• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Adjusting the batting average based on actual quality

Migara

International Coach
Its amazing how consistent a band test averages stay in over history.

When I watch the modern player block the ball to the boundary through the covers, or straight, with his modern super bat. I think, Mark Richardson was born for this era and would average 55 instead of 45. But, he probably wouldn't, he would be a product of his generation and probably possess a 4th shot, like some sort of show-boating fancy boy. Therefore increase his vulnerability by 25% ...
Bigger bats will make the ball speed to the boundary. It also will help to carry the nicks and bat pads to the fielders too.
 

Victor Ian

International Coach
Bigger bats will, at some stage, cross the threshold of balance, where blocks go to the boundary while nicks clear the fielders and also go the the boundary. It's ideal really. Fielding is mostly just chewing gum and rubbing the ball on your groin a little too enthusiastically.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Ran a power regression on the great retired modern era batsmen (and Alastair Cook), to predict what their "actual average" should be. To do that I took in opposition bowling quality and conditions (ICC Rating Average), and era run scoring difficulty (era adjusted average), and multiplied those two values together, set as independent variable, and then ran a power regression. Here's the adjustments to average it spits out, and the correlation coefficient was quite strong, at over .85:

BatsmanRegression adjusted AverageActual AverageDelta
Brian Lara
54.8266​
52.88​
1.946596
Kumar Sangakkara
53.25256​
57.4​
-4.14744
Viv Richards
52.05981​
50.23​
1.829814
Javed Miandad
51.37148​
52.57​
-1.19852​
Jacques Kallis
50.947​
55.37​
-4.423
Sachin Tendulkar
50.86296​
53.78​
-2.91704​
Sunil Gavaskar
50.57744​
51.12​
-0.54256​
Greg Chappell
50.1509​
53.86​
-3.7091​
Rahul Dravid
49.96341​
52.31​
-2.34659​
Allan Border
49.56112​
50.56​
-0.99888​
Ricky Ponting
49.39324​
51.85​
-2.45676​
Michael Hussey
48.61139​
51.52​
-2.90861​
Matthew Hayden
48.52506​
50.73​
-2.20494​
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
47.22449​
51.37​
-4.14551
Younis Khan
46.92967​
52.05​
-5.12033
Michael Clarke
46.74208​
49.1​
-2.35792​
Adam Gilchrist
46.24314​
47.6​
-1.35686​
Kevin Pietersen
46.11968​
47.28​
-1.16032​
AB de Villiers
45.66331​
50.66​
-4.99669
Virender Sehwag
45.25856​
49.34​
-4.08144
Graeme Smith
44.17528​
48.25​
-4.07472
Gordon Greenidge
43.59203​
44.72​
-1.12797​
Alastair Cook
42.99906​
45.35​
-2.35094​
-2.38477​

You'll note that the average delta is negative, which indicates generally that all the sub eras of the modern era were somewhat easier for batting, than the history of Test cricket as a whole.

Interesting to note though, that Lara and Viv Richards were the only positive delta players, with not many other batsmen getting particularly close. Pietersen is also one to note as having a surprisingly low negative delta for a more recent player.

Also before you ask, no I couldn't replicate this for bowlers (although I tried a couple of ways). Their performance isn't as straightforward as batsmen, because their quality is judged on more than just their simple bowling average (rightly so, i.e a performance of 1/15 and 6/90 for a match are not the same). I couldn't get a high enough correlation coefficient for me to like using it for them.
 
Last edited:

shortpitched713

International Captain
Here's a prettier version of the table, it adjusts to make the era adjustment from 1970-2018 when these players careers were, instead of the entirety of Test cricket history, still ended up with a slightly negative average delta (meaning more of these players came from the somewhat more batting friendly eras of the overall modern era):

BatsmanRegression Adjusted Ave.Actual AverageDelta
Brian Lara
56.40237​
52.88​
3.522368
Kumar Sangakkara
54.7831​
57.4​
-2.6169
Viv Richards
53.55607​
50.23​
3.326065
Javed Miandad
52.84794​
52.57​
0.277943​
Jacques Kallis
52.41126​
55.37​
-2.95874
Sachin Tendulkar
52.32481​
53.78​
-1.45519​
Sunil Gavaskar
52.03108​
51.12​
0.911082​
Greg Chappell
51.59229​
53.86​
-2.26771​
Rahul Dravid
51.39941​
52.31​
-0.91059​
Allan Border
50.98556​
50.56​
0.42556​
Ricky Ponting
50.81285​
51.85​
-1.03715​
Michael Hussey
50.00853​
51.52​
-1.51147​
Matthew Hayden
49.91972​
50.73​
-0.81028​
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
48.58177​
51.37​
-2.78823
Younis Khan
48.27848​
52.05​
-3.77152
Michael Clarke
48.08549​
49.1​
-1.01451​
Adam Gilchrist
47.57222​
47.6​
-0.02778​
Kevin Pietersen
47.44521​
47.28​
0.165207​
AB de Villiers
46.97571​
50.66​
-3.68429
Virender Sehwag
46.55933​
49.34​
-2.78067
Graeme Smith
45.44492​
48.25​
-2.80508
Gordon Greenidge
44.84491​
44.72​
0.124912​
Alastair Cook
44.2349​
45.35​
-1.1151​
-0.99139​
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Do it for a few more if you get chance!
Not sure how valid it would be if I did that. The model was built using the top batsmen of the modern era. I'm not sure I can extrapolate it to generally lower quality batsmen. But you can still give me a retired batsman of the modern era (1970-2018), (as long as I have an ICC ranking average for them), and I'll be able to create a regression adjusted average for them.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Here's a prettier version of the table, it adjusts to make the era adjustment from 1970-2018 when these players careers were, instead of the entirety of Test cricket history, still ended up with a slightly negative average delta (meaning more of these players came from the somewhat more batting friendly eras of the overall modern era):

BatsmanRegression Adjusted Ave.Actual AverageDelta
Brian Lara
56.40237​
52.88​
3.522368
Kumar Sangakkara
54.7831​
57.4​
-2.6169
Viv Richards
53.55607​
50.23​
3.326065
Javed Miandad
52.84794​
52.57​
0.277943​
Jacques Kallis
52.41126​
55.37​
-2.95874
Sachin Tendulkar
52.32481​
53.78​
-1.45519​
Sunil Gavaskar
52.03108​
51.12​
0.911082​
Greg Chappell
51.59229​
53.86​
-2.26771​
Rahul Dravid
51.39941​
52.31​
-0.91059​
Allan Border
50.98556​
50.56​
0.42556​
Ricky Ponting
50.81285​
51.85​
-1.03715​
Michael Hussey
50.00853​
51.52​
-1.51147​
Matthew Hayden
49.91972​
50.73​
-0.81028​
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
48.58177​
51.37​
-2.78823
Younis Khan
48.27848​
52.05​
-3.77152
Michael Clarke
48.08549​
49.1​
-1.01451​
Adam Gilchrist
47.57222​
47.6​
-0.02778​
Kevin Pietersen
47.44521​
47.28​
0.165207​
AB de Villiers
46.97571​
50.66​
-3.68429
Virender Sehwag
46.55933​
49.34​
-2.78067
Graeme Smith
45.44492​
48.25​
-2.80508
Gordon Greenidge
44.84491​
44.72​
0.124912​
Alastair Cook
44.2349​
45.35​
-1.1151​
-0.99139​
Still wondering how Sanga can end up averaging 54.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
To note, South African batsmen are getting hammered here on the deltas.

But I guess Steyn did bowl on green, seaming minefields. :dry:
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Here's a prettier version of the table, it adjusts to make the era adjustment from 1970-2018 when these players careers were, instead of the entirety of Test cricket history, still ended up with a slightly negative average delta (meaning more of these players came from the somewhat more batting friendly eras of the overall modern era):

BatsmanRegression Adjusted Ave.Actual AverageDelta
Brian Lara
56.40237​
52.88​
3.522368
Kumar Sangakkara
54.7831​
57.4​
-2.6169
Viv Richards
53.55607​
50.23​
3.326065
Javed Miandad
52.84794​
52.57​
0.277943​
Jacques Kallis
52.41126​
55.37​
-2.95874
Sachin Tendulkar
52.32481​
53.78​
-1.45519​
Sunil Gavaskar
52.03108​
51.12​
0.911082​
Greg Chappell
51.59229​
53.86​
-2.26771​
Rahul Dravid
51.39941​
52.31​
-0.91059​
Allan Border
50.98556​
50.56​
0.42556​
Ricky Ponting
50.81285​
51.85​
-1.03715​
Michael Hussey
50.00853​
51.52​
-1.51147​
Matthew Hayden
49.91972​
50.73​
-0.81028​
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
48.58177​
51.37​
-2.78823
Younis Khan
48.27848​
52.05​
-3.77152
Michael Clarke
48.08549​
49.1​
-1.01451​
Adam Gilchrist
47.57222​
47.6​
-0.02778​
Kevin Pietersen
47.44521​
47.28​
0.165207​
AB de Villiers
46.97571​
50.66​
-3.68429
Virender Sehwag
46.55933​
49.34​
-2.78067
Graeme Smith
45.44492​
48.25​
-2.80508
Gordon Greenidge
44.84491​
44.72​
0.124912​
Alastair Cook
44.2349​
45.35​
-1.1151​
-0.99139​
This confirms my belief that Smith is overrated on here. I'll take it.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Ran a power regression on the great retired modern era batsmen (and Alastair Cook), to predict what their "actual average" should be. To do that I took in opposition bowling quality and conditions (ICC Ranking Average), and era run scoring difficulty (era adjusted average), and multiplied those two values together, set as independent variable, and then ran a power regression. Here's the adjustments to average it spits out, and the correlation coefficient was quite strong, at over .85:

BatsmanRegression adjusted AverageActual AverageDelta
Brian Lara
54.8266​
52.88​
1.946596
Kumar Sangakkara
53.25256​
57.4​
-4.14744
Viv Richards
52.05981​
50.23​
1.829814
Javed Miandad
51.37148​
52.57​
-1.19852​
Jacques Kallis
50.947​
55.37​
-4.423
Sachin Tendulkar
50.86296​
53.78​
-2.91704​
Sunil Gavaskar
50.57744​
51.12​
-0.54256​
Greg Chappell
50.1509​
53.86​
-3.7091​
Rahul Dravid
49.96341​
52.31​
-2.34659​
Allan Border
49.56112​
50.56​
-0.99888​
Ricky Ponting
49.39324​
51.85​
-2.45676​
Michael Hussey
48.61139​
51.52​
-2.90861​
Matthew Hayden
48.52506​
50.73​
-2.20494​
Shivnarine Chanderpaul
47.22449​
51.37​
-4.14551
Younis Khan
46.92967​
52.05​
-5.12033
Michael Clarke
46.74208​
49.1​
-2.35792​
Adam Gilchrist
46.24314​
47.6​
-1.35686​
Kevin Pietersen
46.11968​
47.28​
-1.16032​
AB de Villiers
45.66331​
50.66​
-4.99669
Virender Sehwag
45.25856​
49.34​
-4.08144
Graeme Smith
44.17528​
48.25​
-4.07472
Gordon Greenidge
43.59203​
44.72​
-1.12797​
Alastair Cook
42.99906​
45.35​
-2.35094​
-2.38477​

You'll note that the average delta is negative, which indicates generally that all the sub eras of the modern era were somewhat easier for batting, than the history of Test cricket as a whole.

Interesting to note though, that Lara and Viv Richards were the only positive delta players, with not many other batsmen getting particularly close. Pietersen is also one to note as having a surprisingly low negative delta for a more recent player.

Also before you ask, no I couldn't replicate this for bowlers (although I tried a couple of ways). Their performance isn't as straightforward as batsmen, because their quality is judged on more than just their simple bowling average (rightly so, i.e a performance of 1/15 and 6/90 for a match are not the same). I couldn't get a high enough correlation coefficient for me to like using it for them.
Daily reminder that mine was better and I am having a voodoo doll made in your image aws.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Tendulkar of course coming up with great numbers, and a pretty decent negative delta here.

For me the weakness of his BBB claim shows up, in terms of the fact that he has pretty stiff competition among the top players of the modern era alone, besides for just the traditional competing claims of Sobers or Hobbslol . It really relies a lot on longevity, which he does have over the others towards the top of this list, but that's a personally subjective consideration.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Steve Smith (while technically an out of scope extrapolation, and not having finished his career) murders this list on face value due to his high ICC Rating average, fwiw.
 

Top