-
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.
Cribbage's Standardised Test Averages (UPDATED November 2018 - posts 753-755)
- Thread starter Prince EWS
- Start date
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Sobers had a longevity that is only slightly less than the longevity of Lee, Harbhajan and Spofforth combined ! And the difference in adjusted average isn't much, especially with Harbhajan. Although our longevity measure probably slightly overrates allrounders, for understandable reasons.
Ambrose is at #1 using PEWS' adj average too. The man had a huge tally of quality wickets over a long period, and his adjusted average always comes as a spectacular one, whichever way you look at it.
Last edited:
biased indian
International Coach
Found an old oneBuggers, that is his Aussie XI among players he has seen (check the thread title, you muppets).
He doesn't keep McGrath in his All-time Aussie XI. Had I been a mod, I could have searched that post.
Do you understand the difference between the two Smali?
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/14946-all-time-australia-xi-vs-all-time-west-indies-xi.html#post576738
Coronis
International Coach
First time I've seen this thread... loved reading through it. I'm also of the opinion that the longevity factor is a bit overstated in this ranking system, but to each their own. Was great seeing players liked Dempster, Barnes, Duleep etc. being there, since they're usually cut off due to <20 innings. Top notch work, top notch thread.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah as I've said before, the "value rankings" including longevity is really just mental masturbation. The real point of the exercise is the standardised averages, which are all listed separately.
I've been playing around with the longevity thing a bit too, incidentally. Something I was toying with was giving everyone with a standardised longevity above 10, a standardised longevity of 10. As in, a maximum longevity, to counteract things like Walsh > McGrath. The main problem with this is that it'd really hurt players who played on long past their primes to the detriment of their averages or were picked too early, and to avoid that problem I was working on a way of isolating a player's best consecutive period of ten standardised years; like a long-term peak I guess for those with really long careers.
Teja.
Global Moderator
I don't intend to sound like a **** but shouldn't the only reason why you should do the standardized longevity equalizing be if you legitimately feel that a player who plays for 12 years is not anymore valuable than a player who plays for 10?
I know you PEWS, I don't see you buying to the '10 years is a long enough time to judge a player after which longevity is irrelevant to judge how good a player is' gem.
Ftr, the focus of the post is in the spirit and not in the 10 years which is an arbitrary figure which I'm using for the sake of debate.
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I said I was playing around with it; I didn't say I agreed with it.
There's no definitive "correct" list or method. I think a lot of people on the forum may be interested in a list that isn't as high-end longevity driven so I'm happy to provide one.
Last edited:
The longevity issue is interesting (and see anomalies like Asif Iqbal in the bowling list), but I'm more interested in the standardised averages.
The likes of Holding and Roberts see their averages go up, while the Steyn's standardised average goes down. Would it be fair to say that because the late 70's / early 80's was an era with a lot of very very good bowlers (not just their team-mates but Lillee + a number of other Aussies, Indian spinners, Hadlee, Imran, Willis-Botham) batting averages in that era were a little lower than in others. So any bowler in that era would see their standardised average go up. While in the latter half of Steyn's career there have been very few other top notch bowlers across the entire cricket world. So Steyn's average goes down (ie, improves) because he's playing against batsmen whose averages have been inflated by facing relatively tame attacks.
Have no idea how to deal with this....
The likes of Holding and Roberts see their averages go up, while the Steyn's standardised average goes down. Would it be fair to say that because the late 70's / early 80's was an era with a lot of very very good bowlers (not just their team-mates but Lillee + a number of other Aussies, Indian spinners, Hadlee, Imran, Willis-Botham) batting averages in that era were a little lower than in others. So any bowler in that era would see their standardised average go up. While in the latter half of Steyn's career there have been very few other top notch bowlers across the entire cricket world. So Steyn's average goes down (ie, improves) because he's playing against batsmen whose averages have been inflated by facing relatively tame attacks.
Have no idea how to deal with this....
the big bambino
International Captain
Averages in the 90s were lower than 70s and 80s iirc. Although the decadal ave is generally much the same from one decade to the other, the 80s were on the hgr end from memory.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Bump.
PEWS, I wonder if you found a way to segregate 'batting longevity' and 'bowling longevity' for all-rounders? I think that's one area where this can improve. At present, I think this overestimates the individual skills of all-rounders for this particular reason.
One idea will be to decide for what portion in an all-rounder's career did he merit a place in the side only as a batsman, and for what portion only as a bowler (these 2 can and will overlap, too). It'll be a bit tricky and subjective perhaps.
PEWS, I wonder if you found a way to segregate 'batting longevity' and 'bowling longevity' for all-rounders? I think that's one area where this can improve. At present, I think this overestimates the individual skills of all-rounders for this particular reason.
One idea will be to decide for what portion in an all-rounder's career did he merit a place in the side only as a batsman, and for what portion only as a bowler (these 2 can and will overlap, too). It'll be a bit tricky and subjective perhaps.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Also, if you want to reduce the importance of longevity (to get rid of things like Walsh > McGrath), you can do so by replacing the longevity factor in the final formula by something like {(longevity)^0.5}, for example. It'll do 2 things:
1. Reduce the importance of longevity,
2. Make longevity a factor with diminishing returns (difference between 5 and 10 year longevity will be more than difference between 10 and 15 years longevity)
1. Reduce the importance of longevity,
2. Make longevity a factor with diminishing returns (difference between 5 and 10 year longevity will be more than difference between 10 and 15 years longevity)
Last edited:
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
AndyZaltzHair
Hall of Fame Member
Good to see Clem Hill getting a boost. So underrated...
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I dunno... I was a lot younger when I became a Curtly fan than when I became a McGrath one, but for some reason I always think Curtly was slightly better, no real statistical reason to think so, but its just what I remember from watching those two.
indiaholic
International Captain
Just wanted to say that this was one of the first threads that I read during my lurking phase and PEWS' quality posting is what made me sign up to the site. Wonderful thread!
Coronis
International Coach
As an Aussie kid I always loved McGrath, so that may be part of it!
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
McGrath just consistently got the job done day in day out. Ambrose had patches where he looked like he dgaf, then other times he'd just go full destruction mode and look incredible.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Absolutely chuffed with this. Great to know I actually bring good members to the forum sometimes, particularly given the raft of dire CricSim members I accidentally brought here a while ago.
CaptainGrumpy
Banned
I too really enjoyed reading through this thread. It was an excellent analysis of players' statistics. Really impressive work, some great questions raised and then answered and some great posting. Great stuff Prince.
Last edited: