This I can live with for both batsmen and bowlers.Changing the bowling criteria to 27 gives you 59 players, which is roughly equivalent to your factor of 1.2
Batsmen with 3000+ runs at 45+
Bowlers with 100+ wickets at sub-27
EDIT: 59, not 56.
Interestingly though, the lowest number of matches required to qualify as a batsman was 42; as a bowler, 17. Something that needs to change, perhaps?
I think this has a problem. There are 6 top class batsman while only have 4 bowlers. The ratio of players should be 3:2 in favor of batsmen.3000 runs at 45+ -- 68 players
100 wickets at <28 -- 66 players
Seems like this could be a rough equivalence.
A wicket being worth 30 runs seems relatively fair; 45 and 28 seem like decent averages to use as cut-offs for pushing ATG status. Obviously there will be exceptions.
FTR 3000 runs at 42+ and 100 wickets at sub-30 gives exactly 100 players each.
The reason I went with 2000 and 100 was because we tend to match those 2 when considering careers (10000 runs with 500 wickets etc).While I agree with the assertion that 30 is a good bowling average, you need to alter your search criteria there. You're treating 2000 runs and 100 wickets as equivalent. You're basically stipulating that a wicket is worth 20 runs. It is plainly obvious that only the elite bowlers manage that. You'll need to either bump up the career run requirement or lower the wickets requirement.
Which I more-or-less addressed in the following post (roughly a 6:5 ratio though).I think this has a problem. There are 6 top class batsman while only have 4 bowlers. The ratio of players should be 3:2 in favor of batsmen.
While that is true his calculation ends by equating a 30 bowling average to a 40 batting average from that starting point. Which doesn't seem unreasonable as it would appear to be consistent with Dan's ratios which seems to equate 45 batting and 27 bowling averages.While I agree with the assertion that 30 is a good bowling average, you need to alter your search criteria there. You're treating 2000 runs and 100 wickets as equivalent. You're basically stipulating that a wicket is worth 20 runs. It is plainly obvious that only the elite bowlers manage that. You'll need to either bump up the career run requirement or lower the wickets requirement.
32 or 33 is about the decadal batting ave so I'd think 32 would be around the average for a bowler but yeah 40 is good for a batsman.A batsman even on the ATG scale with a batting average is great to even ATG, on a similar scale a bowler with an average of 32 is below average at best.
His calculations seem to equate 40 with 32 or 35, tbh.While that is true his calculation ends by equating a 30 bowling average to a 40 batting average from that starting point. Which doesn't seem unreasonable as it would appear to be consistent with Dan's ratios which seems to equate 45 batting and 27 bowling averages.
Yeah, revisiting those lists for the batsmen and bowlers, if you average out the matches played, there's a significant difference between the batsmen and bowlers. Makes sense because bowlers generally have shorter careers. This would also lead to a greater turnover among bowlers than batsmen. So perhaps the total number of bowlers in history need not be lower than the number of batsmen after all.Changing the bowling criteria to 27 gives you 59 players, which is roughly equivalent to your factor of 1.2
Batsmen with 3000+ runs at 45+
Bowlers with 100+ wickets at sub-27
EDIT: 59, not 56.
Interestingly though, the lowest number of matches required to qualify as a batsman was 42; as a bowler, 17. Something that needs to change, perhaps?
Before we go math-crazy, is bowling average really a comparative enough statistic to batting average? What if a bowler gets just 2 wickets a match on average at 20 runs/wkt?Does this make sense?
What I'm going maths-crazy over is not the statistical exercise we deserve, but the statistical exercise we need right now.Before we go math-crazy, is bowling average really a comparative enough statistic to batting average? What if a bowler gets just 2 wickets a match on average at 20 runs/wkt?