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

[Athlai]

It’s not a batting median ffs. atrocious argument

 

[TheJediBrah]

Let's pick 50 as an example. I'll pick 5 players. Tendulkar, S. Waugh, Smith, Lara, Kohli.

Averages starting from 0:
Sachin: 53.78
Waugh: 51.06
Smith: 61.80
Lara: 52.88
Kohli: 52.04

Averages starting from 50:
Sachin: 124.08
Waugh: 145.03
Smith: 132.32
Lara: 117.13
Kohli: 124.80

 

[TheJediBrah]

All these averages from 50 are more than 50+ their career averages which indicates that if any of these players were not out on ~50 then that not out actually hurt their average. Unless we find a number where this is not the case, and that represents a majority of a certain player's not outs (maybe we can, I don't know), then stating that not outs helped their average is as close to objectively wrong as you can reasonably be in this scenario.

 

[Teja.]

Waugh (145) and Chanderpaul (141) have the highest average of modern era batsmen in innings of 50+, by a decent margin too (with a 5000+ run cut off). Guess it comes around again to them batting at no.5 and being more likely to be not out on a big score as compared to a top order batsman.

I'm not really a fan of RPI though.

 

[Athlai]

Does that include not outs

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is both invalid and illogical and reflects poorly on the thinking of the proponents.

ftr I'm not quite saying this. I know I'm being very rough but I do think that "not outs help average" is a reasonable belief in those speficic conditions I mentioned earlier. If you really think that players are better served and more likely to make more runs starting from 0 than from their not out score then it's logical to have the belief that not outs boost averages. I just think that's very rarely the case.

 

[Teja.]

Does that include not outs

Haha yes, exactly.

 

[Athlai]

There is nothing like an arbitrary rating system for everyone to enjoy a good ol round of fisticuffs

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You're essentially taking a dubious mathematical formula and applying it to hundreds of innings in differing circumstances over 30 years. When this exercise is complete someone should post the rankings again minus this formula and see if it makes any major difference to the placings.

It's been an interesting discussion in the main, but I stick with my original point that started it today - adjusting for Not Outs is bonkers.

 

[sunilz]

So it has been finally concluded that Not Outs boost average. Nice work everyone ?

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're essentially taking a dubious mathematical formula and applying it to hundreds of innings in differing circumstances over 30 years. When this exercise is complete someone should post the rankings again minus this formula and see if it makes any major difference to the placings.

It's been an interesting discussion in the main, but I stick with my original point that started it today - adjusting for Not Outs is bonkers.

sure but as many of us have already mentioned, the dubious rating system is part of it's charm. Without it this would just be a meaningless rehash.

 

[Victor Ian]

Are we walking about who is the best in timeless tests, or about who is the best batsman for conditions given? A batsman who has made his average - actually let's use 100, should speed up his innings or he is being a selfish prick (in general). It is one of the reasons I rank Ponting so high, and recently Steve Smith. These guys would often accelerate to the point of throwing away a certain not out. The best batsman is the one who gets you a win.

 

[srbhkshk]

The best batsman is the one who gets you a win.

That's just another way of saying that McGrath and Marshall are the two best batsman ever.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Are we walking about who is the best in timeless tests, or about who is the best batsman for conditions given? A batsman who has made his average - actually let's use 100, should speed up his innings or he is being a selfish prick (in general). It is one of the reasons I rank Ponting so high, and recently Steve Smith. These guys would often accelerate to the point of throwing away a certain not out. The best batsman is the one who gets you a win.

yes but:

Vast majority of not outs in Test matches for top & middle order batsmen will be either at the end of successful run chases or being declared on. It's nuts to think that this is helping your batting average. You're having your innings terminated earlier even though you've played yourself in and gotten used to the conditions. Much more likely to actually hurt your batting average.

unless you're Chanderpaul then getting not outs by batting selfishly is a minority of cases

you definitely have a point though. This is something that has actually really annoyed me about Smith

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Are we walking about who is the best in timeless tests, or about who is the best batsman for conditions given? A batsman who has made his average - actually let's use 100, should speed up his innings or he is being a selfish prick (in general). It is one of the reasons I rank Ponting so high, and recently Steve Smith. These guys would often accelerate to the point of throwing away a certain not out. The best batsman is the one who gets you a win.

This is why the formula, and indeed any formula that hypothetically manipulates what actually happened, is pants because it can't differentiate between the different circumstances of each innings.

As an side the arbitrary removal of the first two years of some players careers because they were **** is also bonkers.

 

[Victor Ian]

Yeah, I agree with your principle and have always viewed not outs as harming average. I'm just not sure how valid the point is that they get declared on and successful run chases being a factor is. If they sped up and got out earlier the next batsman would have been declared on earlier. I'm mostly trying to view this from a different perspective than normal. While I agree with your premise, it is not backed up by numbers, just logic. I mean, not that numbers falsify what you say, just that none are presented that are real to properly gauge the logic on.

 

[Victor Ian]

This is why the formula, and indeed any formula that hypothetically manipulates what actually happened, is pants because it can't differentiate between the different circumstances of each innings.

As an side the arbitrary removal of the first two years of some players careers because they were **** is also bonkers.

The second part is not bonkers at all. He is looking at their peak 12 years, so all the long career players, imagine if Steve Waugh would Qualify here, have had their ****ty bedding in days removed. I think this part is fair enough.

edit: though there may be a fairer way to assign the time than an arbitrary 2 years.

 

[Slifer]

Are we walking about who is the best in timeless tests, or about who is the best batsman for conditions given? A batsman who has made his average - actually let's use 100, should speed up his innings or he is being a selfish prick (in general). It is one of the reasons I rank Ponting so high, and recently Steve Smith. These guys would often accelerate to the point of throwing away a certain not out. The best batsman is the one who gets you a win.

AWTA. Smith had so many chances in the last Ashes to be not out. Instead he chose to get as many runs as possible to help the team. WAG

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

It's Friday afternoon and I'm at work so why not wade into a heated cricket stats debate....

For an artificial example, (since it seems to be the done thing in this discussion…) imagine two players who respectively score:

Player A: 55, 55, 55, 55, 55
Player B: 45*, 45, 45, 45*, 45

Which player has helped their team the most? Which one is the better batsman? Player A has contributed 10 runs more each innings than Player B, but Player B seems to have protected his wicket better. Did player A play too recklessly or did Player B score too slowly? Does Player A bat higher up the order and face the harder bowling? Did Player B play a gritty, marathon innings to earn a draw? Or were they both batting with the tail and Player B left potential runs on the table because he wanted the red ink?

Dunno, I made them up. But likewise, a high level statistical view of a player’s career numbers isn’t going to be able to answer those questions either. Depending on the context the 55 may be the better innings for the team whereas at other times it’s the 45*. RPI observes that Player A scored 10 runs more each innings; batting average highlights that Player B scored 20 runs more per dismissal. Which measure best captures the skill and value of these players?


I actually really like the method used by the OP. It gives a result much closer to batting average than RPI but still strikes a balance between them, which reflects that scoring more runs is sometimes more important than protecting your wicket.

 

[Victor Ian]

That's just another way of saying that McGrath and Marshall are the two best batsman ever.

OK - badly phrased....smartass.