[Not so] Huge statistical analysis on greatest ODI batsman and bowlers ranked

[honestbharani]

I'll have a crack at this though, because you do seem to be trying to think sensibly about it.



This is an assumption. You're assuming that if Bevan was at 3 and Jones was at 6 then their averages would have swapped. There's no reason to think that Jones would have averaged higher playing Bevan's role than he did in his actual career. Maybe he would have only averaged 35 if he batted mostly at 6. Similarly there's no reason to think that Bevan would have averaged significantly less than he did at 6 if he batted higher. He very likely would still have averaged ~50, just with more runs and less not outs.

There's no reason to think that an average can be artificially "boosted by not outs" over any significant sample. If anything the opposite is more likely and by having more innings finished not out you've been robbed of continuing batting when you've already played yourself in. It would make more sense to say the opposite of what you're saying, that more not outs actually hurt your average (as counter-intitutive as this may seem at first glance).



This is a completely different discussion. Obviously, with 2 hypothetically identical batsmen, someone batting higher is going to have a higher RPI and seemingly "contribute more to the team". It tells you nothing that average doesn't already tell you much more accurately.

You could argue that "RPI is a more accurate indication of the runs a player scored for their team and hence the impact they had" but once again, that's not a measure of how good the player was, or how well they batted. It's just that they batted higher in the order

Not true at all in the context of ODIs when either the number of overs or the target is known....

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not true at all in the context of ODIs when either the number of overs or the target is known....

I may be missing something but that doesn't make any sense.

Not really the point anyway. I don't have a strong belief that a lot of not outs actually hurt a player's batting average at all, I was just saying that there would be more reason to argue that than the opposite, which people bewilderingly still do.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The primacy of batting average over RPI is not sacrosanct. Except for a fanatic.

It should be. It would have to be only very specific and limited circumstances where RPI would have any value as a measure over average. It doesn't tell you anything meaningful that average doesn't alrady tell you better.

If Bevan was batting at #3, he would not magically have still averaged 50+. He would have been ranked lower in this statistical exercise

There's no reason to think this. This is just your fantasy.

 

[stephen]

Often what is forgotten about batting lower in the order is that there are many times where you don't get the opportunity for easy runs. Top order batsmen can rack up huge scores in favourable conditions. Lower order batsmen rarely get that chance. If they have enough overs left to build a big score it's because the top order has failed, usually because the opposition bowling is good. So really, the batsmen who bat lower and have higher averages should be valued more because they have to work harder for those averages.

Dean Jones was a very good batsman, Michael Bevan was close to the best ever.

 

[harsh.ag]

There's no reason to think this. This is just your fantasy.

There are lots of reasons to think that. Except if you have an insane love for Bevan. Same goes for Dhoni. No way Dhoni averages 50+ batting at #3.

They were both limited players who were great at what they did.

 

[stephen]

If you look at RPI of number 6 batsmen, Bevan has a huge lead on his rivals.

 

[honestbharani]

I may be missing something but that doesn't make any sense.

Not really the point anyway. I don't have a strong belief that a lot of not outs actually hurt a player's batting average at all, I was just saying that there would be more reason to argue that than the opposite, which people bewilderingly still do.

When the inning has a known end point and batsmen are playing towards it, the whole logic of "he could have scored more had he batted on" does not make any sense. I understand in tests when there is no limit to batting on as such most of the times, but in ODIs, that argument is as silly as arguing RPI is more important than batting average in ODIs.

There is no real metric to compare the likes of Dean Jones and Michael Bevan that is apples to apples, really. That is the difficulty of such a rating exercise. You can't even compare Bevan to Ponting with any objectively fair metric to both of them, and they were contemporaries for the most part.

 

[harsh.ag]

All of that is not to say the Deano was a better ODI batsman than Bevan or anything like that, it's just that this statistical exercise will exacerbate the distance between them.

 

[srbhkshk]

There are lots of reasons to think that. Except if you have an insane love for Bevan. Same goes for Dhoni. No way Dhoni averages 50+ batting at #3.

They were both limited players who were great at what they did.

Don't believe this at all, in fact Dhoni probably averages more at 3 then he does wherever he batted. In 45 matches when he batted 3 or 4 he averages 67.

 

[stephen]

Number 6s:

Dhoni: 4164 @ 32 rpi
Bevan: 3006 @ 34.6 rpi
Boucher: 2387 @ 20.6 rpi
Dilshan: 2046 @ 23.5 rpi
Buttler: 1977 @ 30.9 rpi
Hussey: 1942 @ 30.8 rpi

 

[TheJediBrah]

There are lots of reasons to think that. Except if you have an insane love for Bevan. Same goes for Dhoni. No way Dhoni averages 50+ batting at #3.

They were both limited players who were great at what they did.

All of that is not to say the Deano was a better ODI batsman than Bevan or anything like that, it's just that this statistical exercise will exacerbate the distance between them.

You clearly have a strong belief of this despite all logic to the contrary so can't really see your opinion of this changing tbh, carry on I guess

When the inning has a known end point and batsmen are playing towards it, the whole logic of "he could have scored more had he batted on" does not make any sense. I understand in tests when there is no limit to batting on as such most of the times, but in ODIs, that argument is as silly as arguing RPI is more important than batting average in ODIs.

There is no real metric to compare the likes of Dean Jones and Michael Bevan that is apples to apples, really. That is the difficulty of such a rating exercise. You can't even compare Bevan to Ponting with any objectively fair metric to both of them, and they were contemporaries for the most part.

I think this is all essentially accurate and the theory of "not outs hurting your average" definitely has less merit in ODIs than in Tests, but I do think you're still missing a bit here. Just because the innings is going to end at 50 overs, it doesn't really change anything when rating how well the batsman played.

Whether you're 80* at the end of an innings because your team was bowled out or because 50 overs are up really makes no difference for the purpose of the exercise. The "he could have scored more had he batted on" is purely theoretical in this context. You're taking it completely literally, which is fine, but besides the point.

 

[ankitj]

Dean Jones is not ranked high enough because of lower longevity adjustment which is a revelation to me because I never noticed he had a relatively short career. In raw quality score he is in top 10.

 

[honestbharani]

Which is why I think we have to bring the years active into some level of consideration, 1 or 2 games early in the career or a late one-off comeback kinda stuff can ruin this exercise otherwise...

 

[ankitj]

Too much work HB can't get myself do it even if I am convinced

 

[Migara]

Top 50 with longevity adjustment:

Rank	Player	Avg x ER	Benchmark Avg x ER	Quality Ratio	Longevity Factor	Adjusted Quality Ratio
1	J Garner	9.74	20.41	0.48	1.08	0.44
2	RJ Hadlee	11.97	21.01	0.57	1.28	0.45
3	M Muralitharan	15.70	25.80	0.61	1.30	0.47
4	GD McGrath	14.66	25.41	0.58	1.20	0.48
5	Wasim Akram	15.71	24.01	0.65	1.32	0.49
6	Rashid Khan	12.60	31.39	0.40	0.78	0.52
7	CEL Ambrose	14.29	24.09	0.59	1.15	0.52
8	MA Holding	11.86	20.36	0.58	1.11	0.52
9	SM Pollock	15.50	25.82	0.60	1.15	0.52
10	AA Donald	15.61	24.55	0.64	1.15	0.55
11	SE Bond	15.25	26.75	0.57	1.00	0.57
12	Saeed Ajmal	16.01	28.27	0.57	0.95	0.59
13	DK Lillee	12.43	18.71	0.66	1.11	0.60
14	MA Starc	19.34	29.69	0.65	1.08	0.60
15	TM Alderman	14.25	21.73	0.66	1.08	0.61
16	DW Steyn	21.09	28.72	0.73	1.20	0.61
17	AME Roberts	11.54	18.70	0.62	1.00	0.62
18	Saqlain Mushtaq	15.64	25.11	0.62	1.00	0.62
19	B Lee	18.95	26.53	0.71	1.15	0.62
20	N Kapil Dev	17.02	21.74	0.78	1.26	0.62
21	Imran Khan	17.34	21.30	0.81	1.30	0.63
22	WPUJC Vaas	19.58	25.65	0.76	1.20	0.63
23	SK Warne	18.37	25.18	0.73	1.15	0.64
24	MD Marshall	15.91	21.72	0.73	1.15	0.64
25	DL Vettori	22.42	26.84	0.84	1.30	0.64
26	Waqar Younis	19.01	24.43	0.78	1.20	0.65
27	CJ McDermott	16.69	23.00	0.73	1.11	0.65
28	M Ntini	19.07	26.15	0.73	1.11	0.65
29	KD Mills	21.52	27.27	0.79	1.20	0.66
30	A Flintoff	18.44	26.05	0.71	1.08	0.66
31	Imran Tahir	19.52	29.71	0.66	1.00	0.66
32	M Morkel	21.04	28.55	0.74	1.11	0.66
33	Shoaib Akhtar	20.66	26.31	0.79	1.18	0.67
34	CG Rackemann	14.68	21.88	0.67	1.00	0.67
35	D Gough	19.59	25.47	0.77	1.15	0.67
36	EJ Chatfield	15.42	21.19	0.73	1.08	0.67
37	BAW Mendis	18.23	28.27	0.64	0.95	0.68
38	CA Walsh	19.88	23.84	0.83	1.23	0.68
39	MG Johnson	20.51	27.95	0.73	1.08	0.68
40	NW Bracken	18.01	26.46	0.68	1.00	0.68
41	Shakib Al Hasan	23.10	28.74	0.80	1.18	0.68
42	GP Swann	21.60	26.60	0.81	1.18	0.69
43	GB Hogg	20.76	25.82	0.80	1.15	0.70
44	JN Gillespie	18.81	25.59	0.74	1.04	0.71
45	TA Boult	21.45	30.32	0.71	1.00	0.71
46	IT Botham	19.01	21.35	0.89	1.26	0.71
47	Harbhajan Singh	24.63	26.91	0.92	1.28	0.72
48	A Kumble	23.53	25.13	0.94	1.28	0.73
49	Mohammad Amir	23.55	29.41	0.80	1.08	0.74
50	MF Maharoof	23.78	27.94	0.85	1.15	0.74

Supports my opinion that Murali was way ahead than any spinner in ODIs, and Saqlain is next, better than Warne. I must confess I was way way under estimating Ajmal.

 

[honestbharani]

Too much work HB can't get myself do it even if I am convinced

Not you, but surely one of the paid crapinfo datasticians can? I mean, its better than whatever crappy method AN has come up with here.

 

[Victor Ian]

When you have two contemporary batsmen who bat in the same team, I look where they batted. The team itself knows who are the best batsmen in the team and they will bat in the top order.

 

[honestbharani]

Not always, there was an entire period when Sachin was on his sunset and Kohli's rise had not happened yet when MSD was clearly our best ODI batsman but he batted 5 or lower mostly. I just think ODI and now T20 have evolved into its own thing. So what you said is surely true for tests most of the time and I guess for ODIs when your team has a clear best batsman, but like with Australia post 1999, I think they had Mark Waugh, Gilchrist, Ponting, and Bevan in there and they could basically call any of them their best ODI batsman at that time. But each of them had a clear role they excelled in and they were kept there. I don't think its that easy to compare those roles even within the same team. And the importance to the team also depends on the kind of back up available.

 

[Victor Ian]

I don't know. If Dhoni was all that good, or Bevan, why not put them up higher and get more of their awesome. I think the team knows they cant handle it up there. They don't have the ability to survive. Down lower, after the ball is older and so on, they are perfect for that role. But if they were better than the top order, they'd switch places. What I'm saying is not ironclad. I just believe that Jones was better than Bevan.

 

[trundler]

You can't be sure that Tendulkar or Ponting would've been as good at the finisher role though.