Batting Efficiency Rating

Remove this Banner Ad

Exe Gesis

Exe Gesis

Kylo was here
Veteran Golden Guitar NFL Fantasy Comp Champion NFL Board HoF
Sep 6, 2005
146,061
95,839
AFL Club
Fremantle
Too much is weighted on batting average. On its own, it isn't enough.

Batting average (runs/outs) or Innings Average (runs/innings) are open to anamolies. For instance, a player can be not out so many times that his average can be much higher than his highest score.

Taking a leaf out of other efficiency ratings used in other sports, comes this suggestion - which is that the goal of a batter is to score 50's and 100's.

This system works out the percentage a batter scores a 50+ per innings batted. This will favor true batters, not allowing tailenders any anomalies to end up being higher rated than true batsman.

Then, it works out an efficiency of the percentage he converts those 50's into 100's, the percentage of not outs achieved per innings batted, and the percentage that players convert 100's into big double-hundreds.

These are classed as bonus achievments because they are not the core role of a batsman. Being grouped here together, they will serve to prevent anomalies from occuring, as well as separating the great batsmen from the good ones, and the good ones from the average ones.

The 50's% conversion is amount of scores 50+ divided by total innings.
100's% is amount of scores 100+ divided by amount of 100's and 50's.
200's% is amount of scores 200+ divided by amount of 100's.
300's+% is amount of scores 300+ divided by amount of 200+ scores.

I'll also add a hypothetical batter with statistical anomalies to see how it stacks up against the Efficiency Rating.

This system rewards the ACT OF achieving a not out without allowing an average to be inflated because of it. Nor does it seek to disadvantage players who get a lot of not outs (thru skill or being a tailender) which the Inns Ave system does (runs/inns).

Instead of emphasizing how many runs they score per bat (inns or out), it emphasizes how efficient they are in achieving half-centuries, tons, double-tons, and not outs (as an achievment in itself).

The concept is that if the ideal batter is someone who literally scores 50+ every test innings, then this aims to show how close to statistical perfection a batter is.

Here are some players' career batting summaries...

Code: 
[U]Name        Inns     NO       Runs        Ave         SR       0       50      100     200     300     400[/U]
Lara        232       6      11,953      52.88      60.51      17      48      34       5       1       1
Tendulkar   213      22      10,527      55.11      53.90      12      41      35       4       0       0
Ponting     181      25       9,316      59.71      58.99       8      36      33       4       0       0
Kallis      174      28       8,072      55.28      42.84       9      40      24       0       0       0
McGrath     136      50         641       7.45      41.06      34       1       0       0       0       0
Bradman      80      10       6,996      99.94      58.10       7      13      29      10       2       0
Hussey       24       6       1,554      86.33      53.42       0       8       5       0       0       0
Hypothetic  100      99         100     100.00      25.00       0       0       0       0       0       0


From those stats, you derive these stats...

Code: 
[U]Name        50's%       100's%    NO's%     200's%     300+'s%[/U]
Lara        35.34      41.46       2.58      20.59      28.57
Tendulkar   35.68      46.05      10.33      11.43       0.00
Ponting     38.12      46.05      13.81      12.12       0.00
Kallis      36.78      37.50      16.09       0.00       0.00
McGrath      0.74       0.00      36.76       0.00       0.00
Bradman     52.50      69.04      12.50      41.38      16.67
Hussey      54.17      38.46      25.00       0.00       0.00
Hypothetic   0.00       0.00      99.00       0.00       0.00

EDIT ----

The new formula is...

50's+% = X

NO's% + 100's% + 200's% + 300+'s% / 4 = Y

X + Y = Z

Z is the final Efficiency Rating.


So, you get the following final statistic...


Code: 
[U]Name            X        Y       Z (Efficiency)[/U]
Lara         35.34    23.30       [B]58.64[/B]
Tendulkar    35.68    16.95       [B]52.63[/B]
Ponting      38.12    18.00       [B]56.12[/B]
Kallis       36.78    13.40       [B]50.18[/B]
McGrath       0.74     9.19        [B]9.93[/B]
Bradman      52.50    34.90       [B]87.40[/B]
Hussey       54.17    15.87       [B]70.04[/B]
Hypothetic    0.00    24.75       [B]24.75[/B]


Thoughts? Discuss merits/flaws. Contribute suggestions. Etc.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

g.g. said:
Too much is weighted on batting average. On its own, it isn't enough.

Batting average (runs/outs) or Innings Average (runs/innings) are open to anamolies. For instance, a player can be not out so many times that his average can be much higher than his highest score.

Taking a leaf out of other efficiency ratings used in other sports, comes this suggestion - which is that the goal of a batter is to score 50's and 100's.

This system works out the percentage a batter scores a 50+ per innings batted, the percentage he converts those 50's into 100's. It adds them together and converts them into an overall percentage. This will favor true batters, not allowing tailenders any anomalies to end up being higher rated than true batsman.

Then, it works out an efficiency of the percentage of not outs achieved per innings batted, and the percentage that players convert 100's into big double-hundreds, etc.

These are classed as bonus achievments because they are not the core role of a batsman. Being grouped here together, they will serve to prevent anomalies from occuring, as well as separating the great batsmen from the good ones, and the good ones from the average ones.

The 50's% conversion is amount of scores 50+ divided by total innings. 100's% is amount of scores 100+ divided by amount of 100's and 50's. 200's% is amount of scores 200+ divided by amount of 100's. 300's+% is amount of scores 300+ divided by amount of 200+ scores.

I'll also add a hypothetical batter with statistical anomalies to see how it stacks up against the Efficiency Rating.

This system rewards the ACT OF achieving a not out without allowing an average to be inflated because of it. Nor does it seek to disadvantage players who get a lot of not outs (thru skill or being a tailender) which the Inns Ave system does (runs/inns).

Instead of emphasizing how many runs they score per bat (inns or out), it emphasizes how efficient they are in achieving half-centuries, tons, double-tons, and not outs (as an achievment in itself).

The concept is that if the ideal batter is someone who literally scores a 50 and/or 100 every test innings, then this aims to show how close to statistical perfection a batter is.

Here are some players' career batting summaries...

Code: 
[U]Name        Inns     NO       Runs        Ave         SR       0       50      100     200     300     400[/U]
Lara        232       6      11,953      52.88      60.51      17      48      34       5       1       1
Tendulkar   213      22      10,527      55.11      53.90      12      41      35       4       0       0
Ponting     181      25       9,316      59.71      58.99       8      36      33       4       0       0
Kallis      174      28       8,072      55.28      42.84       9      40      24       0       0       0
McGrath     136      50         641       7.45      41.06      34       1       0       0       0       0
Bradman      80      10       6,996      99.94      58.10       7      13      29      10       2       0
Hussey       24       6       1,554      86.33      53.42       0       8       5       0       0       0
Hypothetic  100      99         100     100.00      25.00       0       0       0       0       0       0


From those stats, you derive these stats...

Code: 
[U]Name        50's%       100's%    NO's%     200's%     300+'s%[/U]
Lara        35.34      41.46       2.58      20.59      28.57
Tendulkar   35.68      46.05      10.33      11.43       0.00
Ponting     38.12      46.05      13.81      12.12       0.00
Kallis      36.78      37.50      16.09       0.00       0.00
McGrath      0.74       0.00      36.76       0.00       0.00
Bradman     52.50      69.04      12.50      34.48      16.67
Hussey      54.17      38.46      25.00       0.00       0.00
Hypothetic   0.00       0.00      99.00       0.00       0.00


The formula is...

50's% + 100's% / 2 = X

NO's% + 200's% + 300+'s% / 3 = Y

X + Y = Z

Z is the final Efficiency Rating.


So, you get the following final statistic...


Code: 
[U]Name            X        Y       Z (Efficiency)[/U]
Lara         38.40    17.24       [B]55.65[/B]
Tendulkar    40.87     7.25       [B]48.12[/B]
Ponting      42.97     8.64       [B]51.61[/B]
Kallis       37.14     5.36       [B]42.50[/B]
McGrath       0.37    12.25       [B]12.62[/B]
Bradman      60.77    21.22       [B]81.99[/B]
Hussey       46.32     8.22       [B]54.65[/B]
Hypothetic    0.00    33.00       [B]33.00[/B]



Thoughts? Discuss merits/flaws. Contribute suggestions. Etc.
Click to expand...

has some merit.

but the results are still pretty much the same.

yes a little different in the order but i have stated there is very little difference in the ability of a batsman who averages 55 to one that averages 60. same with your effiency results. 5% difference in the results in judging players is nothing and should not be relied on by making one batsman better the another.

Stats dont cover the luck a batsman had in making his runs and vce versa. players just should be judge on the naked eye and impact on the game they make.
 
So just who is the batsman with a high average that you don't like, and are desperate to bring down?
 
It's not about bringing any batters average down. It's about removing any possibility of an anomaly warping the integrity of the stat or the method. (I did emphasize many times in the post the word "anomaly" and that this method was created to remove/minimize them).

Ex: In the current batting average method, a batter who bats 100 times, gets out only once, scores a single each time, will get a batting average of 100.00. But it shouldn't devalue a true batsman's efforts in getting 50.00 or Don's 99.94. It shows there's a flaw in that system.

That is all.

As this Efficiency Rate has shown, this same hypothetical batter achieves a higher score than a 'bunny' like McGrath (as he should), but lower than a true batsman like Kallis (as he should)with the exact same career figures.

Yet, it still keeps all the other batters relative greatness intact among each other. The Don on top, Lara, Hussey, Ponting, still below the Don considerably (like batting ave)....etc.

Also, the idea is about taking the emphasize away from an average of runs you score, and re-emphasizing how efficient a batter is as a batsman. Things like 50's and 100's and not outs, and converting 50's into 100's and 100's into doubles is the core I believe of what better measures a batters abilities. Someone could average 45.00 with quite a few not outs and a highest score of 80* his whole career, with just a bunch of 50's. Meanwhile, another could be more efficient achieving more 50's and a few 100's but average less. But this method would bring the latter batsman's ranking higher than the former batsman as he was more productive as a batter or more efficient in achieving 50's and 100's.
 
And you complained about mine being too hard to work out. Although i understand it and it does give a pretty fair reflective on how a batsman scores each time he goes out to bat, this is stretching into D/L territory.

Once again, it has punished Hussey when he should be one of the last players to be punished....
 
It hasn't really punished Hussey tho. To be fair, he has only completed 24 innings and achieved 8 50's and 5 100's. No doubles. Meanwhile, someone like Lara, the only one above him, has completed a full career of 232 innings, has 40 more 50's and 29 more hundreds, as well as 7 scores over 200.

Lara has so far been more efficient. Hussey ONLY JUST behind him. In time, Hussey's efficiency rate would increase with consistency - THE very measure of efficiency.

In order for Hussey to remain up near the Don in batting average he has to keep getting not outs or really big hundreds. With this system, he can keep track with the Don simply by getting 50's and 100's as frequently as possible.

In batting average, if Hussey scores 50 out next innings, it would SPIRAL his average down. PUNISHED. But in this system he is actually REWARDED. His efficiency would increase.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

As for the idea that this is too complex, that's not really fair or true, considering Cricket has millions of stats, some very complex like the ICC Rankings, etc, and is a sport all about stats and the more stats to dissect players' achievments and compare them to each other.

I will probably devise an Efficiency Rating for Bowlers too.
 
Explain why Lara has a higher % of 300+ scores when both he and Bradman had 2 over 300
 
gimme a minute...In Husseys last 6 innings, his scores have been 182, 86, 91, 61*, 74* and 103

Now going by your info, the 50s% is amount of 50s divided by total innings, thats 6...so that is 66.67....then 100s% is amount of scores 100+, which is 2, divided by the amount of 100s and 50s.....which is 6....so thats 33.33%......that gives you 100%, divide that by 2 and you get 50%....

Then we have not outs, which there is 2, or once again 33.33%.....0 200s and 0 300s.... 33.33%/3 = 11.11

so his efficiency rating is 61.11%

It's punished him for actually getting 50-199 not outs (first one he guided the team to victory, 2nd one he played a lone hand in a small total and ran out of partners)..... if his not outs were between 0-50 his efficiency rating would then become about 69.5%

Hands up if you can see a flaw ;)

This is of course, if i've done it right.....

Now to stop this all you have to do is when working out the 100s% take out the not out innings between 50 and 199...if you already haven't...
 
Owizee said:
Explain why Lara has a higher % of 300+ scores when both he and Bradman had 2 over 300
Click to expand...


Lara scored 7 scores over 200. Of those 2 went for over 300.

2 divided by 7 x 100 = 28.57%

Bradman scored 12 scores over 200. Of those 2 went for over 300.

2 divided by 12 x 100 = 16.67%

IE, just in this category, Lara converted more of his doubles into triples. But don't forget that Bradman has a much larger 200's% than Lara, as he converted 12 out of 29, compared to Lara's 7 out of 34.

However, thanks for asking me, because I found I made a mistake with Bradman's 200's%. I fixed it now. It should be 41.38 not 34.48. It's fixed now, pushing Bradman's efficiency to 84.29 now.
 
YOTC said:
gimme a minute...In Husseys last 6 innings, his scores have been 182, 86, 91, 61*, 74* and 103

Now going by your info, the 50s% is amount of 50s divided by total innings, thats 6...so that is 66.67....then 100s% is amount of scores 100+, which is 2, divided by the amount of 100s and 50s.....which is 6....so thats 33.33%......that gives you 100%, divide that by 2 and you get 50%....

Then we have not outs, which there is 2, or once again 33.33%.....0 200s and 0 300s.... 33.33%/3 = 11.11

so his efficiency rating is 61.11%

It's punished him for actually getting 50-200 not outs (first one he guided the team to victory, 2nd one he played a lone hand in a small total and ran out of partners)..... if his not outs were between 0-50 his efficiency rating would then become about 69.5%

Hands up if you can see a flaw ;)
Click to expand...


YOTC, but you're just counting his LAST SIX INNINGS. He has batted a full 24 innings. Overall, from debut to now, his efficiency is around 54.

His last 6 innings have actually PUSHED his efficiency rate up from where his first 18 innings were at.
 
g.g. said:
YOTC, but you're just counting his LAST SIX INNINGS. He has batted a full 24 innings. Overall, from debut to now, his efficiency is around 54.

His last 6 innings have actually PUSHED his efficiency rate up from where his first 18 innings were at.
Click to expand...

yes i know i am selecting part of his career, but who's to say somebody won't have a career like this? It's a lot less far-fetched than your hypotheticals'...

I have offered the solution in the next edited part of my post.....when working out the 100s%, take out the not outs innings between 50 - 199...it should give a fairer balance....
 
If you are talking about efficiency then you are doing it wrong. each level should have its own %s . Of 80 innings Bradman scored 2+ 300s or 1 every 40 , Lara scored 2+ 300s over 232 innings or 1 every 116

200s Bradman scored 12 out of 80 innings or one 200 every 6.75 innings and Lara scored 9 or 1 every 37 innings

Thats how most will see efficiency, not a % but how many times someone can perform

Hussey is in elite company because every 2nd time he goes out to bat he is scoring a 50 or more , ie Bradman scored a 50 or more every 1.8 innings and Lara is a little under 3 innings
 
YOTC said:
I have offered the solution in the next edited part of my post.....when working out the 100s%, take out the not outs innings between 50 - 199...it should give a fairer balance....
Click to expand...
Why punish a person who actually surpasses his average when getting a not out? Hussey goes close or just near his average even getting a not out. That should be counted
 
Hussey's first 18 innings...

Inns-18
NO's-4
50's-4
100-3
200-0
300-0

7 / 18 x 100 = 38.89 (number of 50's and 100's / inns)
3 / 7 x 100 = 42.86 (number of 100's out of 50's and 100's)
38.89 + 42.86 / 2 = 40.88

4 / 18 = 22.22 (number of NO's divided by inns)
(no 200s or 300s)
22.22 / 3 = 7.41

40.88 + 7.41 = 48.29


Hussey's last 6 innings...

Inns-6
NO's-2
50's-4
100-2
200-0
300-0

6 / 6 x 100 = 100.00 (number of 50's and 100's divided by inns)
2 / 6 x 100 = 33.33 (number of 100's out of 50's and 100's)
100.00 + 33.33 / 2 = 66.67

2 / 6 x 100 = 33.33 (number of not outs divided by inns)
(no 200's or 300's)
33.33 / 3 = 11.10

66.67 + 11.10 = 77.77


Efficiency first 18 innings was 48.29
Efficiency last 6 innings was 77.77
Therefore, his last six innings pushed his efficiency up to 54.62 overall.
 
YOTC said:
I'm not quite sure if that was an add on to my suggestion or if you didn't quite understand what i meant.......

.
Click to expand...
Lol probably the second bit. Its why I said I prefer looking at innings per score
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dogs105
List of current Australian players, 25 or under, with FC bat average >40 and/or bowl average < 35
Replies
6
Views
602
dogs105
dogs105
DaRick
Test Ashes Player Ratings
Replies
2
Views
534
DaRick
DaRick
Grand Uncle Horace
Test Rating members of the Oz Test Side v India
2 3
Replies
64
Views
2K
Around the Wicket
A
T
Where does Steve Smith rate?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
154
Views
7K
Partridge
Partridge
ourgameplandoesntwork
Best “international” batsmen of recent decades
Replies
9
Views
590
Cursed Cat
Cursed Cat
R
Norman O'Neill: Battling Great Expectations
Replies
2
Views
430
PhatBoy
PhatBoy
PhatBoy
Which country’s batsmen are the easiest on the eye?
Replies
15
Views
664
PhatBoy
PhatBoy

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top