]>
]> > Average per not out innings may not be the best indicator of a
]> > batsman's abilities/performances, but IMO it's the best method
]> > AVAILABLE. The problem with taking averages based on Test matches
]> > played is that it won't take account of the times a batsman never
]> > got a chance to bat in a Test match, or only got to bat once.
]> > Imagine two batsmen, both having played 10 matches, but one scored
]> > 700 runs in 20 innings, where as the other got to play only 12
]> > innings in 10 matches, but scored 600 runs...
Before I go any further, let me make something clear...I'm not
insisting that rpi is the best method. Only that, runs-per-test,
IMO, is not likely to be a better indicator than runs-per-innings.
]> Well, let's think about it. Assuming no rain interruptions (oh no-
]> I'm starting to sound like an economist :-), Batsmen A has a
]> runs/test "score" of of 70. Batsmen B has 60. Little difference
]> here.
OK, when I am assuming no not outs here. So Batsman A has a
runs/test of 70 and rpi of 35. OTOH, batsman B has rpt of 60 and
rpi of 50.
]> Now, to bat 20 times in 10 tests, it is likely that your team is
]> losing a lot of the time.
Sounds plausible enough.
]> It is also likely that A was a higher order batsman (i.e. top
]> three),
Likely enough.
]> and runs scored at the top of the order are *generally* more
]> valuable than those scored down the order. I usually bat about 5
]> or 6, so don't flame me over this statement!! So it may well be
]> than A has performed very well in a losing side.
Aha...how would we know that B is not a upper-order batman :-) All
we know that he batted 20 times in 10 matches. Suppose a lower
order batman gets to bat 20 times in 10 matches, this means that by
default all the upper-order batsmen (in the situation described
above) have batted as well. So we really can't deduce as to what's
B's number in the batting order. If any thing, having scored 600
runs in 12 innings indicates that B *is* an upper-order batsman.
]> B on the other hand is obviously playing in a very strong team,
]> where lots of people are scoring runs.
I take you mean strong "batting" team. This is IMO by no means
conclusive. (cf. Inzimam-ul-Haq, Martin Crowe)
]> I think an argument could be mounted to state that A is making a
]> more valuable contribution (which I think is the BEST indicator-
]> though hard to measure of course).
Like I said in my previous post neither method is perfect, but at
least rpi takes into account how many times a batsman actually went
out to bat, which is not the case in runs per test.
]> Your example is an extreme one, and also leaves aside the
]> "not-outs" factor. I'll try to dig up some statistics on real
]> players to see how my argument holds up.
The "not-out" factor is the real ***, actually :-) I guess, the
idea behind using only the completed innings in computing one's
batting average was that the batsman could have scored more runs,
but had to stop for whatever reason. I am of the opinion that
these things even out in the long run...especially when it comes to
comparing two players (since it both cases the same rule will
apply).
As an afterthought actually it really doesn't matter whether the
"not-out" innings are counted or not, since the same measure is
being applied to all players --- of course the method is imperfect,
I never denied that, did I :-)
]> Any other thoughts?
Perhaps we can use "runs per test" (with the qualification that
only the Tests in which a batsman got to bat are counted -- on the
same lines as "runs per completed innings"). But if you really ask
me, it's not likely to have much difference. I did a little research
on some data retrieved from CricInfo. An edited version follows:
All-time Australian Test Batting and Fielding Statistics
(till Apr 94, end of Aus in RSA 1993-4)
Test I NO HS Runs Avge RPT
Boon, D.C. 89 160 18 200 6562 46.21 73.73
Border, A.R. 156 265+ 44 205 11179 50.58 71.66
Bradman, D.G. 52 80 10 334 6996 99.94 134.54
Chappell, G.S. 97 151 19 247* 7110 53.86 73.30
Chappell, I.M. 75 136 10 196 5345 42.42 71.26
Cowper, R.M. 27 46+ 2 307 2061 46.84 76.33
Fingleton, J.H.W. 18 29 1 136 1189 42.46 66.05
Harvey, R.N. 79 137 10 215 6149 48.41 77.83
Hasset, A.L. 43 69 3 198* 3073 46.56 71.46
Jackson,A.A. 8 11 1 164 474 47.40 59.25
Jones, D.M. 52 89 11 216 3631 46.55 69.82
Lawry, W M. 67 123 12 210 5234 47.15 78.12
Macartney, C.G. 35 55 4 170 2131 41.78 60.89
McCosker, R.B. 25 46 5 127 1622 39.56 64.88
McDonald, C.C. 47 83 4 170 3107 39.32 66.11
Matthews, G.R.J. 33 53 9 130 1849 41.09 56.03
Miller, K.R. 55 87 7 147 2958 36.97 53.78
Morris, A.R. 46 79 3 206 3533 46.48 76.80
Ponsford, W.H. 29 48 4 266 2122 48.22 73.17
Redpath, I.R. 66 120 11 171 4737 43.45 71.77
Ritchie, G.M. 30 53 5 146 1691 35.22 56.36
Simpson, R.B. 62 111 7 311 4869 46.81 78.53
Slater, M.J. 15 25 1 168 1157 48.21 77.13
Taylor, M.A. 54 97 6 219 4295 47.20 79.54
Walters, K.D. 74 125 14 250 5357 48.26 72.39
Waugh, M.E. 36 57 4 139* 2177 41.08 60.47
Waugh, S.R. 65 98 18 177* 3495 43.69 53.77
Wessels, K.C. 24 42 1 179 1761 42.95 73.38
Source: CricInfo <gopher://cricinfo.cse.ogi.edu:7070/>
Some facts...when looking at the column under Avregae (i.e. rpi) we
see Bradman is no. 1 followed by Greg Chappell and Alan Border.
Whereas when the batsmen are ranked according to Runs per Test, the
list looks like this: Bradman, Mark Taylor, Bobby Simpson, Lawry, ...
I make no judgements here. What do you think? Does, IYO, your theory
is justified in the light of the above data? It's an interesting
debate, let it continue :-)
]> To be continued.
Sure...it's rare on rsc to have a purely cricket related discussion
WITHOUT any flames :-)
]> Cheers
]>
]> Christian Kelly
Syed
--
? ?Syed M. Ali?
by