Batsman's Contribution to Team

[Nirvanam]

Folks, this is what I'll be doing next...pls give me your thoughts. I am starting a project on analyzing the contribution made by the 16 ATG batsmen (refer Virtuoso analysis for the 16) to their team cause, in terms of runs. So before you get ready with your knives of how Rahul's playing out time is a great contribution, I have specified that it is in terms of runs....lol. The current thought process is that, the performance is categorized as Significant Supportive and Incidental (ignore this coz this does not get included in the analysis). The analysis follows the following course - 1. Calculate the typical contribution made by top 1-6 of a team (comes to around 80%) 2. Calculate typical contribution "desired" from each of the top 6 - 80 / 5 = 16% 3. Determine, match by match what is the actual percentage of runs scored by the batsman 4. If runs >= 16% the batsman has at least done his job therefore it is a supportive performance. 5. Need your input here - If runs is twice the usual, then it is a significant performance i.e. runs >= 32%. I also thought of keeping significant as 25% (one man has done quarter of the job) Another input needed is on point 1 - should we consider contribution for all Tests since 1908 (Hobbs' debut) as one metric or should we consider the Tests that were played only during the time the player played. So for Gavva, his typical contribution would be calculated based on the typical contribution seen in Tests played between 1 Jan 1971 to 30 Apr 1987. And accordingly his supportive percentage can become 16.5 or 13 or whatever. Just a note...the runs scored in different ages don't matter. We are concerned about percentage of runs scored by the top order. So in Hobbs time if the typical runs scored was 250 compared to 400 now...iot doesn't matter. Because the contribution of Top Order would be about 200 in 250 = 80% for Hobbs, and say 300 in 400 in Pawning's time which is about 75%...we are concerned with the percentage not the actual runs. However, just a heads up...I see the difference across ages is in a band between 77 to 82...not much diff so we can standardize it to 80...Your thoughts, pls Finally, the points are calculated as Contribution Points = 1*Ratio of Significant Performances + 0.5* Ratio of Supportive Performances

[Nirvanam]

Guys, request your thoughts...pls...we can make it a kinda ICF project with your inputs.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Nirvanam]

Shouldnt this be 80/6 = 13.33% ?

O yes yes yes!

If you agree to the above point then significant would be >= 26.66 or round it to 27%

So should we keep it at 26.67% (or 27) or shall we go with the "quarter of team" logic and choose 25%?

Dont quite understand this point. Pls Elaborate.

OK, if we consider all tests played between 06 March 1971 to 13 March 1987 (Gavaskar's tenure) the percentage of runs made by the top order of 1 to 6 is 77.51%. Similarly, if I consider all Tests between 24 Dec 1927 to 21 March 1947 (Hammond's tenure) the percentage is 79.4%. So the question is should we make it as relevant as possible and go by the particular batsman's tenure or just take 80% as the number for all of them. Incidentally the range is between 75.8 and 79.99. Right now my mind says, I should choose based on player's tenure.

Question : What happens when a team declares at say 200/2 ? Batsmen batting at 5 and 6 will be at a disadvantage because they have no say. My intuition says that lower middle order batsmen will be generally at a disadvantage in this sort of calculation.

We can't do anything over exceptions...the goal of the project is to analyze the typical. Also, over a period of the entire career all the 16 ATG batsmen have batted at the Top Order for most of their careers. All of them follow the typical route...come in at the late MO during their debuts, and rise up to the top MO for most of their career and in few cases go back to 5/6 during the latter stages of their careers. It'll even out...anyway, the idea is to ensure we focus on the typical rather than the exceptions and resist from allowing the exceptions to rule the roost.