A look at the best ODI performances and careers with a fresh metric - the HSI December 28, 2013

# HSI - A new and exciting measure for ODIs

An analysis to identify the best ODI innings and careers with a new metric - HSI
38

The Tendulkar brace (article 1 and article 2) was a tough pair for me. Not only did I have to put in a lot of effort, but had to face a barrage of (often unjustified) criticism from fans of the great cricketer, who did not want to see any analyses that did not sing unrestrained praise. However, one good metric came out through these two articles as a very valuable one for measuring player contributions. I had presented a raw version of the HSI (High Score Index). This metric found support from many readers and I had promised that I would develop HSI as an independent measure after incorporating tweaks from many readers. This is the first attempt at that. In this article I have covered the ODI game: an easier one to start with because of the single-innings format.

The tweaks suggested can be summarised as below.

- Extend the concept to all innings, not just the top two scores.
- Incorporate the team score into the computations.
- Avoid the very high range of numbers in the early version: the HSI for an innings went as high as 11.4.
- Look at how the players have performed in various classifications, with HSI as the key measure.
- Look at the possibility of using a GM (geometric mean) rather than AM (arithmetic mean) because of the significant variations.

I have given below a few typical cases to bring out the nature of the problems.

```Score Hs1 Hs2  Expectations

200  100  30  Hs1 high,       Hs2 low.
200  100  50  Hs1 above-avge, Hs2 avge.
200  100  90  Hs1 medium.     Hs2 medium.
200   50  50  Hs1 avge.       Hs2 avge.
300  100  50  Hs1 above-avge. Hs2 low.
300  100  90  Hs1 medium.     Hs2 medium.
300   50  40  Hs1 low.        Hs2 low.```

A 100 as the top score does not provide enough information by itself. It could be out of a team score of 200 or 300. It could be supported by an innings close to 100, by a 50 or by a 25. It could be part of 200 for 1 or 200 all out. Most of the alternatives have been given above and the expectations have been given on the right. Everything is self-explanatory. I have explained the final methodology below.

The HSI is a measure of two components for the innings top score. The batsman stands alone at the top and his contribution gets enhanced depending on the support received. On the other hand the second-placed scorer has had the support of a higher-scoring batsman. So it is sufficient to take his and other lower scoring batsmen's contributions based on the team score. With this background let me show the working.

Top batsman HSI = Hs1/Team score x HSI/Hs2. This incorporates both components.
Other batsmen HSI = Batsman score/Team score.

I worked out that there is no need to multiply the lower scores by Score/Hs1. That would lower the values too much. An Hs1 of 100 and Hs2 of 90 (out of 200) would end up with Hs1 well over 25% higher than Hs2, which is incorrect.

Now let us see all the values and check whether the expectations are met.

```Case 1: 200-100-30. Work: 100/200=0.5, 100/30=3.33
HSI for Hs1: 0.5*3.33=1.667
HSI for Hs2: 30/200=0.15
Case 2: 200-100-50. Work: 100/200=0.5, 100/50=2.0
HSI for Hs1: 0.5*2.0=1.0
HSI for Hs2: 50/200=0.25
Case 3: 200-100-90. Work: 100/200=0.5, 100/90=1.11
HSI for Hs1: 0.5*1.11=0.55
HSI for Hs2: 90/200=0.45
Case 4: 200-50-50.  Work:  50/200=0.25, 50/50=1.0
HSI for Hs1: 0.25*1.0=0.25
HSI for Hs2: 50/200=0.25
Case 5: 300-100-50. Work: 100/300=0.333, 100/50=2.0
HSI for Hs1: 0.333*2.00=0.667
HSI for Hs2: 50/300=0.1667
Case 6: 300-100-90. Work: 100/300=0.333, 100/90=1.11
HSI for Hs1: 0.333*1.11=0.367
HSI for Hs2: 90/300=0.300
Case 7: 300-50-40.  Work:  50/300=0.167, 50/40=1.25
HSI for Hs1: 0.167*1.25=0.208
HSI for Hs2: 40/300=0.1667```

I have checked each HSI value and confirmed that it meets the expectations. Hence I will not go any further in depth. Readers can verify these numbers themselves. I also do a minor tweak for result matches where lower than 100 runs were chased down. Of course any unfinished innings below 100, in a no result match, is not considered.

Now that the HSI for every innings has been determined, let us move into the many tables I have created. The first is the basic table of the HSI value itself. I have shown the top 25 HSI values. There is a downloadable Excel file that contains the 24,000 innings which have HSI values greater than or equal to 0.1. Please download and peruse it before asking about specific innings or player.

Readers should remember that these calculations are scorecard-based, non-contextual and within a team. MS Dhoni's 65 out of 188, with Hs2 being 31, fetches an HSI of 0.724. Quinton de Kock's 135 out of 351, with Hs2 being 77, gets an HSI of 0.674. It does not mean that Dhoni's innings was better or match-winning. It only means that Dhoni contributed more to his team's cause. The result is immaterial. The key word is "contribution". All comparisons, within a match, should only be within a specific team innings. What is important is that Dhoni gets 0.724 and Kohli, 0.164. de Kock gets 0.674 and AB de Villiers, 0.218. Please make sure that this point is clearly understood.

An unambiguous note on the cut-off. I have selected 3000 ODI runs as the cut-off for the main table. There are 127 batsmen that qualify. Only one of these batsmen, Wasim Akram, has an average below 20.0 and I have decided not to exclude him. This cut-off has been determined on the assumption that a very good batsman would need around 100 matches to cross 3000 runs. In fact only 60 batsmen have reached this landmark in 100 matches. David Gower, Mahela Jayawardene, Kumar Sangakkara, Stephen Fleming, Richie Richardson et al needed more. Once this stiff cut-off is set, all players are considered equal. Afterwards I am not going to say one batsman played in only so many matches and another played in many more matches and so on. The players have met the criterion set and that is it.

For the other 12 tables, there are varying cut-off points. In general, 50 innings has been used as the minimum for qualification. However, readers should note that to qualify for the later tables only the appropriate cut-off is needed. In other words, Sunil Gavaskar would qualify for the "BatPos 1-2-3" table even though he has scored only 2651 career runs. Brad Haddin would qualify for the "Wins" table even though he has scored only 2692 career runs. Clive Lloyd would qualify for "BatPos 4-5-6-7" table even though he has scored only 1977 career runs. And so on.

After getting the HSI values I evaluated on the need to do an alternate mean-evaluation. I decided that it is not necessary to use GM and used AM itself since the distribution pattern revealed a few important facts. The top entry is at 9.9, the next one at 6.7, the third one at 5.2, the fourth one at 5.02 and the fifth one is at 4.2. See how steeply the values drop: less that 50% value for the fifth entry. So there is really a single outlier: Brendon McCullum's innings, which is from the Twilight Zone. I did not want to be influenced by this single performance. Andrew Jones could also be considered as an outlier. After this, normalcy returns. Also the values, 5.24 to 0.0, are already in some form of logarithmic representation, representing 400 to 1.

A few important facts on HSI.

1. The highest HSI value is 9.983 for McCullum's 80 out of 87(+8) for 0, with the next highest score being How's 7.
2. Two great 100s: Viv Richards' 189* and Kapil Dev's 175* are in third and fourth position in the HSI table. The key numbers for Richards are 189 out of 262, followed by 26. For Kapil, 175 out of 254, followed by 24. Two almost identical innings. And Shane Watson's 185 is placed sixth. Great credentials for this table indeed.
3. The lowest HSI value for an Hs1 innings is in match #257. New Zealand scored 116. Richard Hadlee and Derek Stirling were joint top scorers with 13 runs each. Their HSI value was a mere 0.126.
4. The highest HSI value for an Hs2 innings is for Jesse Ryder. In match #2677, New Zealand were chasing 158 and finished at 165 for 0. Ryder scored 79 and McCullum, 80. Ryder's HSI was 0.496 and McCullum's, 0.509.
5. The lowest HSI value for an Hs2 innings is for Martin Crowe's 5 runs in match #629. Crowe's HSI value is 0.075.
6. The highest HSI value for a non-Hs1-Hs2 innings was for Herschelle Gibbs in match 1760. This was a funny innings. South Africa was chasing 229 and scored 230 for 1. Lance Klusener top-scored with 75 (HSI 0.347), Boeta Dippenaar followed with 74 (0.337) and Gibbs' scored 70. His HSI was 0.319.
7. 969 HSI values are 1.0 and above. This represents 1.6% of the total.
8. 3329 HSI values are 0.5 and above. This represents 5.6% of the total.
9. 35548 HSI values are below 0.10. This represents 59.6% of the total.
10.The average Hs1 for 6736 team innings is 71.3. The average Hs2 for these innings is 46.3. The ratio is 1.57. However, the average of ratios taken at innings level is 1.65 which is the more relevant figure.
11.The average HSI value for the 59655 innings is 0.144. This average will also let us take a stand on career averages of HSI. Maybe 0.22 would an excellent career average.

Now for the multiple HSI tables based on various selection criteria. This was one of the main objectives of this exercise. For most tables I have shown the top 30/25 players. Needless to say (or more appropriately, needs to be said) that the complete set of entries is available in the downloadable file with 13 tables. Please make an attempt to answer your question by downloading that file before asking me. Since this is one of the longest articles I have ever penned, I will only provide minimal comments.

1. Innings with high HSI values: Top 30 innings
HSIMatch IdInnsBatPosTeam ScoreBatsmanScoreHs2
9.9832660 2 2 95 for 0 BB McCullum 80 7
6.693 629 1 3 74 for 10 AH Jones 47 5
5.243 264 1 4 272 for 9 IVA Richards189 26
5.023 216 1 6 266 for 8 N Kapil Dev175 24
4.2722828 2 1 117 for 2 CH Gayle 80 14
4.0213150 2 1 232 for 1 SR Watson185 37
3.5843407 2 1 70 for 1 SJ Myburgh 52 8
3.4482873 1 3 312 for 8 CK Coventry194 37
3.4233042 1 1 325 for 8 PR Stirling177 30
3.4131963 1 2 202 for 10 JM Davison111 19
3.4001709 2 4 131 for 3 Inzamam-ul-Haq 85 17
3.3601571 1 2 191 for 10 DR Martyn116 22
3.3282985 1 1 118 for 10 H Masakadza 62 11
3.261 636 1 1 196 for 8 Saeed Anwar101 17
3.249 15 2 3 84 for 2 Zaheer Abbas 57 12
3.205 6 2 2 159 for 3 DL Amiss100 20
3.1161933 2 2 200 for 9 V Sehwag112 23
3.0631209 1 1 327 for 5 Saeed Anwar194 39
3.0341528 1 5 213 for 10 RP Arnold103 19
3.0212859 2 2 187 for 10 Rizwan Cheema 94 17
3.0152514 1 2 102 for 3 ST Jayasuriya 63 14
3.002 831 1 3 277 for 5 RA Smith167 36
2.9712290 2 3 303 for 4 MS Dhoni183 39
2.960 168 1 3 267 for 6 DI Gower158 34
2.9581944 2 4 225 for 10 SB Styris141 32
2.895 747 2 2 167 for 3 Rameez Raja119 30
2.8662964 1 1 228 for 10 Tamim Iqbal125 25
2.8251582 2 2 101 for 10 HH Gibbs 59 14
2.814 620 2 3 164 for 2 DM Jones102 24
2.800 544 1 4 140 for 9 Javed Miandad 63 13

It is safe to say that McCullum's innings is a true outlier. Chasing 95, scoring 80 (in 28 balls) out of 95, reaching the target in about six overs, allowing Jamie How to score 7: well, it does happen, but once every 40 years. Only the 100-run tweak kept this to below 10.0. Jones' innings was a more acceptable instance of domination. He scored 47 out of 74 with Crowe's 5 being the next highest score. Not as much of an outlier as McCullum's, but out of the ordinary.

Now we get to two all-time classics: in my opinion, seconded by many, the two greatest ODI innings ever played. No comparisons can ever be made of the higher scores on flat-belters with these classics in bowler-friendly conditions. I place the 189* higher only because of the quality of England bowling attack: Bob Willis, Ian Botham, Neil Foster and Derek Pringle. Richards came in at 5 for 1, saw the score slump to 102 for 7, scored 189 out of 272. The next highest score was Eldine Baptiste's 26, and Richards added 106 for the last wicket with Michael Holding, who scored 12. This was not in front of a super-charged crowd nor was it a television spectacle. It was total domination by an undisputed colossus. If there is an innings better than this, I am waiting to hear of the same, and will probably wait forever. This carries an HSI value of 5.243. I think HSI values of 5.0 are for once-in-a-lifetime performances.

Kapil's 175* (HSI 5.023) stands second only because there is a slightly better 5.xx innings ahead. Kapil came in at 9 for 4, saw the score at 17 for 5, scored 175 out of 266, including an unbroken stand of 126 with Syed Kirmani, who had the next best score of 24, Kapil played the innings of his life and those of million other lives. The similarities between the two innings are startling. That these two innings are third and fourth confirms to me the validity of HSI. If either of these innings had gone out of the top five, I might have had frowns on my forehead.

This table of 30 hosts a number of all-time classics: Richards' 189, Kapil's 175, Watson's explosive 185 (out of 232), the lesser-known masterpieces of Charles Coventry and Paul Stirling, Saeed Anwar's 194, David Gower's majestic 158, Scott Styris' all-time-classic 141 and so on. Barring minor personal preferences this is a table of many ODI classics.

2. All matches - Minimum 3000 runs
BatsmanCareerRunsBatAvgeQualifying InnsWinsHSI-TotalHSIHSI gt 1.0%HSI gt 0.25%
IVA Richards 672147.00167114 51.9 0.311 10 6.0% 6136.5%
CG Greenidge 513445.04126 89 38.1 0.302 8 6.3% 4737.3%
HM Amla 404153.88 80 52 23.8 0.297 3 3.8% 2936.2%
SR Tendulkar1842644.83446231 130.7 0.293 32 7.2%14632.7%
DL Haynes 864841.38236159 68.5 0.290 17 7.2% 8134.3%
V Kohli 515451.54118 73 33.6 0.285 6 5.1% 4235.6%
CH Gayle 874337.52246103 69.0 0.281 16 6.5% 6325.6%
MD Crowe 470438.56140 60 38.1 0.272 5 3.6% 4935.0%
DM Jones 606844.62161 96 43.2 0.269 5 3.1% 4729.2%
BC Lara1040540.49289134 77.5 0.268 17 5.9% 9131.5%
Javed Miandad 738141.70216107 57.9 0.268 10 4.6% 6931.9%
Saeed Anwar 882439.22241139 64.3 0.267 12 5.0% 6928.6%
GR Marsh 435739.97115 74 30.5 0.266 5 4.3% 3127.0%
NV Knight 363740.41 99 45 26.2 0.265 3 3.0% 2929.3%
GA Gooch 429036.98120 64 31.7 0.264 8 6.7% 3630.0%
ME Trescothick 433537.37118 53 30.8 0.261 7 5.9% 3328.0%
NJ Astle 709034.93215 92 54.0 0.251 13 6.0% 6027.9%
AJ Lamb 401039.31118 62 29.3 0.248 6 5.1% 3832.2%
NS Sidhu 441337.08126 66 31.1 0.247 6 4.8% 3830.2%
Tamim Iqbal 370230.10124 45 30.5 0.246 6 4.8% 3326.6%
ML Hayden 613343.81153114 37.7 0.246 5 3.3% 4529.4%
S Chanderpaul 877841.60250 99 61.3 0.245 9 3.6% 6927.6%
G Kirsten 679840.95183120 44.5 0.243 8 4.4% 5630.6%
SO Tikolo 342028.98129 37 31.3 0.243 5 3.9% 3426.4%
JH Kallis1157444.86307196 74.0 0.241 14 4.6% 9932.2%
SC Ganguly1136341.02299147 72.0 0.241 13 4.3% 8428.1%
KC Sangakkara1194840.23332175 78.6 0.237 14 4.2% 9628.9%
HH Gibbs 809436.13237148 55.5 0.234 9 3.8% 5924.9%
BRM Taylor 441433.69144 33 33.6 0.233 7 4.9% 3524.3%
GA Hick 384637.34118 57 27.4 0.232 3 2.5% 3731.4%

This is the most important table since it measures the HSI across the career. It can be seen that the numbers are at a different magnitude from the article on Sachin Tendulkar's ODI career, since I now measure all innings and have incorporated the team scores. Richards is comfortably ahead with a career HSI average of 0.311. This is confirmed by an average of 47+ and a win percentage around 70. Gordon Greenidge follows with 0.302, the only other batsman with an HSI value exceeding 0.3. Hashim Amla follows next close behind with 0.297. Even if Amla maintains 80% of his 80-match form in the next 80 matches, he may be in a similar position. Now comes Tendulkar: 446 innings, just over 50% wins, an average of 44.83 and an HSI of 0.293. Numbers depicting a magnificent career, embellished by the huge number of matches played and spread over 23 years. This top quintet is rounded off by Desmond Haynes. Look at the top 11 players in this table. The other six are Virat Kohli, Chris Gayle, Crowe, Dean Jones, Brian Lara and Javed Miandad. These, plus Ricky Ponting, are arguably the best 12 ODI batsmen ever, the Dazzling Dozen. Thus the importance of this measure is established once and for all. The relative positioning is immaterial.

3. Batting Positions 1-3 - Minimum 50 innings
BatsmanQualifying InnsWinsRunsRuns per InnsHSI-TotalHSI
IVA Richards 51 41 2418 47.41 18.2 0.356
BC Lara158 81 6613 41.85 52.1 0.330
SR Tendulkar34417815340 44.59 112.1 0.326
CG Greenidge119 85 4985 41.89 37.4 0.314
S Chanderpaul104 47 4228 40.65 32.6 0.314
V Kohli 84 53 3656 43.52 25.5 0.304
HM Amla 80 52 4038 50.48 23.8 0.297
CH Gayle228 98 8402 36.85 67.7 0.297
RA Smith 53 23 2027 38.25 15.6 0.294
GA Gooch 98 52 3821 38.99 28.6 0.292
AH Jones 76 35 2382 31.34 22.1 0.291
DL Haynes236159 8644 36.63 68.5 0.290
BB McCullum 95 47 2923 30.77 27.4 0.289
DM Jones133 80 5192 39.04 37.9 0.285
BRM Taylor 75 16 2345 31.27 21.2 0.282
WJ Cronje 52 27 1905 36.63 14.4 0.276
Saeed Anwar229135 8562 37.39 62.0 0.271
GR Marsh115 74 4357 37.89 30.5 0.266
KC Sangakkara213111 8297 38.95 56.4 0.265
NV Knight 99 45 3620 36.57 26.2 0.265
IJL Trott 62 34 2751 44.37 16.4 0.265
ME Trescothick118 53 4297 36.42 30.8 0.261
NS Sidhu117 63 4266 36.46 30.4 0.260
ME Waugh175111 6926 39.58 45.4 0.259
NJ Astle206 91 6929 33.64 53.3 0.259
SR Watson111 73 4500 40.54 28.4 0.256
SC Ganguly26713610611 39.74 68.2 0.255
JH Kallis200128 7870 39.35 50.6 0.253
GA Hick 61 30 2230 36.56 15.3 0.252
AN Cook 70 37 2667 38.10 17.5 0.250

Richards batted at the No. 3 spot just enough to qualify: 51 innings, an amazing 80+% wins, an RpI value of 47+ and an HSI value of 0.356. Lara is next having spent well over 50% of his career in these pivotal positions. Tendulkar follows just behind, but with a lot more matches. Then Greenidge and, surprisingly, Shivnarine Chanderpaul. Four of the top five players are West Indians of two different generations. In the next two positions are the two current giants.

4. Batting Positions 4-7 - Minimum 50 innings
BatsmanQualifying InnsWinsRunsRuns per InnsHSI-TotalHSI
MD Crowe 60 32 2118 35.30 18.7 0.311
IVA Richards115 73 4298 37.37 33.7 0.293
Javed Miandad194 91 6560 33.81 52.4 0.270
SO Tikolo 91 27 2437 26.78 23.7 0.261
LRPL Taylor 85 33 3147 37.02 20.8 0.244
PA de Silva240103 7947 33.11 58.7 0.244
AB de Villiers105 67 4635 44.14 25.0 0.238
KP Pietersen 83 31 3162 38.10 19.3 0.232
Shakib Al Hasan124 51 3688 29.74 28.5 0.229
RG Twose 72 28 2496 34.67 15.9 0.221
JH Kallis106 68 3669 34.61 23.4 0.221
GP Thorpe 75 36 2332 31.09 16.3 0.217
MG Bevan191118 6775 35.47 40.4 0.211
RR Sarwan 82 39 3096 37.76 17.3 0.211
A Flower137 41 4527 33.04 28.9 0.211
GA Hick 57 27 1616 28.35 12.0 0.211
AJ Lamb106 56 3388 31.96 22.2 0.209
Inzamam-ul-Haq275149 9187 33.41 57.5 0.209
A Ranatunga247 98 7302 29.56 51.5 0.209
SB Styris139 72 4156 29.90 28.7 0.206
Misbah-ul-Haq123 71 4234 34.42 24.9 0.203
A Flintoff111 50 3229 29.09 22.1 0.199
S Chanderpaul145 52 4539 31.30 28.7 0.198
Mohammad Yousuf228122 7678 33.68 43.9 0.193
BC Lara130 53 3752 28.86 25.0 0.192
DB Vengsarkar 78 36 2302 29.51 14.9 0.191
M Azharuddin239106 7295 30.52 45.7 0.191
KC Sangakkara117 64 3646 31.16 22.2 0.190
Yuvraj Singh250140 7911 31.64 46.0 0.184
SR Tendulkar102 53 3024 29.65 18.6 0.183

Crowe has stolen the thunder from Richards in the Nos. 4 to 7 positions table. The generally lower HSI values, all barring one below 0.3, indicate the difficulty of making significant contributions when batting in the middle order. Richards maintains his win percentage value which is around two-thirds. That master of the middle order batting, Miandad appears next. Steve Tikolo, the only world-class batsman Kenya produced, is a well-deserved presence in this table. Ross Taylor rounds off the top five.

5. First inns - Minimum 50 innings
BatsmanQualifying InnsWinsRunsRuns per InnsHSI-TotalHSI
IVA Richards 80 56 3711 46.39 26.9 0.336
DL Haynes 99 68 4267 43.10 31.5 0.318
GR Marsh 65 47 2795 43.00 18.9 0.291
NV Knight 51 25 2061 40.41 14.8 0.291
DI Gower 56 25 1922 34.32 16.2 0.290
GA Gooch 61 31 2284 37.44 16.6 0.272
NJ Astle114 44 4060 35.61 30.9 0.271
SR Tendulkar218107 9693 44.46 58.8 0.270
DM Jones 96 64 4108 42.79 25.8 0.269
Javed Miandad125 62 4335 34.68 33.1 0.265
H Masakadza 62 15 1975 31.85 15.7 0.253
MD Crowe 74 28 2422 32.73 18.6 0.252
BC Lara132 56 4980 37.73 33.0 0.250
NS Sidhu 57 29 2165 37.98 14.2 0.250
JH Kallis152 96 5976 39.32 38.0 0.250
CG Greenidge 53 38 2130 40.19 13.3 0.250
SC Ganguly151 74 6121 40.54 37.3 0.247
KC Sangakkara194105 7466 38.48 46.3 0.239
Saeed Anwar136 81 4932 36.26 32.1 0.236
Shakib Al Hasan 57 19 1775 31.14 13.4 0.235
ME Waugh130 85 5181 39.85 30.3 0.233
HH Gibbs113 68 4041 35.76 26.2 0.231
AJ Lamb 61 27 2094 34.33 14.0 0.229
A Flower109 33 3825 35.09 24.9 0.228
WU Tharanga 94 46 3269 34.78 21.3 0.227
ST Jayasuriya221125 7651 34.62 50.2 0.227
G Kirsten 90 61 3515 39.06 20.4 0.227
A Ranatunga112 43 3618 32.30 25.3 0.226
AP Gurusinha 60 22 1866 31.10 13.6 0.226
GA Hick 56 26 2003 35.77 12.7 0.226

Richards excelled in the first innings: most of his top innings - 189*, 181, 138, 153, 149, were in the first innings. Look at the wonderful win ratio of 70% when West Indies batted first. And Richards outstanding RpI figure of 46. Haynes is placed second, with marginally lower figures. In fourth position is Marsh, the quintessential opening batsmen, with impressive figures under all columns. Knight rounds off the table, but with less that 50% wins. Tendulkar's figures are very impressive but the win percentage remains just below 50%, matching his career numbers.

6. Second inns - Minimum 50 innings
BatsmanQualifying InnsWinsRunsRuns per InnsHSI-TotalHSI
CH Gayle130 59 4699 36.15 47.4 0.365
V Kohli 68 46 3327 48.93 24.6 0.362
SR Watson 55 36 2392 43.49 19.4 0.353
CG Greenidge 73 51 2996 41.04 24.8 0.340
GC Smith 95 58 3837 40.39 30.9 0.325
ME Trescothick 53 30 2019 38.09 16.8 0.318
SR Tendulkar228124 8671 38.03 71.9 0.315
Saeed Anwar105 58 3849 36.66 32.2 0.307
ML Hayden 60 47 2424 40.40 18.4 0.307
MD Crowe 66 32 2282 34.58 19.4 0.295
SP Fleming129 62 4398 34.09 37.4 0.290
IVA Richards 87 58 3010 34.60 25.0 0.287
BC Lara157 78 5425 34.55 44.5 0.283
AC Gilchrist127 90 4769 37.55 35.5 0.280
S Chanderpaul130 58 4455 34.27 35.5 0.273
BRM Taylor 70 17 2245 32.07 19.1 0.273
Javed Miandad 91 45 3041 33.42 24.8 0.272
SO Tikolo 59 17 1609 27.27 16.0 0.272
DL Haynes137 91 4377 31.95 36.9 0.270
AJ Lamb 57 35 1916 33.61 15.3 0.269
DM Jones 65 32 1960 30.15 17.4 0.268
Tamim Iqbal 67 29 2180 32.54 17.7 0.264
MG Bevan 81 45 2882 35.58 21.3 0.263
PA de Silva160 66 5117 31.98 41.9 0.262
AJ Strauss 61 33 2218 36.36 15.8 0.259
G Kirsten 93 59 3258 35.03 24.1 0.259
GA Gooch 59 33 1990 33.73 15.1 0.256
Rameez Raja 85 43 2770 32.59 21.7 0.255
AB de Villiers 75 46 2932 39.09 18.9 0.252
LRPL Taylor 57 27 1653 29.00 14.4 0.252

A smattering of modern batsmen fills up this table. Four of the top five, Gayle, Kohli, Watson and Graeme Smith are still active. If we say that this indicates a better chasing scenario currently, then it may be the correct conclusion for the wrong reason since all these HSI numbers are measures within a team. But it is possible that there more chasing wins now than ever. Kohli's outstanding RpI in chasing wins stands out. Gayle's is slightly low but I expect that he makes up for this with a higher scoring rate. Tendulkar is fine, not outstanding, with a RpI of 38. However, he has a higher win percentage batting second, than batting first.

7. Home matches - Minimum 50 innings
BatsmanQualifying InnsWinsRunsRuns per InnsHSI-TotalHSI
ME Trescothick 57 25 2386 41.86 18.0 0.316
NJ Astle 84 42 3448 41.05 25.5 0.304
SR Tendulkar159 95 6976 43.87 47.3 0.297
CH Gayle102 47 3477 34.09 30.1 0.295
BB McCullum 74 40 2172 29.35 21.7 0.293
NS Sidhu 54 37 2159 39.98 15.7 0.291
BC Lara 85 45 3224 37.93 24.4 0.287
DM Jones104 64 4069 39.12 28.9 0.278
Tamim Iqbal 61 25 1832 30.03 16.8 0.276
PA de Silva 63 41 2390 37.94 17.4 0.276
A Ranatunga 57 36 1897 33.28 15.7 0.275
Shakib Al Hasan 59 27 1837 31.14 15.3 0.259
S Chanderpaul 83 37 2923 35.22 21.5 0.259
HH Gibbs101 71 3549 35.14 26.0 0.257
AJ Stewart 54 30 1816 33.63 13.8 0.256
GS Chappell 52 26 1568 30.15 13.3 0.255
Javed Miandad 59 39 1974 33.46 15.0 0.254
GR Marsh 72 50 2477 34.40 18.2 0.253
MD Crowe 56 31 1884 33.64 14.1 0.252
SC Ganguly 75 42 3110 41.47 18.9 0.251
MS Atapattu 71 54 2559 36.04 17.8 0.251
IR Bell 59 31 2344 39.73 14.5 0.246
BRM Taylor 74 23 2567 34.69 18.2 0.246
Inzamam-ul-Haq 64 40 2674 41.78 15.7 0.246
RR Sarwan 77 37 2777 36.06 18.8 0.245
H Masakadza 73 24 2226 30.49 17.8 0.244
GC Smith 93 60 3614 38.86 22.4 0.240
GW Flower 60 16 1931 32.18 14.4 0.240
Mohammad Yousuf 66 40 2767 41.92 15.8 0.239
MS Dhoni 82 50 3342 40.76 19.6 0.239

A very unlikely player at the top: Marcus Trescothick, who was very good at home, but memory tells me that many of these good innings were in lost matches. A tally of 25 wins in 57 matches confirms this. Nathan Astle follows next. Then it is Tendulkar, with a very good RpI value of nearly 44 and an HSI value of just below 0.3. It is surprising that there are not many Indian batsmen in the top-20. Maybe they all took HSI points off each other. It is also surprising that the HSI values are at a lower level: most values are below 0.3.

8. Away matches - Minimum 50 innings
BatsmanQualifying InnsWinsRunsRuns per InnsHSI-TotalHSI
IVA Richards 82 55 3921 47.82 34.7 0.424
CG Greenidge 56 36 2142 38.25 16.8 0.299
MD Crowe 53 16 1641 30.96 15.0 0.283
Javed Miandad 76 27 2573 33.86 20.9 0.275
BC Lara 93 32 3212 34.54 25.1 0.270
S Chanderpaul 82 27 3220 39.27 22.1 0.270
V Sehwag 88 40 3025 34.38 23.2 0.264
ME Waugh 80 43 3059 38.24 20.8 0.260
ML Hayden 59 39 2415 40.93 15.0 0.254
KC Sangakkara125 56 4666 37.33 31.4 0.251
CH Gayle 85 34 3032 35.67 21.0 0.247
GA Hick 53 19 1621 30.58 13.0 0.245
LRPL Taylor 50 12 1799 35.98 12.2 0.243
Misbah-ul-Haq 59 38 2224 37.69 14.2 0.241
KP Pietersen 63 22 2423 38.46 15.2 0.241
JH Kallis100 53 3707 37.07 24.0 0.240
G Gambhir 53 35 1917 36.17 12.7 0.239
G Kirsten 62 32 2341 37.76 14.6 0.235
SR Tendulkar142 60 5015 35.32 33.0 0.232
NJ Astle 63 21 1898 30.13 14.6 0.231
GW Flower 76 20 2498 32.87 17.5 0.230
WU Tharanga 63 32 2109 33.48 14.4 0.229
Saeed Anwar 68 33 1833 26.96 15.5 0.228
BRM Taylor 55 5 1405 25.55 12.5 0.228
M Azharuddin 84 25 2789 33.20 18.9 0.225
DL Haynes101 65 3033 30.03 22.6 0.224
GC Smith 58 32 2033 35.05 12.8 0.220
SR Watson 77 44 2792 36.26 16.7 0.217
Mohammad Hafeez 70 37 2193 31.33 15.0 0.215
RT Ponting129 83 5090 39.46 27.7 0.214

Richards was the best traveller. I am almost certain that the very high HSI of 0.424 was caused by his stupendous performances in England and Australia. The 138, 153*, 189*, 149 were enough to give him this extraordinary HSI. Look at the very high RpI: nearly 48. Look at the away-win percentage of West Indies teams: 55 out of 82. Then Greenidge. The West Indians seem to have very good away figures, possibly because they do not play many home matches: Lara and Chanderpaul are there in the top ten. Virender Sehwag seems to have liked the pitches away from India too. Mathew Hayden has an above-average RpI value of nearly 41. But Richards stands supreme.

9. Neutral matches - Minimum 50 innings
BatsmanQualifying InnsWinsRunsRuns per InnsHSI-TotalHSI
SR Tendulkar145 76 6373 43.95 50.4 0.348
CH Gayle 59 22 2168 36.75 17.9 0.303
G Kirsten 59 41 2384 40.41 16.5 0.280
Javed Miandad 81 41 2829 34.93 22.0 0.272
HH Gibbs 58 35 1974 34.03 15.6 0.269
DL Haynes 87 58 3042 34.97 23.3 0.268
Saeed Anwar133 78 5351 40.23 35.0 0.263
AP Gurusinha 65 22 1753 26.97 17.0 0.262
SC Ganguly126 65 4774 37.89 32.6 0.259
JH Kallis 75 49 2689 35.85 19.2 0.257
BC Lara111 57 3969 35.76 27.9 0.252
A Flower 75 22 2544 33.92 18.9 0.251
RB Richardson 83 48 2346 28.27 20.2 0.244
AC Gilchrist 61 50 2017 33.07 14.8 0.242
ST Jayasuriya162 82 5463 33.72 37.5 0.231
SP Fleming 93 41 2715 29.19 21.3 0.230
SB Styris 53 27 1529 28.85 12.0 0.226
PA de Silva133 50 3950 29.70 29.6 0.223
KC Sangakkara 91 46 3179 34.93 20.2 0.222
S Chanderpaul 85 35 2632 30.96 17.7 0.208
Shoaib Malik 67 32 1936 28.90 14.0 0.208
Mohammad Yousuf105 64 3497 33.30 21.8 0.208
Inzamam-ul-Haq156 92 5118 32.81 32.1 0.206
NJ Astle 68 29 1711 25.16 13.9 0.205
IVA Richards 59 41 1995 33.81 12.1 0.205
V Sehwag 68 43 2249 33.07 13.3 0.195
Rameez Raja 86 45 2606 30.30 16.8 0.195
Aamer Sohail 68 39 2215 32.57 13.2 0.194
WJ Cronje 52 34 1619 31.13 10.0 0.193
ADR Campbell 57 19 1428 25.05 10.9 0.192

Tendulkar was king in the neutral locations. He also played in as many as 145 matches. Many of these were played at Sharjah and the VB Series-type triangular tournaments. An excellent RpI value of around 44 shows the extent of his contributions in these away matches. The win percentage is around his career level of 50%. Gayle is the only other batsman to have an HSI of above 0.3, with a decent RpI value. Gary Kirsten and Miandad, the king of Sharjah, complete the top five positions. Let me hasten to add that matches in UAE are neutral matches for Pakistan.

10. Wins - Minimum 50 innings
BatsmanQualifying InnsWinsRunsRuns per InnsHSI-TotalHSI
CH Gayle103103 4602 44.68 42.0 0.408
HM Amla 52 52 3259 62.67 19.2 0.369
NJ Astle 92 92 4254 46.24 33.2 0.361
IVA Richards114114 5129 44.99 40.1 0.352
BC Lara134134 6553 48.90 46.1 0.344
CG Greenidge 89 89 4185 47.02 30.1 0.339
NS Sidhu 66 66 3005 45.53 22.2 0.337
MD Crowe 60 60 2694 44.90 20.2 0.337
Saeed Anwar139139 6323 45.49 46.4 0.334
SR Tendulkar23123111157 48.30 75.7 0.328
DL Haynes159159 6524 41.03 51.9 0.326
GA Gooch 64 64 2710 42.34 20.8 0.324
V Kohli 73 73 3813 52.23 23.4 0.320
DM Jones 96 96 4275 44.53 29.5 0.307
SC Ganguly147147 6938 47.20 44.4 0.302
GR Marsh 74 74 3096 41.84 21.8 0.294
G Kirsten120120 5224 43.53 34.7 0.289
HH Dippenaar 58 58 2491 42.95 15.9 0.273
Shakib Al Hasan 51 51 1854 36.35 13.9 0.272
V Sehwag131131 5748 43.88 35.6 0.272
ME Trescothick 53 53 2153 40.62 14.4 0.271
BB McCullum 88 88 2741 31.15 23.8 0.271
RR Sarwan 71 71 2917 41.08 18.8 0.264
PA de Silva122122 4905 40.20 32.0 0.263
SP Fleming120120 4357 36.31 31.6 0.263
MS Atapattu136136 5598 41.16 35.5 0.261
GC Smith115115 4692 40.80 29.4 0.256
IR Bell 59 59 2553 43.27 15.0 0.254
JH Kallis196196 8032 40.98 49.4 0.252
Javed Miandad107107 3931 36.74 27.0 0.252

In this and the next table, the "Wins" column is superfluous. However common programs generate the tables and I have left it at that. Chris Gayle is at the top of the Wins table. When West Indies won, he was right there outperforming his team-mates. That is what the value of 0.408 indicates. Gayle's RpI is well above average. Amla has won only 52 matches, but chips in very well. And look at his RpI which is an extraordinary 62+. Astle is a surprise entry. Let us not forget that he would have contributed with the ball too. Then comes Richards, winning 114 matches and having an excellent HSI of 0.352 and very good RpI value of 45. Lara is very close behind Richards. It is no surprise that the top-20 batsmen in this table have RpI values exceeding 40. Kohli is the only batsman other than Amla to have a 50-plus RpI value.

11. Losses - Minimum 50 innings
BatsmanQualifying InnsWinsRunsRuns per InnsHSI-TotalHSI
Javed Miandad104 0 3389 32.59 30.5 0.294
NV Knight 53 0 1910 36.04 14.5 0.274
ME Trescothick 61 0 2036 33.38 15.8 0.259
AJ Lamb 55 0 1560 28.36 14.1 0.257
SR Tendulkar200 0 6585 32.92 51.0 0.255
S Chanderpaul144 0 4661 32.37 36.4 0.253
AP Gurusinha 86 0 2209 25.69 21.5 0.250
KC Sangakkara147 0 4760 32.38 36.5 0.248
BRM Taylor110 0 2977 27.06 26.6 0.242
SO Tikolo 91 0 2139 23.51 21.2 0.233
A Flower144 0 4254 29.54 33.1 0.230
JH Kallis102 0 3217 31.54 23.3 0.228
GA Hick 59 0 1601 27.14 13.4 0.226
KP Pietersen 66 0 2341 35.47 14.6 0.221
IVA Richards 51 0 1501 29.43 11.2 0.219
MEK Hussey 54 0 2022 37.44 11.8 0.219
Tamim Iqbal 79 0 2017 25.53 17.2 0.218
SM Gavaskar 56 0 1492 26.64 12.1 0.216
DI Gower 54 0 1377 25.50 11.6 0.215
DM Jones 61 0 1651 27.07 13.1 0.214
MD Crowe 78 0 1938 24.85 16.4 0.211
PA de Silva163 0 4155 25.49 34.1 0.209
GW Flower148 0 4188 28.30 31.0 0.209
MG Bevan 70 0 2276 32.51 14.6 0.208
Inzamam-ul-Haq146 0 4118 28.21 30.2 0.207
LRPL Taylor 62 0 1941 31.31 12.9 0.207
HH Gibbs 83 0 2182 26.29 17.2 0.207
SB Styris 80 0 2005 25.06 16.6 0.207
DC Boon 64 0 1971 30.80 13.1 0.204
KO Otieno 68 0 1360 20.00 13.6 0.200

Javed Miandad figures at the top of the "Losses" table. Tendulkar is in fifth position. How do we explain this? The only sane explanation seems to be that they did what was expected of them and the others failed. However, let me add that the RpI of Tendulkar and Miandad in these matches is around 32. This indicates that they were not at their best but still out-performed their team mates. Let us not forget that the highest value of HSI in this table is only 0.294. It is not a table which can be easily explained. AS Milind says, A typical loss is normally due to fall of early wickets. So the top-three batsmen might not get too many HSI points.

12. Cup Finals - Minimum 6 innings (Featured - HSI: 0.250+)
BatsmanQualifying InnsWinsRunsRuns per InnsHSI-TotalHSI
Saeed Anwar 9 4 544 60.44 3.8 0.422
SC Ganguly 11 6 684 62.18 4.5 0.405
SB Styris 12 6 453 37.75 4.4 0.365
PA de Silva 12 6 529 44.08 4.3 0.362
Shakib Al Hasan 6 1 119 19.83 2.2 0.361
JH Kallis 16 8 794 49.62 5.7 0.356
HH Gibbs 12 5 668 55.67 4.2 0.352
GA Gooch 6 3 284 47.33 1.9 0.324
A Flower 6 0 142 23.67 1.9 0.320
ME Waugh 8 6 351 43.88 2.5 0.314
IVA Richards 7 5 324 46.29 2.2 0.309
ML Hayden 14 12 599 42.79 4.3 0.307
A Jadeja 6 2 240 40.00 1.8 0.305
PG Fulton 8 4 252 31.50 2.4 0.296
AC Gilchrist 22 19 764 34.73 6.5 0.295
RR Sarwan 11 4 397 36.09 3.2 0.294
S Chanderpaul 15 6 596 39.73 4.2 0.283
KP Pietersen 6 3 323 53.83 1.6 0.274
SR Tendulkar 17 11 649 38.18 4.5 0.265
SP Fleming 18 8 524 29.11 4.7 0.263
MS Atapattu 8 2 247 30.88 2.0 0.254

These are the matches from the World Cups and Champions Trophies, the true world-level tournaments. The matches from quarter-finals onwards and Super-xxx matches are included. A note on the qualification: There were only two important matches, as defined here, in the first few World Cups: the semi-final and final. As such there would be batsmen who have played in these World Cups who would barely reach six matches, leave alone ten. Hence, I have lowered the cut-off for inclusion in this table to six matches.

The table has very surprising entries at the top. The evergreen Saeed Anwar leads the table with 0.422. His RpI is an outstanding 60. Sourav Ganguly is another surprise. It shows the value of his partnership with Tendulkar and confirms the fact that he contributed more than his share in key matches. A magnificent RpI of 62 corroborates this. In third place is the unfancied New Zealand all-rounder, Styris. He has performed very effectively, almost always under the radar. Then we have de Silva, no doubt helped by those three top class performances during 1996, in which he scored over 200 runs. The top five segment is rounded off by the star allrounder from Bangladesh, Shakib. What he has done with limited support is wonderful. Richards is down in 11th position and Tendulkar is further down in 19th position. Look at the win percentage values of Mark Waugh, Hayden and Adam Gilchrist.

13. Important matches - Minimum 15 innings (Featured - HSI: 0.200+)
BatsmanQualifying InnsWinsRunsRuns per InnsHSI-TotalHSI
G Kirsten 19 13 999 52.58 9.0 0.474
SR Tendulkar 38 17 1844 48.53 13.4 0.352
DM Jones 30 16 1064 35.47 9.7 0.323
IVA Richards 17 11 836 49.18 5.4 0.320
AC Gilchrist 32 23 1163 36.34 8.9 0.279
ST Jayasuriya 39 21 1613 41.36 10.8 0.277
BC Lara 18 6 507 28.17 4.9 0.272
ML Hayden 16 10 740 46.25 4.1 0.258
PA de Silva 23 9 878 38.17 5.7 0.248
GM Wood 15 8 544 36.27 3.5 0.235
R Dravid 22 3 729 33.14 4.9 0.221
MS Atapattu 26 16 969 37.27 5.6 0.216
AR Border 37 19 1057 28.57 7.8 0.211
SC Ganguly 28 7 989 35.32 5.8 0.206
M Azharuddin 27 14 823 30.48 5.5 0.205
KC Sangakkara 26 13 1023 39.35 5.3 0.204
DC Boon 22 15 751 34.14 4.4 0.202
Kirsten is on top, with an extraordinary RpI value of nearly 53. His HSI of 0.474 is one of the highest in these tables indicating his way-above-average contributions to the South African team. 13 wins out of 19 tells the story. Tendulkar follows next, with an almost similar RpI of 48 and HSI of 0.352. He played in 40 finals. However, the two Champions Trophy Finals against Sri Lanka are not included: he did not bat in one and scored 7 in a very short innings in the other. But his contributions have been invaluable to the Indian teams, although one must admit that the win percentage is disappointing indicating that the other Indian batsmen did not pull their weight. Then we see the two early giants, Jones and Richards.

Richards leads in four of these 12 tables. Gayle tops in two. After that comes a collection of wonderful players with one each: Tendulkar, Miandad, Kirsten, Saeed Anwar, Crowe and Trescothick.

To download/view the Excel sheet containing the 24106 HSI values (0.100 and above) in HSI order and a Chronological woksheet which contains ALL the HSI values, please CLICK HERE.

As I write this comes news of Graeme Swann's retirement. A really sad day indeed. He is the first victim of the sustained campaign against the senior English players. There is no room for sentiments in this hard current cricket scene as VVS Laxman found out last year. No player, barring one, is beyond this sustained pressure. This year has seen the retirement of three of my favourites: Michael Hussey, Tendulkar and Swann. All masters of their craft, artists par excellence, purists and wonderful role models. None of them had any on-field incident during the many years they played. I wish this great trio and the gentlemen-duo who retired during 2012 a wonderful post-cricket life.

I only hope that suddenly Kevin Pietersen does not see a rosy IPL-dominant-Test-excluded future a couple of weeks after Christmas. He has much to contribute to English cricket.

And just now, the hammer-blow: Jacques Kallis: What does one say, other than "inarguably one of the all-time greatest players ever" and that he deserves a complete article. When? is a \$64,000 question.

What does one say of the extraordinary Test in Johannesburg? One of the greatest draws ever. At the end of five days, 440 overs, 1400 runs and 37 wickets, two boundaries separate the teams. I am amazed to see so many such wonderful Tests being played out nowadays. Both teams could say in public that they missed a win but would also feel in the dressing room that they have done a Houdini act. Anyhow this is one of the rare games about which one could say "both teams deserved to win and neither team deserved to lose". I would have given Faf du Plessis the Man-of-the-Match award. But the contribution numbers tell another story: it is Vernon Philander. For India to play West indies in a meaningless series and then go on to New Zealand for another such series, and playing a two-Test series against the best team in the world: myopic and short-sighted will not be enough to describe the nonsensical ego-driven scheduling.

I am amazed by the comments that South Africa did not go for a win. If one takes only the last 19 balls, did India go for a win? Certainly no. Barring a ball or two, almost all the balls were short outside the off stump with a single slip. There was no attempt to take a wicket. Dhoni waited for a mistake by South African batsmen, but they did not fall into the trap. Dhoni cannot be blamed for that, nor Philander or Dale Steyn. However, with a guy who could barely stand up and another who, at best, could be said to be better than Chris Martin, a wicket in the two overs before the last over could as well have been curtains for South Africa. Both teams played it safe.

I can understand the comments of many others, but not those of Kohli. Why should he talk about the other team's tactics when his own team also adopted a safety-first approach. To go for a win risks had to be taken and both teams, very correctly, avoided taking risks. And now Cheteshwar Pujara feels that when India batted the ball was doing something and when South Africa batted it was flat. What makes these guys keep on talking unnecessarily, inviting retorts from the other side, I wonder. Leave the other players out. I am sure the trio of Indian batsmen who accumulated 37,990 Test runs in 598 Tests would not say anything like this.

Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems

• on December 31, 2013, 5:22 GMT

Re. the HSI - Would it make it sharper if the quality of the Top 6 (or so) batsmen was incorporated ? Or otherwise "average average" of batsmen dismissed in an innings? A Viv would look far more impressive if he did well on this metric in a very good team; as opposed to a good batsman in a weak team scenario. Also this would be useful in judging individual innings. So if the "average average" of batsmen dismissed in Viv's 189 was higher than Kapil's 175, then that innings would have an edge. Perhaps using the "average average" of the Top 6/7 batsmen in general or of those dismissed and then making a comparson may be more revealing.
[[
I suggest you do not forget that we are only talking about an innings not a career. At Manchester in 1984 or at Tunbridge Wells in 1983 or at Sharjah in 1998 or at Bridgetown in 1999 or at Durban in 2013, the much-vaunted team-mates of Richards, Kapil, SRT, BCL and Rahane failed despite having glittering career-numbers. So what is relevant is what was done in the concerned innings.
For that matter today at Abu Dhabi. The two stalwarts, with a combined avge of 107, contributed 21 runs between them. Mathews scores 91 and the next two innings are 38 and 20. What happened today is the essence of HSI, not not what happened over the years nor what is expected.
Ananth
]]

• Anshu.N.Jain on December 30, 2013, 17:56 GMT

As per your definition, Top Batsman HSI is % team score scaled by ratio of out-scoring the 2nd best score. Further, this scaling benefit is not extended to the rest of the scores. To me, this appears to unnecessarily load the Top HSI. [[
Anshu, I have already given an example of the effect of this. If you are suggesting that I could multiply Hs2 by Hs2/Hs3, Hs3 by Hs3/Hs4 and so on, it makes sense. But too much work for some minimal benefit.
Ananth
]]

I have a request, since you already have the tables ready. Can we calculate the HSI without the scaling component (HS1/HS2)? [[
That is only the plain vanilla% of Team score. And I will lose the important component of support received. A 100/25 out of 200 will be treated the same as 100/95 out of 200. It would defeat the very base of this analysis.
Ananth
]]

Also, I have a suggestion: Can we calculate the HSI for all batsmen as (% of team score X Batsman Score/Median Score)? [[
Yes, possible. I can do that and the Impact factor in the follow-up piece.
Ananth
]]

Of course, you have already acknowledged that this was meant to be a Runs only derivation, and therefore does not incorporate the Scoring Rate. As with several other readers, I too would like to see an Impact (Runs X Scoring Rate) based index. Another question: In what range does the value Sum(individual HSIs) across all innings lie? And what is the median value? My view is that the narrower the 95% band, the better the metric. [[
Since I have now uploaded the complete data file you yourself can find this.
Ananth
]]

• Fruho on December 29, 2013, 20:16 GMT

Really enjoyed this article, and the value of HSI as a statistical tool is undebatable. However, its greatest flaw is that it eliminates not outs from its calculations entirely. Whereas the standard batting average calculation may lend too much weight to not outs, HSI undermines the role of second innings, lower order "finishers." Of course, HSI is not the sole determinant for the greatness of an ODI innings/career, but the absence of noted finishers (Dhoni, Bevan, etc.) from the top of these tables (particularly the second innings table) shows that the tool should only be used with its limitations in mind. This apart, thank you for a brilliant and in depth analysis.
[[
A very valid and well-constructed comment.
I understand that this particular metric is slanted towards the top order batsmen. To the extent Hayden is ahead of Ponting. It is not necessarily a flaw but can be construed as an inherent facet of the metric. As we develop this we could use the Batting Position Average as a normalizing factor. The other idea suggested, which is to do a HSI equivalent calculation based on a combination of Runs and Scoring Rate will also address this.
Ananth
]]

• INDIANS_ARE_GIANTS on December 29, 2013, 1:01 GMT

It is interesting to see that the West Indies of 70's and 80's had 3 players who are in top 5 of HSI list. We may not be able to relate results with HSI but having one of the top 3 perform most of the time and with a world class attack at their disposal,i can understand the fact windies dominated the 70's and early 80's. If it is possible to further breakdown HSI by years, it may show that the performance levels of the batsmen have dropped after 85-86 and could be a main factor in the slow decline of the team through the late 80's. During the 90's and later, it may have been only Lara/Gayle doing the bulk of scoring and this would affect the team badly. Ananth do you think it is possible to provide HSI by year for some of the top batsmen to see how they progressed over their careers
[[
It is a very valid point since the career numbers over number of years will hide many facts. But getting it by player/year is quite difficult because of the number of combinations. One good thing is that I now have the HSI value embedded in the player line record in the match data.
I can do one thing. Let us meet half way. I will include the year in the downloadable OdiHsi file. I will also add an extra chronological worksheet. After downloading this new sheet you could do some work on the Excel sheet or someone else could do that and post the results. Unfortubnately I have some medical situation with my eyes and will not be able to do a lot in the coming days.
Ananth
: ]]

• sifter132 on December 28, 2013, 21:46 GMT

Very interesting stuff, and good to see guys like Crowe, Tikolo, Greenidge get their time in the sun. I liked Kanshi's suggestion that the other teams scores should be a factor as well. You responded that Kapil's 175 should not be affected by Zimbabwe...but I believe it should. If the ZIM batsmen scored 1/235 and 2 batsmen made 100s vs 235 all out with a top score of 50 - that is a large difference. Including that would reflect the match conditions more accurately. It all depends on the objective, measuring contribution to team or highlighting outstanding innnings. If the later, I feel the other teams efforts in the match must be considered to judge how outstanding the innings truly was.
[[
I think we should differentiate between "how difficult was it to score and what was the pitch like" and "what was the batsman's contribution to the team score". If we analyze the first one what you and Kanshi suggest makes sense. If it is the second, and the HSI is taht, then we should consider the batsman innings. The importance of proper peer comparisons is another important factor.
Ananth
: ]]

Ponting was my other area of interest. Fascinating that Ponting doesn't make many lists, yet Hayden is there in table 2.
[[
Maybe Hayden & Gilchrist at the top were so successful that Ponting was deprived of opportunities.
Ananth
: ]]

• RichardstheGreatest on December 28, 2013, 16:39 GMT

Thanks for the nice Analysis, Anantha. I would like to see two more analysis 1) similar analysis for runs*S/R 2) additional grain of analysis for lower order batsmen. No 6 and lower or No5 and lower etc
[[
Let me look at these two. Runs*S/R may lead to way out results. I have already done a number of analyses using the two factors in different combinationa, called Impact Index. Pl also see VK10's comment.
Ananth
: ]]

• VK10 on December 28, 2013, 14:50 GMT

@Ananth: Nice article.

1. As suggested earlier, it would be good to derive HSI as a ratio of the batsman score to the sum of the 3 other top scorers.
[[
Do you mean three other top scores. Why three. A 100 50 30 20 does not convey any different meaning from 100 50 30 10 or 100 50 20 20.
Ananth
: ]]

2. It would be nice to do this analysis with impact factor (runs * SR) replacing the batsman score.
[[
Yes, there is another suggestion. However I am worried by the way-out numbers with strike rates exceeding 200. 50*2.0 is 100 & 100*.8 is 80. I remember we had long discussions and settled on some other factor,. I will look it up.
Ananth
: ]]

3. Ponting, Hayden, Gilly do not rank high HSI as Aussies were super strong in batting '96-'09.

4. Good to see Anwar & Dean Jones fare well on HSI. Dean Jones wrote an entire chapter on running between wickets while Anwar was the first to hit 100's on a regular basis. Anwar's poor performances in Australia highlight his weaknesses but 20 centuries and 194* is quite some career. Sadly, after his retirement, Anwar grew beard and locked his brain.

5. Kallis' retirement closes the book of great players who started in the 20th century (sorry, Chander!). He recd a classy GOH from the Indian team. Perhaps a classy joint tribute from you to him & Ponting is due?
[[
When???
Ananth
: ]]

• on January 9, 2014, 11:11 GMT

Excellent insights. A few thoughts - particularly on Table 2 - It features 3 batsmen from the same generation featuring in that table - Viv, Haynes & Greendige. That too during the days when 220 was above par (and ODIs of 55 over / 60 over durations). These batsmen had healthy 40+ averages as well. Contrast this with the absence of Ponting, which was attributed to a strong team. Not only Viv, but the other two were on top of their games as well. Similar is the case of India which had multiple batsmen from the same generation in this table (not exactly - we can say Sidhu was half generation behind and Kohli was half generation ahead). This, irrespective of batting position, is an excellent indicator that more often than not, these batsmen invariably came up with significant contributions to their teams (strong batting teams). In other words, strong batting team is not necessarily a deterrent to feature in this list. Ponting was a great, but Haydos was a shade more impactful for Aussies.

• Rameshkumar_Satyamoorthy on January 3, 2014, 6:38 GMT

Ananth,

I think HSI needs some tweaking in ODIs. A few thoughts on this measure

1. High score in ODIs with lower strike rate is not only of lower value to the team. But it also puts more pressure on the other players who in turn go for strokes and get out, thereby making the HSI look better which does not make sense.

2. High score along with strike rate may give different interpretations depending on whether you are setting the target or chasing the target. Good HSI with good strike rate while chasing a big score will be of different challenge than while chasing a lower one. So is there a case to look at 300+ score differently?

3. For a lower order batsmen, we can probably keep a notional good score (may be a 40?) and measure his contribution as any other measure may complicate it further.

• Anshu.N.Jain on December 31, 2013, 9:41 GMT

Thanks Anantha for your responses. On your comment "If you are suggesting that I could multiply Hs2 by Hs2/Hs3, Hs3 by Hs3/Hs4 and so on, it makes sense. But too much work for some minimal benefit" - no, I wasnt suggesting this method, which will actually yield erratic results for some situations (If the top 3 scores in a team total of 150 are 75,50 and 10, then HSI for Hs1 = 75/150*75/50=0.75 and HSI for Hs2 = 50/150*50/10=1.67; Hs2>Hs1, defeating the very purpose) My query "Can we calculate the HSI without the scaling component (HS1/HS2)?" meant calculating the career HSI for players without the scaling component. That would still be a worthwhile metric to look at, as opposed to an aggregate career % of total team runs scored.
[[
Yes. It is a sum of BS/TS rather than (Sum of BS)/(Sum of TS).
Ananth
]]

I havent looked up the data tables in detail. Will do so now. Thanks :-)

• on December 31, 2013, 5:22 GMT

Re. the HSI - Would it make it sharper if the quality of the Top 6 (or so) batsmen was incorporated ? Or otherwise "average average" of batsmen dismissed in an innings? A Viv would look far more impressive if he did well on this metric in a very good team; as opposed to a good batsman in a weak team scenario. Also this would be useful in judging individual innings. So if the "average average" of batsmen dismissed in Viv's 189 was higher than Kapil's 175, then that innings would have an edge. Perhaps using the "average average" of the Top 6/7 batsmen in general or of those dismissed and then making a comparson may be more revealing.
[[
I suggest you do not forget that we are only talking about an innings not a career. At Manchester in 1984 or at Tunbridge Wells in 1983 or at Sharjah in 1998 or at Bridgetown in 1999 or at Durban in 2013, the much-vaunted team-mates of Richards, Kapil, SRT, BCL and Rahane failed despite having glittering career-numbers. So what is relevant is what was done in the concerned innings.
For that matter today at Abu Dhabi. The two stalwarts, with a combined avge of 107, contributed 21 runs between them. Mathews scores 91 and the next two innings are 38 and 20. What happened today is the essence of HSI, not not what happened over the years nor what is expected.
Ananth
]]

• Anshu.N.Jain on December 30, 2013, 17:56 GMT

As per your definition, Top Batsman HSI is % team score scaled by ratio of out-scoring the 2nd best score. Further, this scaling benefit is not extended to the rest of the scores. To me, this appears to unnecessarily load the Top HSI. [[
Anshu, I have already given an example of the effect of this. If you are suggesting that I could multiply Hs2 by Hs2/Hs3, Hs3 by Hs3/Hs4 and so on, it makes sense. But too much work for some minimal benefit.
Ananth
]]

I have a request, since you already have the tables ready. Can we calculate the HSI without the scaling component (HS1/HS2)? [[
That is only the plain vanilla% of Team score. And I will lose the important component of support received. A 100/25 out of 200 will be treated the same as 100/95 out of 200. It would defeat the very base of this analysis.
Ananth
]]

Also, I have a suggestion: Can we calculate the HSI for all batsmen as (% of team score X Batsman Score/Median Score)? [[
Yes, possible. I can do that and the Impact factor in the follow-up piece.
Ananth
]]

Of course, you have already acknowledged that this was meant to be a Runs only derivation, and therefore does not incorporate the Scoring Rate. As with several other readers, I too would like to see an Impact (Runs X Scoring Rate) based index. Another question: In what range does the value Sum(individual HSIs) across all innings lie? And what is the median value? My view is that the narrower the 95% band, the better the metric. [[
Since I have now uploaded the complete data file you yourself can find this.
Ananth
]]

• Fruho on December 29, 2013, 20:16 GMT

Really enjoyed this article, and the value of HSI as a statistical tool is undebatable. However, its greatest flaw is that it eliminates not outs from its calculations entirely. Whereas the standard batting average calculation may lend too much weight to not outs, HSI undermines the role of second innings, lower order "finishers." Of course, HSI is not the sole determinant for the greatness of an ODI innings/career, but the absence of noted finishers (Dhoni, Bevan, etc.) from the top of these tables (particularly the second innings table) shows that the tool should only be used with its limitations in mind. This apart, thank you for a brilliant and in depth analysis.
[[
A very valid and well-constructed comment.
I understand that this particular metric is slanted towards the top order batsmen. To the extent Hayden is ahead of Ponting. It is not necessarily a flaw but can be construed as an inherent facet of the metric. As we develop this we could use the Batting Position Average as a normalizing factor. The other idea suggested, which is to do a HSI equivalent calculation based on a combination of Runs and Scoring Rate will also address this.
Ananth
]]

• INDIANS_ARE_GIANTS on December 29, 2013, 1:01 GMT

It is interesting to see that the West Indies of 70's and 80's had 3 players who are in top 5 of HSI list. We may not be able to relate results with HSI but having one of the top 3 perform most of the time and with a world class attack at their disposal,i can understand the fact windies dominated the 70's and early 80's. If it is possible to further breakdown HSI by years, it may show that the performance levels of the batsmen have dropped after 85-86 and could be a main factor in the slow decline of the team through the late 80's. During the 90's and later, it may have been only Lara/Gayle doing the bulk of scoring and this would affect the team badly. Ananth do you think it is possible to provide HSI by year for some of the top batsmen to see how they progressed over their careers
[[
It is a very valid point since the career numbers over number of years will hide many facts. But getting it by player/year is quite difficult because of the number of combinations. One good thing is that I now have the HSI value embedded in the player line record in the match data.
I can do one thing. Let us meet half way. I will include the year in the downloadable OdiHsi file. I will also add an extra chronological worksheet. After downloading this new sheet you could do some work on the Excel sheet or someone else could do that and post the results. Unfortubnately I have some medical situation with my eyes and will not be able to do a lot in the coming days.
Ananth
: ]]

• sifter132 on December 28, 2013, 21:46 GMT

Very interesting stuff, and good to see guys like Crowe, Tikolo, Greenidge get their time in the sun. I liked Kanshi's suggestion that the other teams scores should be a factor as well. You responded that Kapil's 175 should not be affected by Zimbabwe...but I believe it should. If the ZIM batsmen scored 1/235 and 2 batsmen made 100s vs 235 all out with a top score of 50 - that is a large difference. Including that would reflect the match conditions more accurately. It all depends on the objective, measuring contribution to team or highlighting outstanding innnings. If the later, I feel the other teams efforts in the match must be considered to judge how outstanding the innings truly was.
[[
I think we should differentiate between "how difficult was it to score and what was the pitch like" and "what was the batsman's contribution to the team score". If we analyze the first one what you and Kanshi suggest makes sense. If it is the second, and the HSI is taht, then we should consider the batsman innings. The importance of proper peer comparisons is another important factor.
Ananth
: ]]

Ponting was my other area of interest. Fascinating that Ponting doesn't make many lists, yet Hayden is there in table 2.
[[
Maybe Hayden & Gilchrist at the top were so successful that Ponting was deprived of opportunities.
Ananth
: ]]

• RichardstheGreatest on December 28, 2013, 16:39 GMT

Thanks for the nice Analysis, Anantha. I would like to see two more analysis 1) similar analysis for runs*S/R 2) additional grain of analysis for lower order batsmen. No 6 and lower or No5 and lower etc
[[
Let me look at these two. Runs*S/R may lead to way out results. I have already done a number of analyses using the two factors in different combinationa, called Impact Index. Pl also see VK10's comment.
Ananth
: ]]

• VK10 on December 28, 2013, 14:50 GMT

@Ananth: Nice article.

1. As suggested earlier, it would be good to derive HSI as a ratio of the batsman score to the sum of the 3 other top scorers.
[[
Do you mean three other top scores. Why three. A 100 50 30 20 does not convey any different meaning from 100 50 30 10 or 100 50 20 20.
Ananth
: ]]

2. It would be nice to do this analysis with impact factor (runs * SR) replacing the batsman score.
[[
Yes, there is another suggestion. However I am worried by the way-out numbers with strike rates exceeding 200. 50*2.0 is 100 & 100*.8 is 80. I remember we had long discussions and settled on some other factor,. I will look it up.
Ananth
: ]]

3. Ponting, Hayden, Gilly do not rank high HSI as Aussies were super strong in batting '96-'09.

4. Good to see Anwar & Dean Jones fare well on HSI. Dean Jones wrote an entire chapter on running between wickets while Anwar was the first to hit 100's on a regular basis. Anwar's poor performances in Australia highlight his weaknesses but 20 centuries and 194* is quite some career. Sadly, after his retirement, Anwar grew beard and locked his brain.

5. Kallis' retirement closes the book of great players who started in the 20th century (sorry, Chander!). He recd a classy GOH from the Indian team. Perhaps a classy joint tribute from you to him & Ponting is due?
[[
When???
Ananth
: ]]

• on January 9, 2014, 11:11 GMT

Excellent insights. A few thoughts - particularly on Table 2 - It features 3 batsmen from the same generation featuring in that table - Viv, Haynes & Greendige. That too during the days when 220 was above par (and ODIs of 55 over / 60 over durations). These batsmen had healthy 40+ averages as well. Contrast this with the absence of Ponting, which was attributed to a strong team. Not only Viv, but the other two were on top of their games as well. Similar is the case of India which had multiple batsmen from the same generation in this table (not exactly - we can say Sidhu was half generation behind and Kohli was half generation ahead). This, irrespective of batting position, is an excellent indicator that more often than not, these batsmen invariably came up with significant contributions to their teams (strong batting teams). In other words, strong batting team is not necessarily a deterrent to feature in this list. Ponting was a great, but Haydos was a shade more impactful for Aussies.

• Rameshkumar_Satyamoorthy on January 3, 2014, 6:38 GMT

Ananth,

I think HSI needs some tweaking in ODIs. A few thoughts on this measure

1. High score in ODIs with lower strike rate is not only of lower value to the team. But it also puts more pressure on the other players who in turn go for strokes and get out, thereby making the HSI look better which does not make sense.

2. High score along with strike rate may give different interpretations depending on whether you are setting the target or chasing the target. Good HSI with good strike rate while chasing a big score will be of different challenge than while chasing a lower one. So is there a case to look at 300+ score differently?

3. For a lower order batsmen, we can probably keep a notional good score (may be a 40?) and measure his contribution as any other measure may complicate it further.

• Anshu.N.Jain on December 31, 2013, 9:41 GMT

Thanks Anantha for your responses. On your comment "If you are suggesting that I could multiply Hs2 by Hs2/Hs3, Hs3 by Hs3/Hs4 and so on, it makes sense. But too much work for some minimal benefit" - no, I wasnt suggesting this method, which will actually yield erratic results for some situations (If the top 3 scores in a team total of 150 are 75,50 and 10, then HSI for Hs1 = 75/150*75/50=0.75 and HSI for Hs2 = 50/150*50/10=1.67; Hs2>Hs1, defeating the very purpose) My query "Can we calculate the HSI without the scaling component (HS1/HS2)?" meant calculating the career HSI for players without the scaling component. That would still be a worthwhile metric to look at, as opposed to an aggregate career % of total team runs scored.
[[
Yes. It is a sum of BS/TS rather than (Sum of BS)/(Sum of TS).
Ananth
]]

I havent looked up the data tables in detail. Will do so now. Thanks :-)

• Cool_Jeeves on December 31, 2013, 6:22 GMT

Ananth, great work, though I dont follow one day cricket much. What i follow is now limited to these articles only, though I find it difficult to interpret results since bilateral matches are also included in some tables, e.g. the second. I understand that the methodology is evolving, and wait for the day when other factors like extra points for away matches etc. are incorporated. Kohli's remarks are no different from David Warner's, in a sense. It is a sign of the times, and considered to be contributing to the "X-Factor" which is the reason clueless batsmen like Shikhar Dhawan are in the test team despite a first class avg (all in India) of barely 40. Am waiting for your piece on Kallis. It has tremendous potential to be a numerical thriller. It can become a platform to create a comparison between say a Dennis Lillee and a Viv Richards, if one establishes equivalence between runs scored by a batsman and wickets taken by a bowler. At 20runs per wkt, Imran tops, ahead of Sobers... [[
Does Kohli want to be compared to Warner. But that is the way the game goes nowadays. One after another the gentle giants are retiring leaving the brash young brigade, no doubt strong in their game but ready to engage in verbal duels, take over.
Rahane should be in the opening slot.
As Alex suggested I am going to do a joint piece on Ponting and Kallis, the nos.2 & 3. Probably during the first week of Feb.
Ananth
]]

• on December 31, 2013, 5:32 GMT

Also , there is another method whereby one may quantify pressure on a batsman.

We may attempt to measure the pressure faced by batsmen who are on the field for ages while their bowlers get mauled enroute to huge totals - and then bat in mostly hopeless situations thereafter. i.e Not just the effect of a weak batting line up , but also a weak bowling line up.

This method will certainly be more sensible in Test cricket than in ODIs.

• on December 31, 2013, 5:30 GMT

The thing is that this particular type of "SRT pressure" can conveniently be dismissed with a "sorry , it cannot be quantified" etc. type of argument. However, a similar argument ,with a slight twist, seems to be made by these sort of analyses and parameters. "Poor X played with the pressure of being in a poor team etc. - So we must give extra points for this".

This "pressure" can be vaguely quantified by "HSI tables", "difficulty entry" points " etc. So , Voila! Suddenly - not only, the does the "pressure" matter - but we must also accord additional "points" to it!

Essentially no difference - just depends which side of the fence one is on.

Contd... [[
The HSI, "difficulty at point of entry" made their appearance only in the SRT analysis and he is as much susceptible to it as any other player. And these are only per innings. All batsmen are subject to such pressure situations. During those awful 1990s SRT was part of as weak a team as Lara ever played in and that has been recognized.
The only thing I will not accept is this hugely media-hyped "billion hearts beating" story. You and I know the real numbers. So for a change let us agree on a few million.
Ananth
]]

• on December 31, 2013, 5:27 GMT

The HSI, "Difficult entry " etc. parameters seem to be measuring some sort of "pressure" conditions.

So if this method ( using "average average" of batsmen dismissed prior to a batsmen coming in- i.e "difficult entry" conditions) may provide more information.

This is essentially further to my comment on the " billion pressure" on SRT was. Your reply was quite unexpected. Sort of "If you can't see it - it doesn't exist" type of argument. Just because something is intangible does not mean it is not real.

My point was that sportsmen who have survived for long careers (decades) have clearly learnt how to cope with the pressure - to the best of their ability at least. Not just that -after the initial nerves the top guys feed off the pressure .They were the "survivors" . Otherwise they would have gone the Kambli way. This is not to be interpreted as "there was no pressure". This is akin to saying Trott, Tresthotick and co. are just making it up.

Contd...

• Ali_Chaudhary on December 30, 2013, 12:23 GMT

Why the criteria of 3000 runs? just to have Viv at top?????? IMO if you have to make an criteria then make of 10k runs. A great is who makes at least 10k runs and not the one who only make 3000. In this case Viv will be out of the window lol.
[[
My dear friend, If I wanted Richards at the top I would have selected 6500 runs as the cut-off. Know your numbers before coming out with a half-baked comment. In fact lowering the cut-off to 3000 means someone like Amla or Kohli might very well be in the top. Your own lack of cricketing history is obvious by your statement that "Viv would be out of the window". It is I who is LOLing.
Ananth
]]

• Bonehead_maz on December 30, 2013, 11:27 GMT

perhaps the longest article I have read ? Most I would have lost interest before now. Thanks Ananth hope your 2014 is superb. 2013 has taught us (well at least re-taught me) that the only good prediction in cricket is no prediction.

• Philippe on December 30, 2013, 10:31 GMT

[[
After sending a trash mail someone had the gall to ask me why it was not published. Who am I do say 'No'. As I have done elsewhere the mail will be poublished with no text.
Ananth
]]

• Philippe on December 30, 2013, 4:53 GMT

I am amazed to see these calculations... literally nowhere kallis & dravid came in anywhere.... I had a different idea prior to this... nice analysis..

• NKSathya on December 30, 2013, 1:40 GMT

[[
After sending a trash mail someone had the gall to ask me why it was not published. Who am I do say 'No'. As I have done elsewhere, the mail will be published with no text.
Ananth
]]

• Thy1960 on December 29, 2013, 17:24 GMT

Why Kallis was never considered for captaincy ?

• on December 29, 2013, 13:31 GMT

As a Sri Lankan I can tell you that we were a small country and suddenly we were no. 2 position in ODIs for a long time after Australia. Thanks mainly due to Jayasuriya. Also Jayasuriya broke all the records of his time. Fastest 50, fastest 100, fastest 150 most runs in an over, most sixes in an over, most sixes in an inning. My man is Jayasuriya

• on December 29, 2013, 7:43 GMT

[[ Why should Kapil's 175 be influenced by the number of runs scored by the Zimbabwe batsmen? Ananth : ]]

Aren't you contradicting yourself? I thought your whole HSI depends on how much the other batsman scores. I just said instead of including other 10 batsman, include other 21 batsman.

Did I misunderstand your def. of HSI?
[[
Kanshi
This was percieved to be within an innings and to measure the contribution to the team cause. It was not meant to look at the pitch quality or conditions. Also this is a true peer comparison because the pitch and bowlers are same. In an Innings Ratings exercise I may use both innings to measure the type of pitch.
Ananth
]]

• on December 29, 2013, 7:25 GMT

Hi, Does a similar index for tests make sense? May be include more scores per innings as there is no limit on the number of balls. Looking forward to the kallis tribute (in tests). hopefully it will confirm he was worth 2 players in the team. -- Karthick
[[
Yes, of course. If you remember, I had done the preliminary work in the SRT article. Of course the two-innings format should throw a few problem.s
Ananth
]]

• on December 29, 2013, 6:53 GMT

Batsman cannot win games without bowlers. Richards Haynes & Ponting had legendary bowlers therefore HSI doesn't really makes sense eg we saw on same SA pitches Pak scored avg 220 per inn & won series. Ind scored the same at much higher SR yet lost all matches badly to same SA bcz mediocre Indian bowling attack got smashed away for avg 320 runs per inn on even bowling wickets......................If u factor in all these mentioned in my previous post factors u will find that top ODI batsmen r 1).Tendulkar 2). Richards...............A Big GAP...........3). Ponting 4). Hayden 5). Jayasuria 6). Beven 7). Kallis 8). Miandad 9). Gangully 10).S Anwar......................................................Yes Kohli Amla & Devilliers r destined for greatness but r yet to achieve it.

• on December 29, 2013, 6:30 GMT

[[
Completely irrelevant comment. Pl read completely and understand the idea behind the article before sending any comment. Thanks.
Ananth
]]

• its.rachit on December 28, 2013, 21:09 GMT

Ananth - when you wrote a line regarding the 12 best ODI batsmen in this article, did you mean by this method only or overall ?? I am a little confused since Ponting would not be in the top 12 according to this list, but you have included him .. so the 12 are not necesarry according to the article's criteria ... and honestly, gayle and crowe and amla,kohli(for now) cant be among the 12 top ODI batsmen of all time ... or am I missing aomething ....
[[
Just a passing comment. To bring out the fact that the table is headed by the greats of ODI batting. ANd what is wrong with Martin Crowe. Or Kohli/Amla: no one has done better in such career stages. But let us leave it at that.
Ananth
: ]]

• Batmanian on December 28, 2013, 21:07 GMT

Garbage in, garbage out. I don't mean the attempt at constructing a new metric, or the significance of limited overs formats; rather, I mean the incomparability of ODI individual stats. Context is everything in cricket in general, but this is more intensely so in the short forms. Achievements like Viv's 189 or Kapil's 175 are all about context. It wasn't just any tournament when Kapil achieved that, you know, and the pluckiness of recently renamed Zimbabwe against India had put them in a great positionâ€¦ top knocks are not just numbers, and they're not just about the individuals who scored them. A fixation with the stats distracts us from appreciating context and history, and seems to be a byproduct of the proliferation of meaningless short form fixtures. On the other hand, the longstanding statistical traditions of Tests augment the experience of the game.
[[
One thing I suggest you do not do is to teach me context. I know everything that is to know about context. I have created the Wisden-100 innings ranking lists with 12-15 context-related factors. I have also explained in the article that this contribution without context. ANd in a later analysis this could become one of the factors.
Ananth
: ]]

• abhijeet1in on December 28, 2013, 18:57 GMT

Very nice statistical analysis. Don't care for the demands to include SR in here though. I think for the (brilliant) batsmen considered here (after applying a very acceptable filter) SR takes care of itself over their career. Besides, it would be pretty subjective to compare strike rate of players in different decades without standardizing the data, which in itself would require giving certain weightage to a matches in a particular period, trivial indeed, isn't it? And lets face it, these days when every player is used to playing in T20s, SR is a bit redundant. What i mean is that every decent batsmen today is capable of carving 15-20 runs of an over given the state of pitch/bowling. Dhoni and Misbah have a lower strike rate than Afridi and Raina. But given a situation where you need 10-20 runs of 5-10 balls, who would you want at the crease? I would prefer the first two, without any hesitation, and i wouldn't care for any statistical evidence that tells me otherwise.
[[
The undeniable fact is "Runs are runs" in any playing age. But scoring rates have different connotation at different times. Run-a-ball was very good in the early days. Today it might fall short. One reason I am wary of scoring rates in innings. But a combination of the runs scored and the scoring rate related factor, normalized to a related narrow-range, has a lot of relevance.
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 18:56 GMT

I am extremely disappointed to see this whole article based a batsman making 3000 runs in ODI. I believe in this article you just want to make Viv Richards the greatest ODI batsman so that fans of SRT200 just come here and criticize you.

If you really look in ODI cricket history then you would see that highest career ODI score is 18000 runs and over 10 batsmen have scored more than 10000 runs in their career and you put 3000 runs as criteria. Are you joking here. You think that we are just fool that you will write any thing on cricinfo and we will accept it without looking into actual facts. No we are not that bad.

I think you should use 7000 or 8000 runs as yardstick to measure who performed better in ODI and don't be biased by putting Richards and Jones name in every list because they did not even scored half of what these days ODI cricketers have achieved.

I think if we are really going to analysis the performance in ODI then make Dhoni career has yard stick.

• VK10 on December 28, 2013, 18:48 GMT

@Ananth: 1. Re my suggestion on tweaking HSI to include three top scores --- typically, an ODI scorecard features only 4 significant innings per team. So, it is best to use that measure. It is not as sudden/dramatic as your HSI but is more stable. Try it out and publish the revised tables if those seem worthwhile to you.
[[
Four is a lot when you realize that the average number of innings is only around 8. 3 is probably nearer the mark. In that case the runs*f(scoring-rate) makes sense since it will add value to a 25-ball 50. For a later day.
Ananth
: ]]

2. OK --- so, your Kallis dilemma rests on his ODI status. Fair enough. However, he was never rated as one of the greatest in ODI format (which is quite unfair, IMO). Ponting surely deserves a long overdue tribute --- a good captain, probably the best batsman of the 00's, and arguably the greatest fielder of all time.
[[
Probably after a month or two.
Ananth
: ]]

• rgrokkam1 on December 28, 2013, 17:59 GMT

Good work Ananth. Guess fans here are finding it hard to accept the analysis just because they don't see their favorite cricketers at the top of the table. The assumptions (tweaks) are clearly mentioned and the results/model are as good as the assumptions. This is one of several ways (metric) I believe to look at great ODI innings. Keep up the good work.

• on December 28, 2013, 17:07 GMT

I have never been a person who comments on cricinfo articles. but over the last few months, you are tempting me to write something.. I do not understand the logic when sachin is 4th in the list and you say whoever listed above and below are greatest odi batsmen whereas Sachin is not. I do not think you do not try to be fame by saying something bad about Sachin..
[[
It is obvious that you have understood NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING of what is being said.
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 15:58 GMT

I think you should also include opponents innings as well in to the HSI measurement. This will also reduce the bias of being a very good batsman on a very bad team (ala Lara). I do like getting a number out of each innings, but obviously, at the end, numbers only tell you part of the story....:--)
[[
Why should Kapil's 175 be influenced by the number of runs scored by the Zimbabwe batsmen?
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 15:47 GMT

Your HSI has a fatal flaw, in that you are not including the rate of scoring. Since it is ODI's you have to have that. 0What is the point in making the maximum runs at a lower rate, and hogging the batting without rotating the strike?
[[
Every analysis does not have to have every measure factored in. One analysis may have runs scored as the key factor, another may have the strike rate as the key and a third one may be a combination of the two. This analysis looks at runs only and let us leave it at that.
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 15:06 GMT

This measure focusses on contribution to team. Is the second highest score significantly relevant to rating the top score. I mean say a team scores 220, top score 100 with hs2 30 is rated 2 times higher than top score 100 with hs2 60. In the 1st case, hs1 batsman has received support from a number of players, while in the 2nd case mainly from one player. The value of the top score to the team is not a lot different in the 2 cases.
[[
In the first case the real fact is that he has carried the team on his shoulders and participated in more partnerships. The 60 in the second case also indicates a good partnership. Anyhow I feel that a 100/30 situation is far more valuable than a 100/60 situation which is more valuable than a 100/95 situation.
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 9:49 GMT

Like your article "The ODI batting giants" are you planning to write similar article on The ODI bowling giants? I am keen to view your ODI bowling analysis as well...

• on December 28, 2013, 9:23 GMT

I noticed (or missed reading him) that Ricky Ponting was not in many of the lists, surely something is not correct.
[[
Have you read the article properly. This is not some list of ODI Batting giants. It is based on HSI. Pontiong played in a strong team and had to share the spoils with other top batsmen. I would suggest a leisurely re-reading of the article.
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 7:34 GMT

It is very interesting that Dhoni does not feature in the list of greatest ODI batsmen at all in this index. I would have expected him to dominate the 4-7 list.
[[
Who said that this is a list of the greatest ODI batsmen?
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 7:34 GMT

It is very interesting that Dhoni does not feature in the list of greatest ODI batsmen at all in this index. I would have expected him to dominate the 4-7 list.
[[
Who said that this is a list of the greatest ODI batsmen?
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 9:23 GMT

I noticed (or missed reading him) that Ricky Ponting was not in many of the lists, surely something is not correct.
[[
Have you read the article properly. This is not some list of ODI Batting giants. It is based on HSI. Pontiong played in a strong team and had to share the spoils with other top batsmen. I would suggest a leisurely re-reading of the article.
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 9:49 GMT

Like your article "The ODI batting giants" are you planning to write similar article on The ODI bowling giants? I am keen to view your ODI bowling analysis as well...

• on December 28, 2013, 15:06 GMT

This measure focusses on contribution to team. Is the second highest score significantly relevant to rating the top score. I mean say a team scores 220, top score 100 with hs2 30 is rated 2 times higher than top score 100 with hs2 60. In the 1st case, hs1 batsman has received support from a number of players, while in the 2nd case mainly from one player. The value of the top score to the team is not a lot different in the 2 cases.
[[
In the first case the real fact is that he has carried the team on his shoulders and participated in more partnerships. The 60 in the second case also indicates a good partnership. Anyhow I feel that a 100/30 situation is far more valuable than a 100/60 situation which is more valuable than a 100/95 situation.
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 15:47 GMT

Your HSI has a fatal flaw, in that you are not including the rate of scoring. Since it is ODI's you have to have that. 0What is the point in making the maximum runs at a lower rate, and hogging the batting without rotating the strike?
[[
Every analysis does not have to have every measure factored in. One analysis may have runs scored as the key factor, another may have the strike rate as the key and a third one may be a combination of the two. This analysis looks at runs only and let us leave it at that.
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 15:58 GMT

I think you should also include opponents innings as well in to the HSI measurement. This will also reduce the bias of being a very good batsman on a very bad team (ala Lara). I do like getting a number out of each innings, but obviously, at the end, numbers only tell you part of the story....:--)
[[
Why should Kapil's 175 be influenced by the number of runs scored by the Zimbabwe batsmen?
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 17:07 GMT

I have never been a person who comments on cricinfo articles. but over the last few months, you are tempting me to write something.. I do not understand the logic when sachin is 4th in the list and you say whoever listed above and below are greatest odi batsmen whereas Sachin is not. I do not think you do not try to be fame by saying something bad about Sachin..
[[
It is obvious that you have understood NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING of what is being said.
Ananth
: ]]

• rgrokkam1 on December 28, 2013, 17:59 GMT

Good work Ananth. Guess fans here are finding it hard to accept the analysis just because they don't see their favorite cricketers at the top of the table. The assumptions (tweaks) are clearly mentioned and the results/model are as good as the assumptions. This is one of several ways (metric) I believe to look at great ODI innings. Keep up the good work.

• VK10 on December 28, 2013, 18:48 GMT

@Ananth: 1. Re my suggestion on tweaking HSI to include three top scores --- typically, an ODI scorecard features only 4 significant innings per team. So, it is best to use that measure. It is not as sudden/dramatic as your HSI but is more stable. Try it out and publish the revised tables if those seem worthwhile to you.
[[
Four is a lot when you realize that the average number of innings is only around 8. 3 is probably nearer the mark. In that case the runs*f(scoring-rate) makes sense since it will add value to a 25-ball 50. For a later day.
Ananth
: ]]

2. OK --- so, your Kallis dilemma rests on his ODI status. Fair enough. However, he was never rated as one of the greatest in ODI format (which is quite unfair, IMO). Ponting surely deserves a long overdue tribute --- a good captain, probably the best batsman of the 00's, and arguably the greatest fielder of all time.
[[
Probably after a month or two.
Ananth
: ]]

• on December 28, 2013, 18:56 GMT

I am extremely disappointed to see this whole article based a batsman making 3000 runs in ODI. I believe in this article you just want to make Viv Richards the greatest ODI batsman so that fans of SRT200 just come here and criticize you.

If you really look in ODI cricket history then you would see that highest career ODI score is 18000 runs and over 10 batsmen have scored more than 10000 runs in their career and you put 3000 runs as criteria. Are you joking here. You think that we are just fool that you will write any thing on cricinfo and we will accept it without looking into actual facts. No we are not that bad.

I think you should use 7000 or 8000 runs as yardstick to measure who performed better in ODI and don't be biased by putting Richards and Jones name in every list because they did not even scored half of what these days ODI cricketers have achieved.

I think if we are really going to analysis the performance in ODI then make Dhoni career has yard stick.