DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen: Discussion thread

[Days of Grace]

Don’t forget that averages, RPI and strike-rates are adjusted according to era, opposition and match conditions.

For tests pre-1980 I have relied heavily on Charles Davis’ z score site for balls faced data.

 

[stephen]

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

Yep, I'd much rather a Mark Waugh in my side than a Rohit Sharma, for example.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

Obviously, I've reverted to the simplest conclusion in this scenario because there's really no objective answer otherwise

Yep, I'd much rather a Mark Waugh in my side than a Rohit Sharma, for example.

here we go again

 

[mr_mister]

I'd be interested to know how many triple tons came in wins as opposed to draws

 

[TheJediBrah]

19 in draws
12 in wins

just from a quick count I might have been out by 1 or 2

 

[mr_mister]

Interesting.

 

[stephen]

I'd be interested to know how many triple tons came in wins as opposed to draws

You could probably manually calculate it given there have only been about 30 triples in history.

 

[stephen]

D'oh, too slow.

 

[ankitj]

You realize median chops of top 50% scores, not to 5%? Even Bradman's median score is under 50.

 

[stephen]

You realize median chops of top 50% scores, not to 5%? Even Bradman's median score is under 50.

Yes:

Mean (average) = total runs/ wickets
Median = score at middle position
Mode = most common score (usually 0)

Median is interesting nonetheless. It's a more compressed statistic than mean but it's the score the batsman is likely to score more than 50% of the time. It's a measure of consistency.

 

[stephen]

Bradman's median is 56.5.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Mode is the best measure of a batsman's quality. It's obvious because Bradman and Chris Martin were equally good.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

Without discussion of whether or not this is actually true, this statement in the context of rating system walks close to the idea that the best bowlers are right arm quicks and we should therefore award extra points to any right arm quick.

Regardless, I dont mind accepting this statement for specialist bats, although I'm not sure if it's true if the tail is factored in as well. But even without factoring in the tail, I dont think generally true applies to a significant enough extent to use it, or at least to this degree. If a higher SR would be good for 51% of innings, it means we are penalising 49% of innings unduely.

 

[ankitj]

Yes, that's right he scored 42 scores above 50 out of 80 innings, so the median would be above 50. Almost everyone else would be under 50.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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

That's ok but the reason for including a parameter in the exercise should be sound and for SR, I don't think it is.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, that's right he scored 42 scores above 50 out of 80 innings, so the median would be above 50. Almost everyone else would be under 50.

Everyone else in fact. Ken Barrington is Bradmanesque in consistency (compared to everyone else) and comes second here. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/23163239/median-scores-tell-us-batting-careers

 

[ankitj]

That's ok but the reason for including a parameter in the exercise should be sound and for SR, I don't think it is.

Yeah I'm indifferent to any parameters. It just shouldn't be based on considerations like Viv Richards should be ranked higher than Chanderpaul.

 

[Victor Ian]

Is it better to win more, or lose less? At first i thought win more matters so i like quick scoring batsmen, but now im thinking never losing is a greater thing.

 

[venkyrenga]

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.

I think you did not read my post properly. I never said Sachin cannot do what Dravid did there. I said don't tell me Sachin can do just because of his "higher SR". But I am pretty sure that Dravid is the better man for that job and I am certain that Ganguly can't do that.
And I never said that players with higher SR are incapable of playing longer innings. I am just saying that your generalization that most players with higher SR can play longer innings if required is wrong.

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.

I disagree. Talking about players with same average, Kohli has a higher SR than Kallis but he is not better. Yousuf, Younis and Williamson have higher SR than Dravid but none are better than him. Hayden and ABD have a higher SR than Steve Waugh but they are not better than him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I disagree. Talking about players with same average, Kohli has a higher SR than Kallis but he is not better. Yousuf, Younis and Williamson have higher SR than Dravid but none are better than him. Hayden and ABD have a higher SR than Steve Waugh but they are not better than him.

I don't know if any of this is true, but thank you for putting your personal opinion of which players are better out there