked because the selectors believe they cannot replace the current players, despite being at the form of their life. If somebody was averaging 75+ in FCC, no matter how strong the team is, there is room for such players, unless they have glaring technical deficiencies / petty politics.

It's a simple concept. Team strong. Couldn't get in team. If team was weaker they could have got in. I think you're deliberately misunderstanding

 

[TheJediBrah]

How would it be fair if I compulsorily included the first 1 or 2 years for current players when the guys we are ranking them against had the benefit of not having to include them?

I don't think either way would be more fair than the other. It's just a choice that you made that favours some players over others, just like all the others like longevity factor and penalising not outs.
Also not everyone has to agree with your choices for it to be a meaningful exercise. As others have said, it's valuable regardless

 

[venkyrenga]

No. 8

Rahul Dravid - 137.2



Points: 137.2
Span: 1996-2011
Peak: 2002-05
Longevity bonus: 1.4

Overall points: 129.4
Overseas points: 148.7
Best bowling attack points: 120
Peak points: 162.4

Runs: 13288
Average: 52.31

 

[sunilz]

I massively favour penalising not outs ?

50, 40 (average 45) is more valuable than 30, 20* ( average 50)

 

[TheJediBrah]

I massively favour penalising not outs ?

50, 40 (average 45) is more valuable than 30, 20* ( average 50)

Nah. Also terrible example.

 

[venkyrenga]

If not for the sudden slump in 2007-08, Dravid would have been at least 2 spots higher.

 

[Slifer]

I feel Lara would highly benefit from his methodology because of his RPI . His number of not outs were very low.

Which begs the question (I'm too lazy), what would Lara's average be if he had the same ratio of not outs as Sachin??

 

[sunilz]

Which begs the question (I'm too lazy), what would Lara's average be if he had the same ratio of not outs as Sachin??

54-55.
He would also have scored few runs , had he tried to remain not-out.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Penalising Not Outs is about as bonkers as it gets with any stats mongering. It implies it's automatically a better innings if the batsman gets out.

 

[Athlai]

Definitely less likely to be a draw.

 

[harsh.ag]

Penalising Not Outs is about as bonkers as it gets with any stats mongering. It implies it's automatically a better innings if the batsman gets out.

It's actually the opposite of that. Not penalizing not outs implies it's automatically a better innings if the batsman doesn't get out.

 

[Kirkut]

Dravid > Sanga now. That seals it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's actually the opposite of that. Not penalizing not outs implies it's automatically a better innings if the batsman doesn't get out.

Not penalizing doesn't imply anything. It's a simple fact of what happened.

 

[Kirkut]

In DoG's batsmen ranking, Kohli came up one spot above Dravid. Kohli has been quite average since so quite justified that this ranking puts him below Dravid

Kohli beats Dravid when it comes to facing raw pace on bouncy roads, otherwise the skill gap is massive when comparing the ability to play spin and lateral movement.

 

[Slifer]

Let's see Sachin batted in 332 innings and had 33 not outs or roughly one every 10 innings. Lara batted in 232 innings. So let's say he had 23 not outs. 11,953 ÷ 209=57.19.

Would we look at Lara any different?? I'm guessing yes. I sure would have....And bearing in mind the amount of not outs his teammate Chanders had, it's not a stretch to say that Lara could've had a lot more not out innings than he had.

 

[harsh.ag]

Not penalizing doesn't imply anything. It's a simple fact of what happened.

It implies because the higher average gets you a higher ranking.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It implies because the higher average gets you a higher ranking.

So what? When Mike Atherton batted 10 hours to save a Test in South Africa he should have got himself out to make the innings more worthy? So you knock a quarter of his runs off so he gets ranked lower. Super.