Saturday, December 01, 2007
Weighted bowling averages
Martin said that he'd like to see a bowling average in which each wicket is weighted by the batting average of the batsman dismissed. I have now calculated these averages for all bowlers who have taken 50 or more Test wickets. The figures are current to Test 1847, the second Test between South Africa and New Zealand.
It is interesting that this one weighting factor appears to even out bowling averages across eras remarkably well. The top of the list of lowest bowling averages is dominated by players from the 1800's. But weighting by the average of the batsman dismissed largely cancels out the effect of low scoring, because the batsmen have low batting averages.
Note that I've used the batsmen's career averages, rather than averages at the time of dismissal. This, while making my calculations easier, has the unfortunate side-effect that a bowler's adjusted average can change even when he's not playing.
Here is a table showing the top twenty bowlers, according to this adjusted average. The columns of the table are matches, runs conceded, wickets taken, usual average, adjusted wickets, adjusted average. If I am generous to me and Martin, I could impose a 100-wicket threshold, and note that SF Barnes comes out number one, as he should. I would treat these figures as interesting and not, of course, take them as the be-all and end-all.
You probably want to know about Murali and Warne. Murali comes in at #30, with an adjusted average of 24,53. Warne is at #74, with an adjusted average of 28,05.
There are a number of ways this analysis could be taken further, but I will save myself the trouble and simply link to Charles Davis (see the table at the bottom and discussion just above).
It is interesting that this one weighting factor appears to even out bowling averages across eras remarkably well. The top of the list of lowest bowling averages is dominated by players from the 1800's. But weighting by the average of the batsman dismissed largely cancels out the effect of low scoring, because the batsmen have low batting averages.
Note that I've used the batsmen's career averages, rather than averages at the time of dismissal. This, while making my calculations easier, has the unfortunate side-effect that a bowler's adjusted average can change even when he's not playing.
Here is a table showing the top twenty bowlers, according to this adjusted average. The columns of the table are matches, runs conceded, wickets taken, usual average, adjusted wickets, adjusted average. If I am generous to me and Martin, I could impose a 100-wicket threshold, and note that SF Barnes comes out number one, as he should. I would treat these figures as interesting and not, of course, take them as the be-all and end-all.
m r w avg adj w adj avg
Ironmonger,Bert 14 1330 74 17,97 72,01 18,47
Clark,Stuart 11 1093 54 20,24 58,32 18,74
Ferris,J.J. 9 775 61 12,70 39,1 19,82
Asif,Mohammad 11 1180 51 23,14 56,83 20,76
Barnes,Sydney 27 3106 189 16,43 149,02 20,84
Lohmann,George 18 1205 112 10,76 56,19 21,45
Davidson,Alan 44 3819 186 20,53 176,09 21,69
Marshall,Malcolm 81 7876 376 20,95 361,17 21,81
Ambrose,Curtly 98 8501 405 20,99 386,46 22,00
Bowes,Bill 15 1519 68 22,34 68,25 22,26
Turner,Charlie 17 1670 101 16,53 74,86 22,31
McGrath,Glenn 123 12144 560 21,69 542,99 22,37
Higgs,Ken 15 1473 71 20,75 65,8 22,39
Laker,Jim 46 4101 193 21,25 181,42 22,61
Bond,Shane 17 1769 79 22,39 77,87 22,72
O'Reilly,Bill 27 3254 144 22,60 143,21 22,72
Croft,Colin 27 2913 125 23,30 125,29 23,25
Miller,Keith 55 3906 170 22,98 166,98 23,39
Adcock,Neil 26 2195 104 21,11 93,74 23,42
Trueman,Fred 67 6625 307 21,58 279,67 23,69
You probably want to know about Murali and Warne. Murali comes in at #30, with an adjusted average of 24,53. Warne is at #74, with an adjusted average of 28,05.
There are a number of ways this analysis could be taken further, but I will save myself the trouble and simply link to Charles Davis (see the table at the bottom and discussion just above).
# posted by David Barry : 05:31
Comments:
<< Home
Very interesting... how can you put things in laymans terms?
For eg, does Warne's position in the list mean that (on avg) he dismissed more batsmen with a lower average compared to someone like Asif? I know my statement is too genaral and it doesnt factor in the bowling avg... but Im just trying to understand :)
For eg, does Warne's position in the list mean that (on avg) he dismissed more batsmen with a lower average compared to someone like Asif? I know my statement is too genaral and it doesnt factor in the bowling avg... but Im just trying to understand :)
Hi Obaid: What you've said about Warne and Asif is pretty much right, though concluding stuff about what sort of batsmen a bowler dismisses involves comparing the usual and adjusted averages.
Warne's usual average is about 25, and his adjusted average here is about 28, which means that his wickets were, roughly speaking, more likely to be of worse batsmen. Asif, on the other hand, had his average adjusted downwards (from 23 to 21), so he's been dismissing better batsmen.
There's one factor here that's working against Warne, and that is that Australia's opening bowlers often dismissed most of the opposition's top order, leaving only tailenders for Warne. (Warne has a very high proportion of his wickets as tailenders.) Asif, as a paceman, usually gets a crack at all of the best opposition batsmen.
Post a Comment
Warne's usual average is about 25, and his adjusted average here is about 28, which means that his wickets were, roughly speaking, more likely to be of worse batsmen. Asif, on the other hand, had his average adjusted downwards (from 23 to 21), so he's been dismissing better batsmen.
There's one factor here that's working against Warne, and that is that Australia's opening bowlers often dismissed most of the opposition's top order, leaving only tailenders for Warne. (Warne has a very high proportion of his wickets as tailenders.) Asif, as a paceman, usually gets a crack at all of the best opposition batsmen.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
