ODI Batsmen rating

[SydneyDon]

I would like to see some sort of rating system/formula employed to rate batsmen in One Day cricket and twenty20. Similar to a Quarterback rating in NFL (although I usually hate this American style of over using stats)

It would be interesting to see a batsmans average somehow combined with his strike rate to assess his value in this type of cricket.

Perhaps a starting point would be to ascertain an historical average of all ODI bastmen to arrive at a par rating (say a value of 100), then calculate where a current player stands against the average.

Just a thought, if any of you maths and stats gurus want to have a crack.

 

[Missing Doogs]

I would like to see some sort of rating system/formula employed to rate batsmen in One Day cricket and twenty20. Similar to a Quarterback rating in NFL (although I usually hate this American style of over using stats)

It would be interesting to see a batsmans average somehow combined with his strike rate to assess his value in this type of cricket.

Perhaps a starting point would be to ascertain an historical average of all ODI bastmen to arrive at a par rating (say a value of 100), then calculate where a current player stands against the average.

Just a thought, if any of you maths and stats gurus want to have a crack.

http://www.lgiccrankings.com/

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

There already is a pretty much infallible ODI batsman rating system-the 'Making Huge Undismissed Scores Somehow Every Year' or M.H.U.S.S.E.Y grading system ranks batsmen in a number of key areas and assigns them a percentage score which indicates how close they come to the theoretically perfect 100% M.H.U.S.S.E.Y rank. A good solid world cricket batsman might be about 40%, the really awesome batsmen out there- the Pontings and Pollocks and the like- have been known to approach 70-80% M.H.U.S.S.E.Y status.

Of course, no batsman in world cricket has every really looked like getting a perfect, 100% M.H.U.S.S.E.Y rank, and it is actually thought to be a statistically impossible target, but M.H.U.S.S.E.Y provides a mark for batsmen to aspire to.

 

[Marklar_33]

There already is a pretty much infallible ODI batsman rating system-the 'Making Huge Undismissed Scores Somehow Every Year' or M.H.U.S.S.E.Y grading system ranks batsmen in a number of key areas and assigns them a percentage score which indicates how close they come to the theoretically perfect 100% M.H.U.S.S.E.Y rank. A good solid world cricket batsman might be about 40%, the really awesome batsmen out there- the Pontings and Pollocks and the like- have been known to approach 70-80% M.H.U.S.S.E.Y status.

Of course, no batsman in world cricket has every really looked like getting a perfect, 100% M.H.U.S.S.E.Y rank, and it is actually thought to be a statistically impossible target, but M.H.U.S.S.E.Y provides a mark for batsmen to aspire to.

I am very happy with the quality and humour in this post

You are awarded several GOLDen thumbs

 

[-VC-]

There already is a pretty much infallible ODI batsman rating system-the 'Making Huge Undismissed Scores Somehow Every Year' or M.H.U.S.S.E.Y grading system ranks batsmen in a number of key areas and assigns them a percentage score which indicates how close they come to the theoretically perfect 100% M.H.U.S.S.E.Y rank. A good solid world cricket batsman might be about 40%, the really awesome batsmen out there- the Pontings and Pollocks and the like- have been known to approach 70-80% M.H.U.S.S.E.Y status.

Of course, no batsman in world cricket has every really looked like getting a perfect, 100% M.H.U.S.S.E.Y rank, and it is actually thought to be a statistically impossible target, but M.H.U.S.S.E.Y provides a mark for batsmen to aspire to.

Excellent post. Tip of the cap.