Adjusting the batting average based on actual quality

[CricAddict]

I think it has been pretty well established that stats can be misleading at times about the player's quality.

One shouldn't undermine or demean the hard work that the cricketer has put in to earn all those runs. You can only play against whom you are put against. Like the example of Yousuf you have given above, his numbers are what he earned. It doesn't flatter him at all.

If you wish to argue that some cricketer is better than others based on away stats or some other factor, then it is fine. But you can't say that their quality is lesser than what they earned on the field, for any cricketer.

 

[subshakerz]

One shouldn't undermine or demean the hard work that the cricketer has put in to earn all those runs. You can only play against whom you are put against. Like the example of Yousuf you have given above, his numbers are what he earned. It doesn't flatter him at all.

If you wish to argue that some cricketer is better than others based on away stats or some other factor, then it is fine. But you can't say that their quality is lesser than what they earned on the field, for any cricketer.

Not quite sure what you are arguing honestly.

Yeah, you play against who you are put against, that doesn't mean all runs you score are equal in quality. Nobody is denying Yousuf actually achieved an average of 52 and scored the runs he did in his career. The question is if he disproportionately took advantage of easier pitches/opposition to achieve an average that makes him seem better than he actually was.

Do you ignore or look at averages in assessing a player's quality? If you do, then you benchmark that average with other players to get a proper comparison. We normally associate a 50 plus average with a certain class of batsman, and my argument is that Yousuf is not nearly that class of batsman. His is an exceptional case where his raw average is misleading.

I compare Yousuf with Zaheer Abbas in terms of quality, but then posters will come and say because Yousuf averaged 52 compared to Abbas 44, Yousuf is in a separate class, which I argue he is not.

 

[h_hurricane]

I will play the middle ground here and say Yousuf was slightly better than someone like Laxman, but not as good as Dravid, Waugh, Ponting, Border etc.

 

[subshakerz]

I will play the middle ground here and say Yousuf was slightly better than someone like Laxman, but not as good as Dravid, Waugh, Ponting, Border etc.

I personally would take Laxman over Yousuf but it does depend on the rest of the lineup.

 

[TheJediBrah]

One shouldn't undermine or demean the hard work that the cricketer has put in to earn all those runs. You can only play against whom you are put against. Like the example of Yousuf you have given above, his numbers are what he earned. It doesn't flatter him at all.

If you wish to argue that some cricketer is better than others based on away stats or some other factor, then it is fine. But you can't say that their quality is lesser than what they earned on the field, for any cricketer.

Ryan ten Doeschate the second best international cricketer after Bradman confirmed

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Daryl Mitchell
- test batting average of 62
-ODI batting average of infinity

Or world's greatest ODI allrounder:
Batting av of 97, s/r of 133.79
Bowling av of 30.71, e/r of 4.88
The one and only Michael Bracewell

 

[Johan]

Viv Richards has the average of 50.8 with near 10k runs , would be 60+ if he actually about averages

Kallis averages 55+ , should be at 52

Sobers averages 57+ , should be more but understandable since he debuted as a teenager spin bowling all rounder.

Boycott should be 50+

Crowe is easy 50+ , like the 53 average he had from one point to another in his career

Herbert Sutcliffe seems more 52-53 batsmen then a 60 one

Greenidge is at 45 , is a near 50 batsmen

Sehwag should be lower , he is more a 44-45 guy

Gower should be at 48-49

 

[Coronis]

Viv Richards has the average of 50.8 with near 10k runs , would be 60+ if he actually about averages

Kallis averages 55+ , should be at 52

Sobers averages 57+ , should be more but understandable since he debuted as a teenager spin bowling all rounder.

Boycott should be 50+

Crowe is easy 50+ , like the 53 average he had from one point to another in his career

Herbert Sutcliffe seems more 52-53 batsmen then a 60 one

Greenidge is at 45 , is a near 50 batsmen

Sehwag should be lower , he is more a 44-45 guy

Gower should be at 48-49

Adjusting individual averages based on opinion like this is a bit eh though, should be adjusting all averages for the same era similarly, or individuals specifically on relative bowling quality (which needs to be calculated)

 

[Chrish]

Logical fallacy that certain player would have averaged more had they played certain way. Sehwag’s average wouldn’t be higher had he tried playing like Boycott..

 

[shortpitched713]

I've cracked the code actually. Here's all you have to do, to adjust your opinions for players to be higher or lower than what their average indicates, if you want to conform to CW Cricket Chat concensus.

Tier 1
Australia
India
England

Tier 2
West Indies
New Zealand
Pakistan

Tier 3
South Africa
Sri Lanka

If you know which of these major cricketing countries the player is from, you can adjust them by tier value. Always adjust tier 1 averages favorably, and tier 3 averages unfavorably. This is because Tier 1 countries have the most deluded fan support on this site, who insist their countries players experienced some special circumstance or other to elevate the significance of their positive performance and mitigate the negative performance, and will argue you to the tooth to. It is useless to argue against such a deluge, regardless of the existence of facts or evidence supporting your negative argument against any such player.

Tier 2 countries have just about enough support on the forum, or value attributed to undeniable historical achievement, that you can't get away with lowering their averages, but at the same time were rivals to Tier 1 countries so you can't increase their averages either, so don't do either.

Tier 3 countries are from countries who were both in recent history very tough opponents and rivals of tier 1 countries, and also have the least amount of support on this forum. For this reason just make up whatever spurious arguments you can to bash their players and lower/increase their averages unfavorably. No one's going to challenge you on those arguments anyway, so eventually your takes will become part of the consensus.

With this simple guide, you too can help build "historical consensus" on the Cricket Web Cricket Chat forum. Have fun! And excuse me while I vomit somewhere...

 

[the big bambino]

What do you mean you’ll go vomit somewhere? You just did.

 

[ataraxia]

Tier 1
Australia
India
England

Tier 2
West Indies
New Zealand
Pakistan

Tier 3
South Africa
Sri Lanka

Let's test this (incredibly unscientifically) by listing the top 5 middle-order batsmen (why no openers? that tends to be much more era-dependent than country-dependent me thinks) of each country. = means average remains about the same in CW eyes; − means average worsens significantly, + means average increases significantly

Aus: Bradman (=), Ponting (=), Border (+), G Chappell (−), Smith (=); overall =
Ind: Tendulkar (=), Dravid (−), Kohli (?), Laxman (+=), Hazare (−=); overall =
Eng: Hammond (−), Barrington (−), Compton (=), Root (+=), May (+); overall −=

WI: Sobers (+), Viv (+), Lara (+), Headley (−), Weekes/Walcott/Chanderpaul (−); overall +
NZ: Kane (−=), Crowe (+), Taylor (+), Fleming (+=), Jones (−=); overall +
Pak: Younis (−=), Javed (−=), Inzamam (=), Yousuf (−), Zaheer (+); overall −

SA: Kallis (−=), Pollock (−), Nourse (=), de Villiers (−=), Amla (+=); overall −
SL: Sanga (−=), Jaya (−), Aravinda (+), Mathews (?), Samaraweera (−−−); overall −

There is some national bias here for sure but it's much less than any other cricket forum you'll find. And don't try to twist these results into supporting your hypothesis; you literally said Tier 2 players' averages don't change. There is one = player in that group. One.

 

[shortpitched713]

Let's test this (incredibly unscientifically) by listing the top 5 middle-order batsmen (why no openers? that tends to be much more era-dependent than country-dependent me thinks) of each country. = means average remains about the same in CW eyes; − means average worsens significantly, + means average increases significantly

Aus: Bradman (=), Ponting (=), Border (+), G Chappell (−), Smith (=); overall =
Ind: Tendulkar (=), Dravid (−), Kohli (?), Laxman (+=), Hazare (−=); overall =
Eng: Hammond (−), Barrington (−), Compton (=), Root (+=), May (+); overall −=

WI: Sobers (+), Viv (+), Lara (+), Headley (−), Weekes/Walcott/Chanderpaul (−); overall +
NZ: Kane (−=), Crowe (+), Taylor (+), Fleming (+=), Jones (−=); overall +
Pak: Younis (−=), Javed (−=), Inzamam (=), Yousuf (−), Zaheer (+); overall −

SA: Kallis (−=), Pollock (−), Nourse (=), de Villiers (−=), Amla (+=); overall −
SL: Sanga (−=), Jaya (−), Aravinda (+), Mathews (?), Samaraweera (−−−); overall −

There is some national bias here for sure but it's much less than any other cricket forum you'll find. And don't try to twist these results into supporting your hypothesis; you literally said Tier 2 players' averages don't change. There is one = player in that group. One.

I never expected testing of this hypothesis. At the same time I will say the comparability of older era players tends to be a confounding factor, so not including the likes of Bradman, Hammond, Barrington would also help. I'll go as far as to say that any idiot who think Bradman is anything other than the greatest outlier in Test cricket history and the GOAT, is probably short many brain cells. In addition, I think the overall effect of the nationalistic bias is just as prevalent for bowlers as for batsmen.

Regardless, I think my post, while not supposed to be some kind of hard and fast rule, is just highlighting the influence of a salient feature, on concensus building. Ultimately, I wouldn't dream of telling people to shed nationalistic biases. That's about as likely to do, as it is useful (not very). However, what I would argue for is for people to try and exercise their own judgement, from the history, discovery process, and evidence that they find for themself through their own exploration. You'll find it often bucks the concensus, and enriches your understanding of the history of the game in a way that trying to ape and memorize the opinion of the mass never will.

 

[Pup Clarke]

As someone would watch both their careers, I am shocked someone would compare Yousuf with Waugh. Yousuf's peak was almost entirely a product of the flattest pitches in a generation. Waugh's peak was against the 2Ws, Ambrose, Walsh, Pollock and Donald at their peak.

That's unfair. Yousuf was a quality, quality player who's peak was that epic 2006. He dismantled a very good England attack that summer with absolute ease
Is he in the top echelon of batsman the game has witnessed? No. But he was an incredibly good player who had that trait of making batting against quick bowling look effortless. Personally found him one of the most watchable batsman over the last couple of decades (along with Sangakkara). The grace and fluidity with which he went about run-scoring was beautiful to watch. Such a stylish batsman

Bloody obvious to say, but it's all subjective. Maybe I attribute the way a batsman looks at the crease over their producitivity (i.e runscoring) and that has blurred my overall memory of him? Others will have different opinions. That's cool

 

[subshakerz]

That's unfair. Yousuf was a quality, quality player who's peak was that epic 2006. He dismantled a very good England attack that summer with absolute ease
Is he in the top echelon of batsman the game has witnessed? No. But he was an incredibly good player who had that trait of making batting against quick bowling look effortless. Personally found him one of the most watchable batsman over the last couple of decades (along with Sangakkara). The grace and fluidity with which he went about run-scoring was beautiful to watch. Such a stylish batsman

Bloody obvious to say, but it's all subjective. Maybe I attribute the way a batsman looks at the crease over their producitivity (i.e runscoring) and that has blurred my overall memory of him? Others will have different opinions. That's cool

Those pitches in that 2006 series were absolute roads, except for the second test in which he also didnt score. As a feat of runscoring, his 2006 exploits are great but plenty of soft runs there.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Those pitches in that 2006 series were absolute roads, except for the second test in which he also didnt score. As a feat of runscoring, his 2006 exploits are great but plenty of soft runs there.

I'd like to posit the question to you, so what if they were roads? He still had still had to amass big scores consistently across a series against a high-quality bowling attack. That obviously shows his technical ability, but also his mental strength and application to score big hundreds.

Fair enough if he scored these runs against Zimbabwe, Ireland, Bangladesh (at the time) or other associate nations with objectively weaker bowling attacks, but he didn't

 

[subshakerz]

I'd like to posit the question to you, so what if they were roads? He still had still had to amass big scores consistently across a series against a high-quality bowling attack. That obviously shows his technical ability, but also his mental strength and application to score big hundreds.

Fair enough if he scored these runs against Zimbabwe, Ireland, Bangladesh (at the time) or other associate nations with objectively weaker bowling attacks, but he didn't

It was a goodish attack. But I remember watching that series and thinking Younis was a better bat as he seemed more comfortable.

Compared to Waugh who I think got tested way more for his runs.

 

[Son Of Coco]

All these theories are useless without appying a rigorous scientific method to test them. As the average male's thinking is probably at its clearest and most honest post-ejaculation, I'd suggest the following:

1) Think of a player you want to assess
2) Cup your balls and get an initial reading for what you think that player's average should be - write this number down
3) Make a headband out of paper/cardboard and attach an arm to the front with a peg on it. This arm should extend away from your eyes to a point where you can focus easily.
4) Clip a picture (nude or fully clothed) of the player you are assessing to your headband.
5) Light a candle
6) Put on your favourite music
7) Get the massage oil out of your bedside drawer
8) Take yourself to town
9) Once you've recovered, adjust the player's average down* to something that reflects their actual ability. Compare this to the initial reading you took in Step 2.
10) Dispose of headband and picture in an appropriate receptacle.

*If you still adjust up at this stage, you are most likely a threat to both yourself and the player concerned. Have a friend alert the relevant authorities.

 

[Immenso]

He deserves a 45 average ideally.

Why 'deserves'?

Had talent to achieve that, yes. But I cant think of any mitigating circumstances for him. Apart from being too old for the Mo Yousuf era etc, but that applies to most.

 

[Immenso]

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% ...