Y/N - you could explain Net run rate in detail to someone without googling

[mr_mister]

We've all been watching cricket for decades, but who the **** understands Net run rate. The decimals throw me, I don't know if takes wickets into equation as well as runs, I'm a solid nope

 

[Third_Man]

well, I'd hope so.

 

[Aidan11]

I can't but its still easier than explaining the rules of The Hundred.

 

[Third_Man]

I can't but its still easier than explaining the rules of The Hundred.

I wouldn't even know where to start, or even if they differ from other formats. Do they have any rules other than "every ball counts" - which clearly isn't the case in rain affected matches.

 

[DriveClub]

i used to know but now I've forgotten. Need to read about it again to know

 

[Owzat]

well, I'd hope so.

frankly I'd be hoping not to have to, and why bother, let the people who automate tables such that you put in scores and overs and let the computer do all that

(and yes I probably could, simply less probably could be arsed)

 

[Third_Man]

frankly I'd be hoping not to have to, and why bother, let the people who automate tables such that you put in scores and overs and let the computer do all that

(and yes I probably could, simply less probably could be arsed)

The OP's question was could you explain it to someone, not whether you could be bothered to work it for yourself rather than let the computer do it for you.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think it's pretty simple to explain, without having to go into the specific mathematics of it.

It's a measure of how dominant a team has been by measuring and collating its winning margins (and, conversely, losing margins), using runs if batting first, and overs remaining if batting second.

 

[Athlai]

I get the base concept, but things like how DL affected games apply I'd have to Google

 

[GIMH]

Same as Athlai really, I understand it fine for full length games (or reduced games not decided by DLS like Netherlands V SA). In DLS games I’m not fully on board

 

[centurymaker]

Yeah its fairly easy to explain.
Your average run rate for batting minus your average run rate for bowling.


I also don't like how for DLS games, it uses the DLS par score for the team that batted first instead of their actual score. For example in the NZ-Pak game, NZ was given 179 runs in 25.3 overs towards their NRR instead of the actual 401 they scored in 50 overs.

 

[Starfighter]

No because I look it up and then forget not long afterwards. I do know it's better than the alternatives people usually propose (like ordinary run rate).

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah its fairly easy to explain.
Your average run rate for batting minus your average run rate for bowling.

That's not quite it though is it?

If you bowl a team out for 50 in 5 overs it's great for your NRR, even though the run rate was 10. Because they should have batted 50 overs.

I still think a better way to explain it would be it's a measure of average winning margins based on runs if batting first, overs remaining if batting second

 

[centurymaker]

Yeah thats also true.

But to mine you can add that-
'if a team is bowled out then their run rate is based on full 50 overs quota rather than the no. of overs they got all out in'

 

[Athlai]

50 in 5 becomes 50 in 50

 

[ankitj]

I get the base concept, but things like how DL affected games apply I'd have to Google

Yes this.

One annoying quirk of the method is that smaller games get lesser weight. So if you dismiss opposition for 150 and get that score in 25 overs, positive attribution is 150/25 which effectively means lesser weight than a game where you batted all 50 overs.

 

[Burgey]

Y

/thread

 

[Molehill]

Yes, I even build myself a spreadsheet template during tournaments so I can quickly calculate the impact of matches on each team's NRR.

But I work in Finance so you know....numbers!!

 

[Molehill]

One annoying quirk of the method is that smaller games get lesser weight. So if you dismiss opposition for 150 and get that score in 25 overs, positive attribution is 150/25 which effectively means lesser weight than a game where you batted all 50 overs.

Not true, because the 150 is divided by 50 for the bowling purposes. So your NRR from that game would be 150/25 - 150/50 = 3
That's the same as if you batted for 50 overs and scored 300 and then bowled them out for 150.

 

[ankitj]

Not true, because the 150 is divided by 50 for the bowling purposes. So your NRR from that game would be 150/25 - 150/50 = 3
That's the same as if you batted for 50 overs and scored 300 and then bowled them out for 150.

I was talking about the positive contribution (runs for). That is under-weighted. Negative contribution (runs against) is correctly weighted.