DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen: Discussion thread

[Migara]

First innings runs aren't worth more per se but they do swing the momentum more to their team, giving the rest of the team something to build off. It's rare that the team that has conceded a first innings deficit will go on to win.

So I'll take the 100/0 player over the 50/50 player.

How about a 0/100 player?

 

[stephen]

How about a 0/100 player?

Definitely would rate the 50/50 player ahead of them. A good case in point was Wade's hundred in the final ashes test. It was too little too late. If he'd hit that in the first innings Australia might have managed to draw/ win the test.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah the 0/100 player more often than not is the guy who ****ed up when the game was there for the taking and made runs when it didn't matter

occasionally it's the guy that plays a second innings blinder to win/save the match but on average the first innings run-maker is the one you want

 

[harsh.ag]

Given that most batsmen are 70-30 players, a 30-70 one would be invaluable. But that doesn't mean all that much except that diversity is good.

 

[Bolo.]

Let me give you an example:

Batsman A:
Ave: 50.00
RPI: 45.00
S/R: 40.00

Batsman B:
Ave: 47.50
RPI: 40.50
S/R: 70.00

They will have identical overall career points. So batsman B having an average 5% less than Batsman A must have a strike-rate more than double that of Batsman A to be equal with Batsman A.

Averages and RPI aside, I would say 40 is typically preferable as a SR for batting positions 1,2,10,11.

70 is preferable for 4-7.

3,8,9- I cant generalise. Depends on the strength and style of the team.

Seems like you are penalising about half the team for batting slowly when it is an asset.

I'm completely ignoring the fact that it is entirely case by case though, which further muddies the waters. I feel like the guys with higher SRs are more easily capable of shifting tempos, although there is probably an optimal point in the low 60s or so, which reflects both defensive and agressive innings as the game requires.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Given that most batsmen are 70-30 players, a 30-70 one would be invaluable. But that doesn't mean all that much except that diversity is good.

I don't know if this is true

Averages and RPI aside, I would say 40 is typically preferable as a SR for batting positions 1,2,10,11.

70 is preferable for 4-7.

3,8,9- I cant generalise. Depends on the strength and style of the team.

Seems like you are penalising about half the team for batting slowly when it is an asset.

I'm completely ignoring the fact that it is entirely case by case though, which further muddies the waters. I feel like the guys with higher SRs are more easily capable of shifting tempos, although there is probably an optimal point in the low 60s or so, which reflects both defensive and agressive innings as the game requires.

This is an important point that no one has addressed yet. If you had 2 players with the same average, one strikes at 70 and the other at 40, almost certainly the one striking at 70 is the better player. The 70 guy could most likely slow down to 40 or less if the situation demanded it a lot easier (and probably average the same or more) than the 40 guy could shift up to 70+ if needed.

That's where the whole "batsmen who bat slower can be more valuable in certain situations" falls apart a bit. Batsmen aren't machines who always bat at the same speed regardless of the situation. Look at AB de Villiers in Adelaide 2012. Typically aggressive batsman helped save the game by making 10 of 200 balls or something like that. Just because he has a higher career strike rate doesn't mean you'd prefer a Kallis or Pujara in that circumstance. And ABdV is more able to make a run-a-ball 80 when you need to push for a result than Kallis or Pujara.

That's why the higher-striking player is, generally speaking, more valuable

 

[Days of Grace]

I don't know if this is true



This is an important point that no one has addressed yet. If you had 2 players with the same average, one strikes at 70 and the other at 40, almost certainly the one striking at 70 is the better player. The 70 guy could most likely slow down to 40 or less if the situation demanded it a lot easier (and probably average the same or more) than the 40 guy could shift up to 70+ if needed.

That's where the whole "batsmen who bat slower can be more valuable in certain situations" falls apart a bit. Batsmen aren't machines who always bat at the same speed regardless of the situation. Look at AB de Villiers in Adelaide 2012. Typically aggressive batsman helped save the game by making 10 of 200 balls or something like that. Just because he has a higher career strike rate doesn't mean you'd prefer a Kallis or Pujara in that circumstance. And ABdV is more able to make a run-a-ball 80 when you need to push for a result than Kallis or Pujara.

That's why the higher-striking player is, generally speaking, more valuable

So you’re saying strike-rate should be factored in?

 

[ankitj]

I feel like I want median score to be used in the formula. Median measures a batsman's consistency in a way that average and rpi don't.

Median fails to reward ability to score daddy hundreds. You should use a measure for consistency along with average. Good measure of consistency would be coefficient of variation (not standard deviation which is bit correlated to average). This is what this analysis by cricinfo did:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...n-uses-runs-per-test-show-consistency-batsmen

 

[TheJediBrah]

So you’re saying strike-rate should be factored in?

Yeah I think so.

edit: not sure how much of an issue it is that older players don't have accurate stats on it though

 

[Bolo.]

I don't know if this is true



This is an important point that no one has addressed yet. If you had 2 players with the same average, one strikes at 70 and the other at 40, almost certainly the one striking at 70 is the better player. The 70 guy could most likely slow down to 40 or less if the situation demanded it a lot easier (and probably average the same or more) than the 40 guy could shift up to 70+ if needed.

That's where the whole "batsmen who bat slower can be more valuable in certain situations" falls apart a bit. Batsmen aren't machines who always bat at the same speed regardless of the situation. Look at AB de Villiers in Adelaide 2012. Typically aggressive batsman helped save the game by making 10 of 200 balls or something like that. Just because he has a higher career strike rate doesn't mean you'd prefer a Kallis or Pujara in that circumstance. And ABdV is more able to make a run-a-ball 80 when you need to push for a result than Kallis or Pujara.

That's why the higher-striking player is, generally speaking, more valuable

Yes. But if a naturally aggresive bat has slowed down the tempo a because the situation required it frequently, it does end up dropping their career SR. I.e. they have proved they can bat at multiple speeds, rather than it just being a hypothetical.

ABs career SR is 55 for example- not low for his era, but not high either. Part of this is because he stonewalled pretty often- his 4th innings SR is 40. Punishing players like him for being able to shift the tempo according to the match situation is just rewarding more limited batting.

 

[Days of Grace]

In my mind, a batsman with a low strike-rate has limited stroke options and is not fluent at the crease or “talented”. Instead they “guts it out.” That’s a stereotype I know but how many people would say that Chanderpaul was a better test batsman than Viv Richards or Ricky Ponting?

 

[ankitj]

May be the whole point of an objective ranking exercise is to challenge those conventional notions rather than conform to them.

 

[venkyrenga]

First innings runs aren't worth more per se but they do swing the momentum more to their team, giving the rest of the team something to build off. It's rare that the team that has conceded a first innings deficit will go on to win.

So I'll take the 100/0 player over the 50/50 player.

You are completely missing the point. It's not about scoring the 100 in the 1st or 2nd innings. It's about one player getting the 3 digit scores more often but overall being less consistent and other one being more consistent but getting the 3 digit runs less often. How can you say that the batsman that is less consistent is better when they both have the same avg?

This is an important point that no one has addressed yet. If you had 2 players with the same average, one strikes at 70 and the other at 40, almost certainly the one striking at 70 is the better player. The 70 guy could most likely slow down to 40 or less if the situation demanded it a lot easier (and probably average the same or more) than the 40 guy could shift up to 70+ if needed.

That's where the whole "batsmen who bat slower can be more valuable in certain situations" falls apart a bit. Batsmen aren't machines who always bat at the same speed regardless of the situation. Look at AB de Villiers in Adelaide 2012. Typically aggressive batsman helped save the game by making 10 of 200 balls or something like that. Just because he has a higher career strike rate doesn't mean you'd prefer a Kallis or Pujara in that circumstance. And ABdV is more able to make a run-a-ball 80 when you need to push for a result than Kallis or Pujara.

That's why the higher-striking player is, generally speaking, more valuable

This is not really true. Having the ability to play longer innings and the ability to score runs at a higher SR are two different qualities. A batsman with a higher SR does not necessarily have the ability to play longer innings if the situation demanded. ABD is a particularly special batsman who can do both not everyone can, so you can't use him as an example. Gilchrist can't neither can Sehwag.

I already explained this using the famous Kolkatta match as an example. Now, see this match. Dravid was given the man of the match despite having scored less no. of runs than Sachin because he did see off the new ball and played a long innings in tough conditions. If he scored the same number of runs in a shorter innings he wouldn't have got that. And you can't tell me Sachin or Ganguly is capable of doing what Dravid did on that match just because they have a higher SR.

Agian, low SR means longer innings. Which in turn means ability to convert losses into draws, and form more partnerships and win matches. You can't penalize a batsman for having this asset. And you can't tell me that a batsman with high SR can always slow down and play longer innings if required. Those are two different qualities.

 

[OverratedSanity]

In my mind, a batsman with a low strike-rate has limited stroke options and is not fluent at the crease or “talented”. Instead they “guts it out.” That’s a stereotype I know but how many people would say that Chanderpaul was a better test batsman than Viv Richards or Ricky Ponting?

But that's a positive attribute.

I think the example you've chosen is a bit unfair too. There are a lot of defensive batsmen (Gavaskar, Hutton etc.) who are generally considered on a similar level to Viv or Ponting.

 

[h_hurricane]

One issue I have with lower SR batsmen in general is, they do not rotate the strike often, end up choking the momentum of the innings or a free flowing batsman at the other end.

Remember seeing this some 20 years back(admittedly in ODIs) when Dravid and Tendulkar were at the crease.

In tests, it is a lot more complex, some times batsmen just grind out good hard spells from opposition bowlers, so playing out maidens may not be all that bad.

 

[Bolo.]

In my mind, a batsman with a low strike-rate has limited stroke options and is not fluent at the crease or “talented”. Instead they “guts it out.” That’s a stereotype I know but how many people would say that Chanderpaul was a better test batsman than Viv Richards or Ricky Ponting?

What Anjitk said.

Chanders is a really problematic example for both RPI and SR. He was a confluence of too many factors that made his batting unsuitable for team needs- batting too low in a very weak team, low natural scoring rate, impossible to dismiss, didnt bat properly with the tail. Going back to him is the equivalent of drawing the conclusion that ODI bats should score slower using Afridi as evidence, although the premise is a whole lot more plausible.

 

[stephen]

Median fails to reward ability to score daddy hundreds. You should use a measure for consistency along with average. Good measure of consistency would be coefficient of variation (not standard deviation which is bit correlated to average). This is what this analysis by cricinfo did:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...n-uses-runs-per-test-show-consistency-batsmen

Daddy hundreds are overrated. Match winning innings are rarely huge because going very large is usually done on roads where there are multiple big run scorers from both sides.

Honestly, if batsmen are scoring more than around 140/150 it's great to watch but doesn't usually impact the game any more than the 140/150 score would have. Sometimes scoring 190/200 will be a match winning innings (see Smith's double in the recent ashes for example) but most of the time it'll be part of a 500+ innings in a draw.

I'd much rather a batsman score two hundreds thank one double hundred - the former is contributing significantly to two separate innings while the latter is contributing to one and one only.

 

[Burgey]

There is definitely a correlation between daddy hundreds and wanker runs too.

 

[TheJediBrah]

this match[/url]. Dravid was given the man of the match despite having scored less no. of runs than Sachin because he did see off the new ball and played a long innings in tough conditions. If he scored the same number of runs in a shorter innings he wouldn't have got that. And you can't tell me Sachin or Ganguly is capable of doing what Dravid did on that match just because they have a higher SR.

Agian, low SR means longer innings. Which in turn means ability to convert losses into draws, and form more partnerships and win matches. You can't penalize a batsman for having this asset. And you can't tell me that a batsman with high SR can always slow down and play longer innings if required. Those are two different qualities.

I don't see how this counters anything that I said, and a lot of what you said here is wrong. There's no reason to think that Sachin couldn't do what Dravid did. It's the bizarre assumption that players with higher career strike rates are incapable of playing longer innings that is the issue here. Generally speaking, they scored quicker because that's what the team needed, and were more valuable players as a result.

Sehwag and Gilchrist are extreme examples that don't really help the argument either way. We're not only looking at the extreme examples, these adjusted stats are for all batsmen, most of which sit somewhere in the middle range.

Yes. But if a naturally aggresive bat has slowed down the tempo a because the situation required it frequently, it does end up dropping their career SR. I.e. they have proved they can bat at multiple speeds, rather than it just being a hypothetical.

ABs career SR is 55 for example- not low for his era, but not high either. Part of this is because he stonewalled pretty often- his 4th innings SR is 40. Punishing players like him for being able to shift the tempo according to the match situation is just rewarding more limited batting.

Just looking at things as simplistically as possible though, you'd think that when comparing 2 batsmen with the same average but different strike rates, more often than not the one with the higher strike rate is the "better" batsman.

We can go around all day arguing about match situations and what suits the team whether batting faster or slower etc. But breaking things down this is the simplest conclusion that I can come to.

 

[Coronis]

I don't see how this counters anything that I said, and a lot of what you said here is wrong. There's no reason to think that Sachin couldn't do what Dravid did. It's the bizarre assumption that players with higher career strike rates are incapable of playing longer innings that is the issue here. Generally speaking, they scored quicker because that's what the team needed, and were more valuable players as a result.

Sehwag and Gilchrist are extreme examples that don't really help the argument either way. We're not only looking at the extreme examples, these adjusted stats are for all batsmen, most of which sit somewhere in the middle range.



Just looking at things as simplistically as possible though, you'd think that when comparing 2 batsmen with the same average but different strike rates, more often than not the one with the higher strike rate is the "better" batsman.

We can go around all day arguing about match situations and what suits the team whether batting faster or slower etc. But breaking things down this is the simplest conclusion that I can come to.

The simplest conclusion isn’t always correct. In fact this is a huge generalisation and there are just way too many other variables to be considered, which is why I’m against strike rate having such a big impact. e.g Do you think Matthew Hayden was a better batsman than Steve Waugh? Almost identical averages, Hayden with a superior strike rate though.