Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?

[aftabu]

Re: Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?

@nikhil25

i’m shocked by how poorly so many of you understand statistics. the analysis being discussed here is incredibly facile. firstly, century winning percentage is only meaningful relative to the overall team winning percentage. secondly, strike rate is a much more important metric. a proper analysis of these statistics reveals that tendulkar’s centuries have been the second highest quality centuries in the world, behind only brian lara’s.

i addressed this slanderous and nonsensical myth a year ago in an old post copied below:

*how did this ridiculous assessment become a standard line on gupshup?

a quick look at the numbers reveals that when tendulkar scores a century, india has lost only 27% of those matches. however, india’s overall loss percentage in matches where tendulkar played is 43%. statistically, a tendulkar century has had a greater impact on india’s winning chances than centuries made by ponting, kallis, inzimam, etc. on their respective teams’ winning chances (brian lara is an exception).

the only argument that would hold water is if tendulkar’s centuries have come at an average strike rate of 50-60%. in reality they have come at an average strike rate above 100%. the claims about selfish batting and chasing records at the cost of winning are equally baseless.*

I agree. Except for the last hundred