Courtesy of Zaheer E. Clarke
*After 46 ODI innings*, Shai Hope is averaging *48.67 runs* per dismissal at a strike rate of *74.68* runs per 100 balls.
*After their first 46 ODI Innings:*
IVA Richards: 48.66 Ave, 82.73 SR
G Greenidge: 47.58 Ave, 62.23 SR
R Sarwan: 44.31 Ave, 78.45 SR
S Chanderpaul: 33.09 Ave, 63.66 SR
D Haynes: 31.52 Ave, 59.88 SR
B Lara: 43.04 Ave, 70.51 SR
C Gayle: 30.08 Ave, 76.88 SR
C Hooper: 31.59 Ave, 68.03 SR
M Samuels: 30.34 Ave, 71.90
Darren Bravo: 29.70 Ave, 68.51 SR
S Hope: 48.67 Ave, 74.68 SR
*Career-to-date averages of WI players who have played 46+ innings (50 ODIs)*
Name: Average (Strike Rate)
S Hope: 48.67 (74.6
V Richards: 47.00 (90.20)
C Greenidge: 45.03 (64.92)
R Sarwan: 42.67 (75.74)
Chanderpaul: 41.60 (70.74)
D Haynes: 41.37 (63.09)
B Lara: 40.90 (79.62)
C Lloyd: 39.54 (81.22)
C Gayle: 38.38 (87.10)
C Hooper: 35.34 (76.63)
R Morton: 33.75 (66.36)
R Richardson: 33.41 (63.74)
M Samuels: 32.97 (75.11)
S Williams: 32.36 (66.02)
DM Bravo: 32.10 (70.15)
L Simmons: 31.58 (73.05)
*Shai Hope has the 9th highest batting average of any player who has played 50+ ODI matches and has batted 46+ innings*
*Name: Batting Average (Strike Rate)*
1. Kohli 59.57 (92.96)
2. Bevan 53.58 (74.16)
3. de Villiers 53.50 (101.09)
4. Babar Azam 51.29 (84.06)
5. J Trott 51.25 (77.06)
6. MS Dhoni 50.72 (87.55)
7. Joe Root 50.46 (86.72)
8 H Amla 49.74 (89.22)
*9. S Hope 48.67 (74.6*
10. Ross Taylor 48.34 (83.37)
*The averages and strike rates of the top-10 (listed above) after their first 46 innings*
Kohli 46.82 (83.11)
Bevan 57.21 (73.72)
de Villiers 33.51 (87.22)
Babar Azam 54.02 (85.50)
Trott 48.58 (77.00)
Dhoni 45.75 (100.00)
Root 39.14 (79.81)
H Amla 58.63 (92.81)
*S Hope 48.67 (74.6*
R Taylor 37.32 (84.31)
Before his innings today, Shai Hope was ranked tied for 9th in the world on the ICC ODI batsmen rankings. He could eclipse or retake his highest ranking of 6th earlier this year by the time the new rankings emerge tomorrow or later this week.
*In his last 14 ODIs (13 innings)*
Shai Hope is averaging 83.20 runs per dismissal at a strike rate of 89.84 with 4 centuries and 2 half-centuries.
*In his last 20 ODIs*
Shai Hope's *career batting average* has *jumped by 10.30 runs* from 38.37 to 48.67 and his *career strike rate* has *jumped by 8.76 runs per 100 balls* from 65.92 to 74.68.
Before today's match
Shai Hope
*against Top-8 teams:* 43.41 Average
*against Teams outside top-8:* 66.77 Average
*Chris Gayle*
*against Top-8 teams* : 34.05 Average
*against Teams outside top-8* : 60.70 Average
--------------------
Just love tagging Zaheer on a FB post, he just responds with a treasure trove of info
Message Board Archives
After 46 ODI Innings Shai Hope ..... (Nuff Sats)
He's been raving about Hope for a while
Are we padding stats are trying to win an ODI game? I welcome Hope's individual contribution but we want a team victory.
hope is the real deal, we should appreciate the greatness
In reply to LBW375
the game has changed drastically since the likes of Richards and Greenidge played. Their strike rate today will be 125.
*Hope is now the joint-fifth fastest all-time to the score 2000 ODI runs.*
Only Hashim Amla (40), Zaheer Abbas (45), Kevin Pietersen (45) and Babar Azam (45) have achieved the feat in fewer innings than Hope.
In reply to LBW375
Hope should now retire from ODIs so he can give others a chance to shine in front & behind the STUMPS . 
In reply to RemainsUnknown
In reply to RemainsUnknown
In reply to navindesigns
Hope is the real deal in ODIs right now. How he progresses will determine his greatness.
I wish he would be as consistent in test matches.
In reply to RemainsUnknown
In the United States,there is a PLETHORA of INFORMATION,yet the population is as DUMB AS ROCKS.Information is USELESS if it is not understood and wise decisions made in the furtherance of that information.
The question ons has to ask in the case of Shai Hope is WHAT DOES THIS INFORMATION MEAN???
50 Over ODI's in 2019 are completely different from those played in the 1980's and 1990's
When Viv Richards had a scoring rate of 90,most batsmen had scoring rates at least 20 points lower.
Right there is why, when Viv had a good score in an ODI, WI generally speaking won the game.
When someone in 2019 scores a century with a scoring rate of 125 or higher, then generally his team wins, unless the bowlers on his team bowl crap.
Any discussion on ODI batting greatness has to prominently feature SCORING RATE.
In reply to Dukes
I hesitated to join this discussion because this MB is overwhelmed with jackasses (mind you we need them if only for ridiculing purposes) who see numbers alone and do not weight these areas of comparison to bring apples and apples together.
And the plethora of posts from those jackasses usually drown posts from the more discernible posters. Now that you have raised the different eras in which the two batsmen played and highlighted the folly of our ways in performing direct across the board comparisons without any weighting, I must say I concur with your post above.
I remain a faithful supporter of Shai Hope but comparing Viv's SR with Hope without the scientific adjustments is as silly as they come.
In reply to Courtesy
Shai Hope's centuries usually lead to a loss for WI because they're at less than a run a ball.
A SR less than a run a ball ODI century in modern cricket will lose you the game
In reply to DIEHARD
But aren't you looking at Shai's stats in isolation? His role is gluing the innings together and a SR of 85-90 is acceptable if the batsmen around him strike at over 100.
But I will concede that there will be a problem if two Hopelike batsmen bat in the middle.
In reply to methodic
Proof positive of Viv’s greatness. He had a much better strike rate than others who played in the same era
In reply to LBW375
Dere are lies, damned lies and then dere are statistics. You can mount any kinda argument and massage statistics to fit de narrative. But so can someone else
In reply to DIEHARD
Didn we have people with strike rates of over 100 and still were not winning because we cudn last 50 overs? Strike rate in isolation is just as bad as reeling off ODI averages without game context
In reply to Dukes
Good God Dukes he gave you an ALL TIME list.
1. I do not think anyone presented this information to say Shai Hope is better than Viv.
2. Be careful when you start an era war else someone look at a Jan 5th 1971 scorecard.
3. Times change and people with them.
Look Shai Hope is performing at a level superior to his counterparts in the same era. The others are retired.
In reply to Dukes
It means that “[S]tatistics are just as lovely as they can be”.
“Go on, Mr. Pratt,” says Mrs. Simpson. “Them ideas is so original and soothing. I think statistics are just as lovely as they can be.”
– O. Henry
In reply to Courtesy
Agreed to an extent.
Look at other ODI teams, when the centurion goes at over a run a ball, it doesn't matter what the others do..the century knock is teh deifning innnings..it carries the team.
In a team context..trying to win ODI games..slow centuries are meaningless, and serve no real purpose other than individual achievement
In reply to Maispwi
Agreed, but, neither helps the team to a win is my point, he might as well get out cheaply
In reply to DIEHARD
In a team context..trying to win ODI games..slow centuries are meaningless, and serve no real purpose other than individual achievement
I would hate to venture a comment if there is no numerical quality attached "slow centuries" and no semblance of context.
Please qualify "slow centuries" numerically and say whether your data conforms to that of a difficult pitch.
In reply to DIEHARD
You have more confidence in the others right now to do what if he gets out cheaply?
In reply to seaegg99
What difference does it make if we still losing is my point, whether we lose by nine wickets or 1?
If he's not batting at a sR that gives the oppossition a challenging total, or allows us to chase the target they set, its all just an attractive knock with no purpose.
I just want us to see it for what it is, great individual achievement, but does not help the team
In reply to Courtesy
Please qualify "slow centuries" numerically and say whether your data conforms to that of a difficult pitch.
Lots of context missing, but I'd say a slow century is relative to what the other batsmen on the night have managed to achieve, that should factor for difficult pitches.
But Shai has scored big centuries at less than a run a ball and then we lose the match, i intend to try and find the data to support the argument, dont have the time right now.
I don't mean to sound as if i knocking the man for scoring big, but all these comparisons to Viv and other players seems out of place, when those innings more often than not led to a victory.
The SR of Shai's stellar record is just not in keeping with the tempo of the modern game.
Very telling stat this
Only twice in the last 12 months has a batsman scored at less than 90 SR, while batting first, and his team still managed to win, both times, that batsman was Tamim Iqbal, and achieved against WI..in the Caribbean.
Four times in total that batsman has been on the winning team, the times they chased, the target was 257 & 281.
In reply to DIEHARD
So I guess his improvement means nothing considering the falling wickets all around him.
I should also add that the 4 times a batsman made a century at less than a run a ball batting first, his team lost, 5 times in total, the one incident chasing was Kohli vs WI, where WI won
In reply to nick2020
I disagree. In ODI cricket it is not your average that is important, it is your scoring rate (Assuming you score more than 80)
Match winning innings are usually scores over 80 at better than run a ball.(run a ball is 100 for the neophytes)
Here are 5 innings that are of the type to win matches in this era
1.127 off 93 deliveries @ 136.56
2. 125 off 93 deliveries @134.41
3.106 off 78 deliveries @ 135.90
4.94 off 64 deliveries @ 146.88
5. 104 off 83 deliveries @125.30
Going back 2 years, 14 ODI centuries < 89 SR resulting in a win, 8 ODI centuries < 89 SR in losses
123 ODI centuries scored in wins, 78 of them SR > 100
49 ODI centuries scored in losses, 26 of those with SR > 100
so thats 68 ODI centuries with SR < 100, 45 Wins , 23 losses
104 centuries with SR> 100 resulting in 78 wins, and 26 losses.
So the numbers are not overwhelmingly in favour of the argument that a slow century will lose you a game...but it does say that scoring a century at a run a ball or more greatly improves your sides chances of a win
If looking at just the last 12 months...
28 ODI centuries in losses..11 less than a run a ball
57 ODI centuries in wins....17 less than a run a ball
In reply to DIEHARD
Conclusion:
Thank you.
I shall not overburden you with variables.
In reply to Courtesy
But dont be blind to the fact that in the last 12 months a less than a run a ball century is a 20% chance you'll win while scoring a century at more than a run a ball gives u 2/3 chance of winning!!! 
In reply to Dukes
To recap this gem:
How much you score is not that important only how quickly if you score more than 80.
Ah boy this board is highly entertaining.
In reply to Courtesy
These fellas value batsmen who go out to the crease hit a 4, 6 and get out on the very next ball. 3 balls. 10 runs.
In reply to nick2020.. well only 3 balls were left and we needed 10 to win.
In reply to natty_forever
Context..is..EVERYTHING...
What do we need to win??
In reply to DIEHARD we seem to forget that goal.
In reply to nick2020
You do yourself a disservice by resorting to snide remarks while failing to rebut what I said.
Hope scored 109 runs at 82 scoring rate while 2 Bangladeshi men scored half centuries at greater than 100 scoring rate.
In reply to Dukes
Maybe you should use balls faced to make it easier for them.
Once u face more than 80 balls, you need to be striking over 100, otherwise you doing your team a disservice, thats the way the modern game is played.
In reply to DIEHARD
As a lil boy mih momma used to seh: EASY LESSON GOOD FUH DUNCE
Or as JFK said: We choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy but because it is hard.
USE THAT GRAY MATTER PLEASE!!!!!!!!
In reply to DIEHARD
What has happened to the other 14 percent...matches drawn?
I really don't wish to burst your bubble but:
(1) You are essentially working with a rather narrow spread of 24 months data?
(ii) You have not worked out a standard deviation nor correlation coefficients for the set of data.
(iii) No identification and the degree of usefulness of variables (third factors).
(iv) No regression analysis for the set of data.
The above represent only quantitative considerations. And we have not discussed quality considerations which are numerous.
Therefore, there is need for a lot more analysis before we can conclude. This crude thing will not fly by me.
We need to know why when Virat Kohli is in a team the chance of winning increases and what are the chances of winning if Shai Hope is part of the same team scoring at his normal rate.
In reply to Dukes
In reply to Courtesy
Raaaaaaas cl@@@@##t bwoy...read the sign "Rum Shop"!!!
In reply to DIEHARD
But 20% + 2/3 = 86 percent. Drunken sailors can work that out. You ate the other 14?
In reply to Dukes
Valid observation.
But where are your clarifications?
This does not make sense Dukes. What more can I possibly say to address this? This needs walking back. And when it comes to his average it is below all the big boys but certainly not in out to sea territory. But if I may make a context argument out of his numbers it is easier to succeed when you are part of a successful team than the lone bright spot of a failing team.
In reply to nick2020
Our final score of 261 seemed inadequate from the get go.However 261 represents a scoring rate of 87,whereas Hope's scoring rate was 82.68.
My point is a score of over 300 was the par score which means a scoring rate of more than 100.
What that means is that apart from a bowler bowling out a team which seems to occur less frequently these days then scoring at 82 and taking up 44% of the deliveries puts enormous pressure on the other batsmen to score in excess of 140 per 100 balls.
How you are unable to comprehend this is indeed baffling.
In reply to Dukes
As of me typing this I have not checked your math but I question it. Only 2 guys had a better SR than Hope and they faced a total of 19 balls. He could not have pulled down our SR.
Remember extras go towards the teams run rate. There were 17 extras. Could you run your math again and adjust accordingly?
In reply to Dukes
Well it is baffling to me that you can see the logic in saying "Match winning innings are usually scores over 80 at better than run a ball.(run a ball is 100 for the neophytes)" and "In ODI cricket it is not your average that is important, it is your scoring rate (Assuming you score more than 80)" in the same post.
It is nonsensical but you seem unable or unwilling to admit it.
But we are in agreement; I cannot comprehend that post. Either it is incomprehensible or I am a dunce. I do not mind being a dunce as I am willing to learn.
In reply to nick2020
Remember extras go towards the teams run rate. There were 17 extras. Could you run your math again and adjust accordingly
I agree, but in view of the fact that they won with 5 overs to spare would suggest that 261 was woefully inadequate.
If you add 246 which is 300 balls at Hope's scoring rate and add 17 extras you end up with 263.Remember Roston Chase used up most of the other deliveries and his strike rate was also 82.
The bottom line is that scoring at 82 runs per 100 balls does not usually win ODI matches in recent times.The empirical evidence is clear.
HYPOTHETICAL
WI 305-6 off 50 overs Gayle 80 off 40 balls,Hope 120 off 160 balls
E 291
Who do you think will win the MOM award???
In reply to Dukes
Have you presented such evidence?
Anyway you do not seem intent on having an honest debate about this as you are not even attempting to clarify your post.
In reply to nick2020
[b]In reply to LBW375[/b
Hope him continue his good form...
Sars is right there with the big guns
In reply to natty_forever
So would we be in winning situations if he scored half the runs (50) at a SR of 100?
In reply to nick2020
Are you really serious??
Do you remember the 1979 World Cup Final when Boycott and Brearley were batting very slowly and Lloyd dropped Boycott? Many people felt that it was a deliberate drop because Boycott was batting so slowly it was making it increasingly difficult for England to win.
In reply to nick2020 … with that laafing face I see you realize you are chatting shyt. However, a good foil for Gayle, Lewis and DreRus.
In reply to natty_forever
True, but in this current team with Bravo, Chase, Carter and Ambris... Too much slow pokes
In reply to natty_forever
The award of chatting shyte goes to another poster in this thread.
In reply to Dukes
I disagree. In ODI cricket it is not your average that is important, it is your scoring rate (Assuming you score more than 80)
Match winning innings are usually scores over 80 at better than run a ball.(run a ball is 100 for the neophytes)
Here are 5 innings that are of the type to win matches in this era
We have nothing more to discuss until you make sense of this nonsense.
Shai Hope is good for the team that has Evin Lewis, Andre Russell in the lineup.
Opening or batting at 3, he would be the anchor, everybody bats around him.
He needs others in the lineup to bat 100 and over SR. I don't think Hope upping his own strike is impossible, although he seems to lose shape when he tries to up the ante.
This is a ridiculous argument West Indies lost 9 wickets and almost got bowled out! When Hope batted with Campbell he was going at a rate of 111 so he can bat faster but runs still have to be on the board in the first place.
In reply to hotarobin
Hey hey hey!
No logic allowed in here.
In reply to hotarobin
ssshhhh..............
you going get branded as a "truther"
Premise (i) A combination of slow pokes is not needed:
DIEHARD 5/9/19, 12:59:27 PM
.................
Premise (ii) Dashers are needed.
Shai Hope is good for the team that has Evin Lewis, Andre Russell in the lineup.
Courtesy:
Premise (iii) dashers are not needed if they average less than 40 or thereabouts.
Individual averages matter. (true)
The argument done if we can make sense of the snippets and premises above. Add CH Gayle to the second snippet.
Conclusion:
(I) In modern day ODI, the chance of winning is increased with a scores of 300 and over.
(2) Strategically, any team has to select a combination of batsmen who can regularly posts scores of 300+ (on good pitches) if they want to increase their chances of winning.
NB: No other variables were considered in this seemingly straight forward exercise of determine the batting requirements to increase the chance of winning.
In reply to nick2020
I was going to type more and build a case but then I realized that the argument in the first place is utter nonsense! The man won the MOM despite his team losing...how often does that happen?
With the exception of Holder, who scored 4 off two then got dismissed, Hope scored at a higher rate than the other 5 recognized batsmen.
This is almost as ridiculous as the time Lara scored a quick fire century against South Africa or Australia and was blamed for batting too fast when we lost the match....
In reply to hotarobin
The only argument i'm making is the stats quoted here in relation to past players is misleading, and he is nowhere near as impactful as they were.
He's a good player, but he is not impacting ODI games in the way a century shoud, because of their SR
In reply to Courtesy
Score more runs than the opposition ...in a nut shell, thats how you win ODIS..and given that you both have a maximum of 50 overs to bat, you need to do it a good clip
In reply to hotarobin
BINGO!!!...wunna haffi hask Chrissy n Idi fi remove dottie pest scuntesy a Cat 5 cricket DUNCE!!
In reply to hotarobin
"This is almost as ridiculous as the time Lara scored a quick fire century against South Africa or Australia and was blamed for batting too fast when we lost the match...."
I see the issue here..deflection is what u specialise in?
Did people find fault with the fact he scored a century, or the fact he eventually lost his wicket in a cavalier fashion? When runs were not needed but just to keep wickets?
We are dicussing in a team sport the conflict of interests that arises, when personal goals are achieved to the detriment of the team, so i guess in that manner both are similar
In reply to DIEHARD
Simple question: Were you confirming my post immediately above or arguing against it in your last post?
In reply to DIEHARD … this not my world Cup squad boss, suh a not panicking.
In reply to nick2020 … that was a bit harsh, should have said, "making mischief"
In reply to hotarobin
In reply to Courtesy
Somewhat.
My conclusion is not exactly the same as yours.
You included numbers.
But more or less the same
In reply to DIEHARD
Thank you.
In reply to hotarobin
Simple question: Were you confirming my post where I made a case for over 300+ totals to be scored to increase a team's chances of winning an ODI in this modern era?
Youngman just establishing himself in the style of the game and is ramping up his scoring rate at every turn. In the 20/20 version he is scoring even quicker. At least we have someone who can score a century these days.
Link Text
Kill the youth for improving game to game.
In reply to seaegg99
Oh..to be fair, let me also point out that he no longer has the lowest SR for ODI batsmen using any minimum criteria for runs, average or centuries in the last 12months which used to be the case.
I believe his SR in the last twelve months is now up to 85, when it used to be mid to low 60s, but also lets not forrget...he'e been playing teams outside the top 8 a lot recently
In reply to seaegg99
Oh..to be fair, let me also point out that he no longer has the lowest SR for ODI batsmen using any minimum criteria for runs, average or centuries in the last 12months which used to be the case.
I believe his SR in the last twelve months is now up to 85, when it used to be mid to low 60s, but also lets not forrget...he'e been playing teams outside the top 8 a lot recently
In reply to seaegg99
Records for all ODI batsmen in the last 12 months, minimum 600 balls faced
Scoring more runs and quicker than Root, Dhoni, Babar Azam, Finch, Khawaja, and Rayudu.
In reply to DIEHARD
Didn't he played India in India and did well
In reply to seaegg99
Yes but he also played as many matches together against Ireland, PNG, Scotland, Zimbabwe, and Bangladesh, and none against Aus and S.A
In reply to Courtesy
Well I don't disagree with that at all but I don't think the argument belongs to this particular thread either.
Simple question: are you of the opinion that Hope is partly responsible for the team not making 300+ in the last game?
In reply to hotarobin
Thank you.
In answer to your question NO. I think if he is gluing the innings together and there are dashers around him who are consistent, scores of 300+ can be achieved regularly.
And I have noticed with wickets in hand Shai usually shift gears around the 40th over. This seems to be the team's strategy,
In reply to Courtesy
OK. Teams are a lot more comfortable chasing 300+ scores since the T20 game has changed the approach to ODIs.
When you look at the team that lost the last game you realize that it would not have easily scored 300+ and hence why they lost. Almost all of them take time to accumulate runs. With less than 300+ runs on the board the team chasing has little or no pressure especially if you don't take cheap wickets..
A team with Gayle Lewis Hetymar and Russell..... Hope is the ideal bat to have around them. 100s at a strike rates of 80.. should still see the whole innings around 300 if we bat well.
In reply to hotarobin
There were two Bangladeshi batsmen who both scored half-centuries at scoring rates over 100 so it would have been difficult to separate the two in terms of a MOM award.I suggest to you that if only the first Bangladeshi batsman had scored what he did but the other one who scored 74 had scored 40 at the same rate and another batman had scored 34 at the same rate, then the first Bangladeshi batsman would have won the MOM award
If you do not understand my point I could explain it using actual names and numbers
This is almost as ridiculous as the time Lara scored a quick fire century against South Africa or Australia and was blamed for batting too fast when we lost the match....
This was in a TEST MATCH that we were trying to draw presumably when CREASE OCCUPATION was more important than scoring a century
In reply to Dukes
Thanks for explaining exactly what was in the mind of the MOM adjudicator....the point I was really making is that it proves that the performance has substantial value which appears to be the point of contention..
I am not going to even argue the Lara point. 100 hundred runs is runs on the board. If others contributed similar scores the match would have been drawn too...I will not ever see it differently...
In reply to hotarobin
Shai Hope's century had substantial value.That is not the issue.A team with Gayle, Lewis,Hetmyer and Russell needs a Shai Hope.However a team without those 4 stars does not need the current iteration of Shai Hope.
I am not going to even argue the Lara point. 100 hundred runs is runs on the board. If others contributed similar scores the match would have been drawn too...I will not ever see it differently.
It is OK for a fan to have that mindset but not an actual player.
No runs today the keeping first will affect hi batting
In reply to pariaman
His stats are almost identical whether batting or fielding first
In reply to DIEHARD
Was he the keeper in all the games
In reply to pariaman
if the keeping doesn't just watching the dismal display of bowling will send any wicket keeper into depression so you might be right...
In reply to pariaman
Yes
In reply to DIEHARD
We will see today
Search
Live Scores
- no matches