Batsmen adding most runs to their team totals

[Chakdephatte]

I created a list of best and worst batsmen using cricinfo's impact ratings (public).

 

It doesn't tell how profilic a batsmen has been, but rather how much his benefited from his runs. You can call it runs above average.

 

@Austin 3:!6, consider it a performance tracker and pin it for the season. 

[Chakdephatte]

Du plessis-      +74.1 runs 

 

Klassen-                  +73.8 runs

Gill-                          +73.6 runs

Maxwell-                 +70.3 runs

Jaiswal-                  +67.6 runs

SKY-                        +59.1 runs

Pooran-                   +58.1 runs

Prabhsimran-          +55.7 runs

Ruturaj-                   +50.9 runs

Mayers-                   +50.7 runs

Rahane-                  +49.9 runs

Stoinis-                   +49.5 runs

Green-                    +36.8 runs

Jason Roy-             +35  runs

Dhawan-                 +28.9 runs

Axar-                       +27 runs

Varma-                    +24.9 runs

Warner-                   +22.6 runs

 

Cut-off: +20

 

(By the way, Cricviz also has their own ranking system by which Gill is at 1.) Not public.

Edited 5 hours ago by Chakdephatte

[Chakdephatte]

Batsmen with most negative runs-

 

Parag-                  -11.9 runs

Shahbaz-             -13 runs

Buttler                  -13 runs

Kohli                     -13.7 runs

Taide-                   -13.7 runs 

Lomror                 -13.8 runs

Rohit-                   -15.4 runs

Saha-                   -15.6 runs

Krunal-                 -16.8 runs

Rahul-                  -19.5 runs

Miller-                  -20 runs

Jagdheesan        -21.6 runs

Brook                   -23.2 runs

Karthik-                -23.2 runs

Sarfraz-               -23.4 runs

Curran-                -24.5 runs

Hooda-                -26.3 runs

Markram-             -30.8 runs

Jadeja-                -33.7 runs

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Chakdephatte

[zen]

Every run is important in a T20 game. One only needs to "watch" the game to see the "benefits". 

 

Rituraj-Convey open for CSK. If someone is telling me that Rituraj's runs are more "whatever" than Convey's, I don't know what to say. 

 

One of the few games that SRH has won is due to Brook's 100. 

 

 

 

[raki05]

Nice thread based on stats….. but some stats guru wont like it as its exposing there messihah.

[Chakdephatte]

2 hours ago, zen said:

Rituraj-Convey open for CSK. If someone is telling me that Rituraj's runs are more "whatever" than Convey's, I don't know what to say. 

 

Why are you triggered? This is not my view. It's data collected from the oldest company in the game.

 

Rather than pointing out one or two inaccuracies, come up with a better system. And LOL! at Harry Brook analogy. 1 out of 8 performances.

[zen]

17 minutes ago, Chakdephatte said:

 

Why are you triggered? This is not my view. It's data collected from the oldest company in the game.

 

Rather than pointing out one or two inaccuracies, come up with a better system. And LOL! at Harry Brook analogy. 1 out of 8 performances.

I am saying that this is a pointless exercise (use of such data). 
 

Prabhsimran is +33, while a Convey, who has won CSK a few games, is negative. Even Curran who won PK a game is in the negative. 
 

KKR depends a lot on Russell but with the bat he has failed when it mattered for KKR (but he is in the positive). 
 

Lots of question marks (and the assumption could be that every team plays its cricket similarly and on standard surfaces). I don’t know why anyone would waste his time on this! 

Edited May 1 by zen

[Chakdephatte]

19 minutes ago, zen said:

Prabhsimran is +33, while a Convey, who has won CSK a few games, is negative. Even Curran who won PK a game is in the negative. 

 

KKR depends a lot on Russell but with the bat he has failed when it mattered for KKR (but he is in the positive). 

Not long ago, you were talking about a new criteria for orange cap. And here you are pointing out random inaccuracies in data when I tried to find something new.

 

Performance over the season matters more than one or two memorable innings.

Edited May 1 by Chakdephatte

[zen]

9 minutes ago, Chakdephatte said:

 

So whoever recently won a match is better for you? Shouldn't it be overall performance than one or two memorable innings?

 

Conway's 8 off 16 impacted this hugely, Curran has a poor strike at that position, Brook failed in 7 out of 8 games but you point out just one or two "match-winning innings" and think that's a valid point.

Cricket does NOT work in that way. Unless every player plays in similar situation, in standard conditions and against standard bowlers. And if every team plays in a similar fashion (they don’t as some rely on batting, some on bowling, and some on both).

Convey could have a 8 off 16 as he could have faced a good spell. Curran’s SR depends upon various factors including having to rebuild in case of early wickets (and that has happened to PK). Brook has won his team 1/3 of the games that SRH has won so far and one almost single handedly and is only in his first season (if a player wins 1-3 games on his own, that itself is a positive). 

 

 

 

[Chakdephatte]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

Cricket does NOT work in that way. Unless every player plays in similar situation, in standard conditions and against standard bowlers. And if every team plays in a similar fashion (they don’t as some rely on batting, some on bowling, and some on both).

Convey could have a 8 off 16 as he could have faced a good spell. Curran’s SR depends upon various factors including having to rebuild in case of early wickets (and that has happened to PK). Brook has won his team 1/3 of the games that SRH has won so far and one almost single handedly and is only in his first season (if a player wins 1-3 games on his own, that itself is a positive).

 

And why are you excluding his failures. Is it okay to fail 7/8 out of 9 matches and still call it impactful because he won it. Every failure carries a negative rating.

 

 

Here are Brook's poor innings-

 

13(21), 3(4), 13(14), 9(7), 7(14), 0(2)

 

So you are claiming his one innings outweigh all these bad innings.

 

 

Here are Curran's poor innings-

22(22), 1*(2), 6(6), 10(12),

His positive innings-

55(29), 21(11) 

 

Remaining two were average innings. Rightly negative runs.

 

[zen]

32 minutes ago, Chakdephatte said:

 

And why are you excluding his failures. Is it okay to fail 7/8 out of 9 matches and still call it impactful because he won it. Every failure carries a negative rating.

 

 

Here are Brook's poor innings-

 

13(21), 3(4), 13(14), 9(7), 7(14), 0(2)

 

So you are claiming his one innings outweigh all these bad innings.

 

 

Here are Curran's poor innings-

22(22), 1*(2), 6(6), 10(12),

His positive innings-

55(29), 21(11) 

 

Remaining two were average innings. Rightly negative runs.

 

 

Because it depends on the team and the situation. 

 

For Brooks, SRH is relatively a weak team so getting a win for it is a bonus. He can argue that if some of the others had played innings like his, SRH could have won more games. He is in his first season in IPL and also moved around the batting order. 

 

Curran bats at various positions and faces different situations. So one cannot determine his value based on such stats alone. He also performs with the ball and has been a captain in a few games too. In the 6(6) game v LSG at Lucknow, he picked up 3 wickets to help restrict LSG and help win his team the game. Curran came in at 75/4 and had a partnership of 37 with Raza. 

 

 

 

Edited May 1 by zen

[Chakdephatte]

5 hours ago, zen said:

 

Because it depends on the team and the situation. 

 

 

All this is considered while calculating RAA. Come up with better reason.

[zen]

Just now, Chakdephatte said:

 

All this is considered while calculating RAA. Come up with better reason.

A pointless exercise.  

[Chakdephatte]

5 hours ago, zen said:

For Brooks, SRH is relatively a weak team so getting a win for it is a bonus. He can argue that if some of the others had played innings like his, SRH could have won more games. He is in his first season in IPL and also moved around the batting order. 

 

 

Weak team? Then why Warner is having a positive impact. Even Rana? Or Venkatesh Iyer? Or Russell? Or SKY, Green?

 

5 hours ago, zen said:

 

He also performs with the ball and has been a captain in a few games too. In the 6(6) game v LSG at Lucknow, he picked up 3 wickets to help restrict LSG and help win his team the game. Curran came in at 75/4 and had a partnership of 37 with Raza. 

Irrelevant. Bowling impact is different thing. Captaincy doesn't the player's performance. 

5 hours ago, zen said:

Curran bats at various positions and faces different situations. So one cannot determine his value based on such stats alone.

 

It doesn't use any numbers.

Edited May 2 by Chakdephatte

[zen]

52 minutes ago, Chakdephatte said:

 

Weak team? Then why Warner is having a positive impact. Even Rana? Or Venkatesh Iyer? Or Russell? Or SKY, Green?

 

 

Warner has NOT had any major impact so far. He has been the top scorer in many of his team innings but criticized for his approach (though I think there is not much he could have done considering the rest of the lineup but that is a different matter). 

 

Russell too has NOT had any major impact so far (with the bat). 

 

Not many will say that Convey hasn't had an impact. Dube too has been impactful for CSK. 

 

As for Brook, as mentioned, for a young player playing his first season and being shuffled around the order, he has won SRH a game with a 100. 

 

 

Quote

Irrelevant. Bowling impact is different thing. Captaincy doesn't the player's performance. 

 

The point is that a player performs in multiple ways where even 6(6) can be relatively useful (clearly mentioned 75/4) considering its incremental value. 

 

 

 

Edited May 2 by zen

[Chakdephatte]

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

The point is that a player performs in multiple ways where even 6(6) can be relatively useful (clearly mentioned 75/4) considering its incremental value. 

 

 

 

Please mention which such innings. Don't keep imagining. If Curran has one such innings, it is counted as a success by the method. And if he has one pressure innings doesn't mean other innings are good.

Edited May 2 by Chakdephatte

[Chakdephatte]

1 hour ago, zen said:

Warner has NOT had any major impact so far.

Yes he does not have.

 

1 hour ago, zen said:

 (though I think there is not much he could have done considering the rest of the lineup but that is a different matter). 

 

So why are you arguing.

[zen]

1 minute ago, Chakdephatte said:

 

Please mention which such innings. Don't keep imagining. If Curran has one such innings, it is counted as a success by the method.

 

Below is what you wrote:

 

Here are Curran's poor innings-

22(22), 1*(2), 6(6), 10(12),

His positive innings-

55(29), 21(11) 

 

You appear to know nothing about the method. STOP THE BS. 

[zen]

Just now, Chakdephatte said:

Yes he does not have.

 

 

So why are you arguing.

 

Below is what you wrote: "Then why Warner is having a positive impact." 

 

Why waste your time on such pointless stuff when you yourself don't have a clue

 

 

 

 

[Chakdephatte]

13 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Below is what you wrote: "Then why Warner is having a positive impact." 

 

 

LOL! You contradicted yourself in two lines.

 

I said the right. He has positive impact. But that's not significantly high and that's why he is not in my top 20 batsmen I mentioned.

 

17 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Below is what you wrote:

 

Here are Curran's poor innings-

22(22), 1*(2), 6(6), 10(12),

His positive innings-

55(29), 21(11) 

 

 

Prove that these are not poor innings. You still haven't shown any scorecard.

 

Show something. Don't imagine.

What happened in that match.

 

 

Forget about Curran, your post on Ruturaj doesn't have any basis and is based on just 'vibes'.