What should be the multiplier for '90s batsmen scores and averages?

[wajid]

Ok. So this is controversial. I agree that current lot of batsmen are not responsible for higher quality of bowling in 90s and earlier. But when you change the rules of the game then something needs to be done.

Recently heard an interview of Shahda ugra with Amit Verma in which she was recounting an interview by her of Tendulkar. Sachin was lamenting all those lost runs that he might and should have been able to score for all these new rules of power play and 2 balls. He believed he could have doubled his productivity every time he managed to get the ball outside of 30 yards circle etc etc. Apparently many other batsmen of 90s agree.

So what should be the multiplier for them in comparisons with current batsmen? I suggest at least 1.5?

 

[ElRaja]

average and strike rate in
90s: 29.28, 4.58
00s: 30.00, 4.89
10s: 31.24, 5.24

ave in 10s is about 6.5% higher, so just use that. So thats like 3 runs diff for a top tier batsmen (4 if we are being extra kind).

the real diff in averages now is primarily because a lot of teams just dont care about bilateral odis like they used to in the 90s, and with the need to stay fit for t20 leagues high quality bowlers are more likely to request to be rested than high quality batsmen.

the real diff is strike rates, nearly 15%. the big hitters in the 90s had a fair larger impact than there counterparts in the modern game.

 

[therealAB]

See [MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION] post. x1.5 is ridiculous when the averages increased nothing like this into the next decade. That is giving Bevan an average of 80

SR's need a serious adjustment though. Viv's (who should get a much bigger boost than a 90's batsman) 47/90 could go to 52/115 kind of stuff --> clearly the best ever

 

[ElRaja]

See [MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION] post. x1.5 is ridiculous when the averages increased nothing like this into the next decade. That is giving Bevan an average of 80

SR's need a serious adjustment though. Viv's (who should get a much bigger boost than a 90's batsman) 47/90 could go to 52/115 kind of stuff --> clearly the best ever

also bevan's an excellent example of why this kind of comparision eventually fails, bevan was an excellent finisher in an era where 260, 270 was a good score, however he lacked the power game to have had the same impact in this era imo. he would still have been a very good player, but not consistently be considered the best year on year as he was in the late 90s.

 

[AMSS]

Taking batting average decade wise won't help when it comes to making case for an individual batsman. Especially when you are making a case for the outlier batsmen who are separated from the rest of the pack.

The outlier batsmen in any decade are an exception so it's best to treat them as such instead of lumping their numbers with the rest of batsmen including the tailenders.

Lump the outliers/exceptions from each decade and compare their numbers, both average and SR.

 

[AMSS]

Without going into numbers, the two new balls and restriction on number of fieldsmen outside the inner circle has eliminated reverse from ODIs. But more than the quicks, these two changes have completely neutered the spinners. The balls stay easier to sight till the end and offer value for shots because they stay hard.

For the elite among the elite batsmen, all of the above means massive advantage in aggregate career numbers. Conservatively, I'd say a spike of 15-20 percent in terms of both average and SR.

 

[Ab Fan]

Below are the averages/SR of some top batsman if they debuted in 2008 and played 12 years of cricket in the same era as Kohli.

Viv AVG 55, S/R 110
Tendulkar AVG 54, S/R 95
Ponting AVG 52, S/R 90
ABD AVG 55, S/R 103
Kohli AVG 59, S/R 91
Rohit AVG 49, S/R 92

However, averages and strike rates are not everything. Runs also matters. Tendulkar and Kohli with 15000+ runs will always be superior to players who have less than 10K runs unless the average/strike rate combo difference is quite big.

 

[gazza619]

There are just so many complexities. I rather leave the numbers as they are.

 

[Bhaijaan]

There are just so many complexities. I rather leave the numbers as they are.

Basically this.

You only have to contextualise numbers rather than adjust them.