Huge statistical analysis on greatest ODI batsman ranked - Cricinfo

[Singh767]

Credit where credit is due, an incredible mammoth statistical analysis by Cricinfo in determining the best ODI batsman ranked. Reminded me of DOG statistical analysis on best test batsman in this forum. Normally the debate is Sachin Kohli or Sir Viv, however this analysis brings Ponting 2nd. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/29304607/greatest-odi-batsman-all

I will summarise below their criteria in case you cant be bothered to read the in depth measures they used lol.

The parameters used to determine the best ODI batsman of all time is below. Each is explained in detail later.

1. Weighted Batting Average (adjusted)
2. Strike rate (adjusted)
3. Rating points
4. Average quality of bowling faced in career
5. Number of runs scored
6. Major cup-related achievements (World Cup, ICC trophies and six-nation tournaments)
7. Runs scored in important cup matches
8. X factors: MoM awards; opening the batting; finishing the innings; quality of batting support available; quality of bowling support available

The acronym PRP (Player Rating Points) will be used to denote the weightage for each parameter.

1) Tendulkar (won by over 10% which is huge in this analysis)
2) Ponting
3) Kohli
4) Sir Viv Richards
5) Gilchrist
6) Jayasuriya
7) Sangakkara
8) Dhoni
9) Sehwag
10) Lara

 

[trundler]

Sehwag and Jayasuriya should not be that high

 

[Red]

cricinfo, skewing stats in favour of Indian cricketers for a good decade now

more sycophantic by the day

 

[stephen]

Opening the batting should not give you any kind of bonus in ODIs. Opening is usually beneficial. At least they didn't bring "hundreds scored" into it.

Honestly any rating system which puts Sehwag ahead of Bevan or even Lara broken and needs to be fixed.

 

[marc71178]

A load of total bollocks which is only summed up by the X factor stat that rates Viv so low.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah can't buy into this at all. Lmfao @ Sehwag

 

[tony p]

I really have no interest in One Day Stats at all, the game has changed so dramatically in the past 20 years, it's unrecognisable from the early days when a Team score of 225 in 50 overs was good. ( Just look at any of the Tri-Series highlights of the 1980s and early 90s)

Maybe they should have done stats for each decade, because it's mainly going to favour batsman who have played since around 2000 and beyond, with the occasional exception.

I wonder whether they will do an analysis on the Greatest One Day Bowlers, probably not, as it's not what the game was made for.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I really have no interest in One Day Stats at all, the game has changed so dramatically in the past 20 years, it's unrecognisable from the early days when a Team score of 225 in 50 overs was good. ( Just look at any of the Tri-Series highlights of the 1980s and early 90s)

Maybe they should have done stats for each decade, because it's mainly going to favour batsman who have played since around 2000 and beyond, with the occasional exception.

I wonder whether they will do an analysis on the Greatest One Day Bowlers, probably not, as it's not what the game was made for.

The analysis takes this into account, where it says "(adjusted)" means the player ratings were adjusted for the era they played.

 

[honestbharani]

It is Anantha Narayanan.. He often comes up with interesting pieces designed for clickbait but his work is the very definition of why you should never go "all in" on just stats alone when it comes to ranking players. He introduces random numbers on top of the already context less pieces that are cricket stats and then further random numbers and indexes that are based on said random numbers. They are worth a read juz for the effort the man puts in, I guess but can't really take it any more seriously than another cricket stats "fluff" piece.

 

[vcs]

It is Anantha Narayanan.. He often comes up with interesting pieces designed for clickbait but his work is the very definition of why you should never go "all in" on just stats alone when it comes to ranking players. He introduces random numbers on top of the already context less pieces that are cricket stats and then further random numbers and indexes that are based on said random numbers. They are worth a read juz for the effort the man puts in, I guess but can't really take it any more seriously than another cricket stats "fluff" piece.

Yeah. It's statistical masturbation, for lack of a better term. I'm as big a nerd as any, but his work leaves me completely bored. Completely misses the point of why people watch cricket. Don't read any of his stuff anymore.

 

[Shady Slim]

It is Anantha Narayanan.. He often comes up with interesting pieces designed for clickbait but his work is the very definition of why you should never go "all in" on just stats alone when it comes to ranking players. He introduces random numbers on top of the already context less pieces that are cricket stats and then further random numbers and indexes that are based on said random numbers. They are worth a read juz for the effort the man puts in, I guess but can't really take it any more seriously than another cricket stats "fluff" piece.

sixteen letters in that name but there’s only six unique letters in there hey, can’t be many like that

 

[honestbharani]

If you change your sn to Shady Shoddy Shaddy maybe?

 

[Shady Slim]

thirteen letters in honestbharani of which ten of them are unique... unspectacular ratio that is tbh

 

[ataraxia]

4 instances of a in 8 letters shouldn't go unnoticed.

 

[h_hurricane]

It is analysis devoid of much context by Anantha but he is hardly a sycophant. A few years back, I have seen get into some heated arguments with some posters in cricinfo on why he considered Lara a better test batsman than Tendulkar. He defended his opinion thoughtfully then.

Loved the terminology statistical masturbation Should be used often in CW going forward.

 

[harsh.ag]

Reckon if you place an upper cap on the number of points for "number of runs scored (career)" and entirely eliminated "opening the batting", the resulting list would be a much better one.

 

[stephen]

Yeah surely 5k runs is enough, particular for batsmen who played in the 70s/80s.

 

[stephen]

Also, strike rate isn't a particularly good judge of a batsman in isolation. First innings strike rate yes, but particularly for middle order batsmen, second innings strike rate is more determined by the circumstances of the match moreso than a batsman's ability. For example, I'd take Michael Clarke in a heartbeat over Andre Russell as a batsman, despite the later having a 40 strike rate advantage.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't consider Lara > Tendulkar to be a crazy opinion by any means tbh

Reckon if you place an upper cap on the number of points for "number of runs scored (career)" and entirely eliminated "opening the batting", the resulting list would be a much better one.

opening the batting was a weird one considering that it's been the easiest place to bat in ODIs in the last 15 or so years

 

[honestbharani]

He is not all bad, is Anantha but way too often he is more stats-lover than cricket-lover and this piece is one of those. Hence it is always important to read his work with that in mind.