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

[harsh.ag]

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.

But if he did get out at 9:59, would it make his innings less worthy? That's what it would mean if you don't penalise not outs.

You are arguing the opposite of what you believe.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

But if he did get out at 9:59, would it make his innings less worthy? That's what it would mean if you don't penalise not outs.

You are arguing the opposite of what you believe.

No, I'm arguing exactly what I believe. You're arguing that batsman should be credited for getting out.

 

[harsh.ag]

No, I'm arguing exactly what I believe. You're arguing that batsman should be credited for getting out.

Okay. Disagree but fair enough

 

[CricAddict]

No, I'm arguing exactly what I believe. You're arguing that batsman should be credited for getting out.

I don't think the analyzer is penalizing anyone for being not-out. He is just taking it out of his equation. If he is actually penalizing them for it, then it is not right.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I don't think the analyzer is penalizing anyone for being not-out. He is just taking it out of his equation. If he is actually penalizing them for it, then it is not right.

In his opening post he says " Batting average adjusted for not outs - I have adjusted the average by giving 0.75*avg for each not out. So it would be, (0.75*avg*not outs)+Runs/Innings. I have just deducted 1/4th of avg for each not out. This is done to reward batsmen who scored more runs with the same average."

That doesn't suggest that he's just counting it as a completed innings.

 

[Daemon]

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.

That's not what his formula is doing I think.

Say you have two batsmen, A and B.

A: 100 & 100* (average 200)
B: 100 & 100 (average 100)

If I'm understanding his method correctly, what he does adjusts A's average to 175 = ((200*75%*1)+200)/2.

So no, getting out would not have made the innings more worthy and he would not get ranked lower.

 

[Victor Ian]

On Lara. Did he retire somewhere mid career, or have a spell for whatever reason, or is that a false memory?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That's not what his formula is doing I think.

Say you have two batsmen, A and B.

A: 100 & 100* (average 200)
B: 100 & 100 (average 100)

If I'm understanding his method correctly, what he does adjusts A's average to 175 = ((200*75%*1)+200)/2.

So no, getting out would not have made the innings more worthy and he would not get ranked lower.

He's clearly mucking around with the Not Outs to make the average lower, which must affect the rankings. Otherwise there would be no point in doing it at all.

 

[honestbharani]

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

So is RPI.

 

[Daemon]

He's clearly mucking around with the Not Outs to make the average lower, which must affect the rankings. Otherwise there would be no point in doing it at all.

It does make the overall average lower, but definitely not lower than if the batsman had got out instead of not out which is what your post was saying I believe.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

Yep. By penalising not outs you are favouring batsmen that got out more. You are literally rewarding then for being worse at batting. Genuinely bonkers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yep. By penalising not outs you are favouring batsmen that got out more. You are literally rewarding then for being worse at batting. Genuinely bonkers.

I'd argue a batsman who stays not out but scores fewer runs is the one actually worse at batting (in the vast majority of test match scenarios)

And I dont think the formula is actually "penalising" not outs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Definitive proof that not outs don't inflate batting averages

Take any practical case and you will know. In case of Bevan you would have to assume 55 more runs every time he remained not out. Out of all the innings Bevan was dismissed he averaged 32. And out of all the innings he remained not out his runs/ innings is 42. So you are saying he would have...

www.cricketweb.net

here was a pretty good thread on it anyway. Think we covered it pretty thoroughly.

I'd argue a batsman who stays not out but scores fewer runs is the one actually worse at batting (in the vast majority of test match scenarios)

That makes absolutely no sense. That would be a very, very small minority of test match scenarios, eg. a Chanderpaul or Waugh remaining not out batting with the tail because they didn't take risks to help the team. These sort of situations are definitely not a majority of Test match not outs.

 

[honestbharani]

So, say you adjust a score of a 50 in a total of 150 against a score of 150 in a total of 600. Is that penalizing a guy for making 100 more runs? I dont think so, its just an adjustment to try and get some kind of statistical even keel for the purposes of relative measurement. I am not so sure of the arbitrary 75% thing, and I would rather see a formula that uses RPI more than the average as some kind of metric, but no methodology is fool proof when it comes to comparisons based on batting stats, and this is a new and interesting addition. So I have no qualms with it at all.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Now I see what his formula is actually doing, "Penalising" it compared to an out is not quite the right way of putting it. It doesn't make it less worthy than an out. It's still reducing the merit of the innings considerably though, which is still bonkers.

 

[harsh.ag]

Have to find a balance between average and RPI when ranking players, and this is a decent system imo.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Now I see what his formula is actually doing, "Penalising" it compared to an out is not quite the right way of putting it. It doesn't make it less worthy than an out. It's still reducing the merit of the innings considerably though, which is still bonkers.

I think penalising is still valid terminology. It's not rating a not out innings lower than an out one, but it's reducing the value of runs overall for a player that has more not outs (ie. was better at batting). It's saying that someone that averages 60 with the same number of runs per innings as someone who averages 50 isn't that much better just because he was good enough not to get out as much and still be batting when a run chase finished, or his team declared. It's "penalising" the first guy because he rightfully should be rated considerably higher.

Have to find a balance between average and RPI when ranking players, and this is a decent system imo.

The only reason RPI should ever come into it, or you should want to find a balance is if you have good reason to think that a player's average is higher than it would be if they didn't have so many not outs. In Test cricket this will virtually never be the case, with possibly notable exceptions being the aforementioned Chanderpaul and Steve Waugh.

 

[honestbharani]

I would say Chanderpaul's post Lara career alone proves that staying not out is not exactly a great help you are doing to the team anyways overall. So have no issues with what this system is trying to accomplish. The How part can always be tweaked and discussed and perhaps improved, but this is a very good start and it is interesting and generates discussion, so I am enjoying it for what it is.

 

[Line and Length]

Any attempt to take "not outs" out of the batting average equation is a totally illogical from a mathematical point of view. A batting average is simply runs scored per dismissal. Why try to adjust an average simply because a batsman wasn't dismissed? A ludicrous suggestion.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Any attempt to take "not outs" out of the batting average equation is a totally illogical from a mathematical point of view. A batting average is simply runs scored per dismissal. Why try to adjust an average simply because a batsman wasn't dismissed? A ludicrous suggestion.

My theory is it's a subconcious bias people get when looking at the stats that gets in the way of logical thinking. They make a connection that because "not outs boost average" mathematically, that they also do in a practical sense.