Business Quantitative Techniques

Business Quantitative Tools & Tetchiness
Submitted to: Date:
Mr. Abid Awan June 27, 2011
June 27, 2011
BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS
Authors Detail:
MBA (Fall 2010) SECTION (A)
Sr no: 1 2 3
Names
IDs
June 27, 2011
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
In the name of ALLAH ALLMIGHITY the lord of the world who has bestowed us with abilities and blessed with knowledge so that we can make best of opportunities provided to us first of all we are indebted towards ALLAH ALLMIGHITY who has created us and made us capable enough to with stand in the competitive world. If words could pay gratitude then we would like to pay our esteem gratitude to our most respected MR ABID AWAN Ali Khan for assigning us this project of BUSINESS STATISTICS throughout the course period he has been extremely cooperated with us and guided us at every single step he has been very encouraging and kind to us. Throughout it has been collaborated effort of all the group members who have contributed and helped each other to make this project a successful report.
June 27, 2011
Objective
The purpose of this project is to apply statistical tools for testing which Country is best among these three Countries in wheat EXPORT, PRODUCTION and DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION OF WHEAT.
Countries are:
INDIA PAKISTAN MAXICO
By applying statistical tools on this data well learn that who to apply these tools in our real life too to make our decisions easy.
June 27, 2011
Table of Contents
History: ....................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Description of all Statistical Tools ................................................................................................................ 9 Brief description of variables ...................................................................................................................... 12 Number of Balls (I.V): ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Number of Boundaries (I.V): .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Runs (D.V): ............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Descriptive Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 13 Analysis of Variance ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Fisher LSD .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Correlation Analysis of Afridi .................................................................................................................... 29 Correlation Analysis of Yuvraj ................................................................................................................... 31 Correlation Analysis of Gayle: ................................................................................................................... 33 Regression Analysis of Afridi ..................................................................................................................... 35 ANOVA of Regression Analysis ............................................................................................................ 38 Regression Analysis of Yuvraj ................................................................................................................... 39 ANOVA of Regression Analysis ............................................................................................................ 41 Regression Analysis of Gayle ..................................................................................................................... 42 ANOVA of Regression Analysis ............................................................................................................ 44 Comparison of Players ................................................................................................................................ 45 Crux of Study .............................................................................................................................................. 46 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 47 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 48
June 27, 2011
List of Tables Descriptive Analysis Tables Table: 113 Table: 214 Table: 316 ANOVA Tables Table: 420 Table: 524 Table: 627 Correlation Tables Table: 728 Table: 830 Table: 932 Regression Analysis Tables Table: 10..34 Table: 10.1.36 Table: 10.2.37 Table: 11..38 Table: 11.1.40 Table: 11.2.40 Table: 12..41 Table: 12.1.43
June 27, 2011
History of Indian wheat
Agriculture plays an important role in Indian Economy. It provides gainful employment to a significantly large section of Indian Society and provides raw material for a large number of industries in the country. According to 1991 Population Census nearly 74 percent of India's population live in rural areas for its livelihood. Agriculture is the largest contributor in the country's Net Domestic Product accounting for as much as 34.2 percent in 1991-92 at current prices. Thus, Agriculture has a key position in India's economy both in view of employment and contribution to the national income. India is one of the main wheat producing and consuming countries of the world. After the Green Revolution in the 1970's and 1980's the production of wheat has shown a huge increase. The major States that are involved in the cultivation of wheat are those located in the plains like Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana. They account for nearly 70 per cent of total wheat produced in the country. Punjab and Haryana yield the highest amount of wheat because of the availability of better irrigation facilities. Wheat is a Rabi crop that is grown in the winter season. Sowing of wheat takes place in October to December and harvesting is done during the months of February and May. The wheat crop needs cool winters and hot summers, which is why the fertile plains of the Indo-Gangetic region are the most conducive for growing it.
June 27, 2011
History of Pakistans wheat
Agriculture plays an important role in Pakistans Economy. It provides gainful employment to a significantly large section of Pakistans Society and provides raw material for a large number of industries in the country. About 28% of Pakistan's total land area is under cultivation and is watered by one of the largest irrigation systems in the world. Agriculture accounts for about 21% of GDP and employs about 42% of the labor force. The most important crops are cotton, wheat, rice, sugarcane, fruits, and vegetables, which together account for more than 75% of the value of total crop output. Despite intensive farming practices, Pakistan remains a net food importer. Pakistan exports rice, fish, fruits, and vegetables and imports vegetable oil, wheat, cotton (net importer), pulses, and consumer foods. Wheat is a Rabi crop that is grown in the winter season. Sowing of wheat takes place in October to December and harvesting is done during the months of February and May. The wheat crop needs cool winters and hot summers, which is why the fertile plains of the Indo-Gangetic region are the most conducive for growing it.
June 27, 2011
History of Mexico Wheat

In 1999, agriculture employed 23 percent of Mexico's labor force but accounted for only 5 percent of Mexico's GDP. Crop production was and continues to be the most important agricultural activity in Mexico, accounting for fully 50 percent of agricultural output. Domestically, the most important crops for consumption purposes are wheat, beans, corn, and sorghum. The most important crops for export purposes are sugar, coffee, fruits, and vegetables. Mexico continues to be one of the top producers of crops in the world. In 1999, the crops produced in greatest number in Mexico were sugar cane (46.81 billion tons), corn (15.72 billion tons), sorghum (5.59 billion tons), wheat (3 billion tons), and beans (1.04 billion tons). Fruits and vegetables are the most economically significant agricultural products exported by Mexico.
June 27, 2011
Description of all Statistical Tools

Following is the brief description of the Statistical tools which we have used in our project to analyze the data;
Mean:
The mean is also called the Arithmetic Mean. It is one of the measures of central tendency which is used most frequently. It is obtained by dividing the sum of all values by the number of values in the interested data. The single value of the Mean represents the whole data. The sample data mean is denoted by and the population mean is denoted by .
Median:
The median is also an important measure of central tendency. If we want the Median of the ungrouped data then it will be the middle value of the arranged data. It divides the arranged data into two equal parts. It is calculated by arranging data first in increasing order and then the middle value is founded from that arranged data. If the values of the data are odd then the median will be the middle value of the arranged data and if the values of the data are even then the median will be calculated by the average of the two middle values of the data.
Standard Deviation:
It is a frequently used measure of dispersion. The standard deviation tells about the deviation of the values of the data from its mean. The large value of standard deviation shows the more spread of the values from the mean and the smaller value of the standard deviation shows the less spread of the values from the mean. It is measured by taking the square root of the variance. The variance of the population is denoted by and variance of the sample is denoted by s.so the variance of population is denoted by and sample standard deviation is denoted by s. It is actually the sum of deviation of each value of the data from the mean and the sum of the deviation will always equal to zero. The value of the variance and standard deviation should not be negative. If the data has no variation in it then the variance and the standard deviation will be 0. It is expressed in the same units as the data.
Co-Efficient of Variance:
The coefficient of variation (CV) is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean : The answer of the (CV) < 1 shows the less variance and (CV) > 1 shows the high variance. It also tells the per unit variance of the data.
June 27, 2011
Skewness:
Skewness is the measure of the symmetry of the probability distribution of the random variable. Its value can be positive, negative or undecided. The negative skewed value indicates the tail on the left side, longer than the right side which means the data is clustered including median lying on the right side of the mean. The positive value of the skewness tells that the tail on the right side is longer than the left side, which means the data is clustered on the left side. If the value of the skewness is zero means the valued are evenly distributed on the both sides of the mean.
Hypothesis Testing:
It is a method of making decision using data whether from controlled experiment or from controlled experiment. Means we perform this test when we make the decision about the population parameter on the bases of the sample statistic. The two terms are used in this test Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis. Null Hypotheses normally is a claim about the population parameter that is considered to be true until it is proved false. Alternative Hypothesis is used to check the claim whether or not the Null Hypothesis is true.
ANOVA:
In analyses of the variance the ANOVA is used to check the Null Hypothesis whether or not the means of three or more populations are equal. The Hypothesis in the analyses of variance is normally stated like; H: all three population means are equal H: all three population means are not equal
Assumptions of ANOVA:
For using one-way ANOVA following assumptions must be fulfilled. 1. The populations are normally distributed from which the samples are drawn. 2. The populations also have the same variance or (Standard Deviation) from which the samples are drawn. 3. The samples are independent and random, drawn from the different populations. In the ANOVA we calculate the two variance estimates, variance between sample (MSB) and variance within sample (MSW). If the means of the populations under consideration are all equal then the variation between the means of the samples taken from those populations well be less, (MSB) will be low and the means of the populations are not equal then the (MSB) will be higher.
10
June 27, 2011
MSW gives the value indicating the variance within the data of samples taken from the different populations. It is similar to the concept of the pooled standard deviation.
Multiple Regression Analyses:

It is the study to confirm that how a dependent variable is depending on one or more independent variables. For this purpose we use the following model; = a+ bx + bx + Where: = dependent variable (Estimated Value of Y) a = y-intercept (Constant) b = (Slope) per unit change in due to the change in one unit of first independent variable. b = (Slope) per unit change in due to the change in one unit of second independent variable. The above model is often used for the future predictions of the important components/variables of the organizations.
Coefficient of Determination:
Coefficient of Determination is used to answer the question that how good is the regression model. It tells that how significantly a dependent variable is depending on the independent variables used in the regression model. It is denoted by r. The value of the r is always between 0 and 1. As long as the value of r is close to the 1 it will represent the fitness of the model and gives the confidence about the regression model. Its formula is;
r =
11
June 27, 2011
Brief description of variables

For the purpose of this project we have selected following variables. i. ii. iii. Production Domestic Consumption Export (Independent Variable) (Independent Variable) (Dependent Variable)
Production: (Independent Variable)

In this project production is our 1st variable. We collect last 30 values which are yearly base data of production of wheat of three countries INDIA, PAKISTAN, and MEXICO. If countries production goes up then it is able to export it more and also fulfill its domestic consumption very easily. The data of production vary year to year and it affects on the domestic consumption and export too. It is purely significant independent variable for each country because production of wheat depends upon the variables mostly.
Domestic consumption: (Independent Variable)

In this project domestic consumption is 2nd variable. We collect 30 values which are yearly base data of domestic consumption of wheat for three countries INDIA, PAKISTAN and MEXICO if the domestic consumption of a country goes down then it is able to export it more but it will happen when production of wheat goes higher. The data of domestic production vary year to year and it affects on exports only. It is purely significant variable for each country.
Exports: (Dependent)
Exports are our 3rd variable in this project which is dependent variable for this variable we collect 30 values which are yearly base data and this data is for three countries INDIA PAKISTAN MEXICO. Export is dependent variable which depends upon production and domestic consumption of wheat if the production increases then the export of wheat will also increase for each country and as well as if the domestic consumption of wheat decreases then the export of wheat will increases for each country. Our dependent variables have positive relation with production and have negative relation with domestic consumption of wheat.
12
June 27, 2011
Descriptive Analysis INDIA

Table: 1
Production Mean Median Standard Deviation coefficient of Variance Kurtosis Skewness Domestic Consumption 60613.27 Mean 63598.5 Median 13362.26 Standard Deviation coefficient of 104.925 Variance -1.15216 Kurtosis -0.24334 Skewness Export 60451.8 Mean 64342.5 Median Standard 12830.12 Deviation coefficient of 106.436 Variance -0.97222 Kurtosis -0.31746 Skewness 832.5333 150 1430.318 18.0173 5.139285 2.327124
Explanation: MEAN (PRODUCTION, DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION AND EXPORT)

The mean is the average value of the wheat which produce in India is 60613.27 in this period. Now this result show that in India the average domestic consumption of wheat on these 30th years is 60451.8. And also this result show that the average Export of wheat in India in this 30th year period is 832.5333
Median
The median is also use for the average value. In this period the average production of wheat is 63593.5. Now this result show that in India the average domestic consumption of wheat on these 30 th
years is. And also this result show that the average Export of wheat in India in this 30th year period is 150.
Standard Deviation: (Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

The standard deviation of wheat production of India in this period is 133362.26, which means that there are 133362.26 deviations from the average, in the data of Indian production of wheat for last 30 years. The standard deviation of wheats domestic consumption in India is 12830.12 in that period. The standard deviation of export of wheat is 1430.318.
13
June 27, 2011
Co-Efficient of Variance: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)
The CV value of wheat production is showing that there is 104% per year variation of wheat production in India of that period. As long as the domestic consumption is concerned the CV value is explaining the 107% variation of domestic consumption. Now the CV of export of wheat is illustrating the 18% variation per year export of India.
Skewness: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

Wheat production skewness is -0.2433 indicates that production in left skewed and most of the data is clustered on the right side. Boundarys skewness is -.03175 illustrating that domestic consumption is also left skewed and most of the data is clustered on the right side. Export of production skewness is 2.3271 indicates that export of wheat are right skewed and most of the data is clustered on the left side.
Pakistan Table: 2
Production Mean Median Standard Deviation coefficient of Variance Kurtosis Skewness Domestic Consumption 16868.66667 Mean 16779 Median 3964.253039 Standard Deviation coefficient of 23.5% Variance -0.998029335 Kurtosis 0.198571805 Skewness Export 17862.03 Mean 18640 Median Standard 3756.152 Deviation coefficient of 21.02% Variance -0.98076 Kurtosis -0.34223 Skewness 324.6 30.5 577.8332 178.01% 5.446105 2.377759
14
June 27, 2011
Explanation: MEAN (production, domestic consumption and export)

The mean of production of wheat by PAKISTAN IS 16868.666 and mean of domestic consumption is 17862.03 and the mean of export of wheat by Pakistan is 324.6 in last 30 years.
Median: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

The median of this data is 16779 which shows the average production of wheat by Pakistan in last 30 years and the average domestic consumption of wheat in Pakistan is 18640 in last 30 years .the median of export is 30.5 which means that the average export of Pakistan is 30.5 in last 30 years.
Standard Deviation: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)
The standard deviation in Pakistans wheat production is 3964.253039 and this value show the deviation from the average in data of production of Pakistan wheat in last 30 years. The standard deviation in Pakistans wheat domestic consumption is 3756.152 and this value show the deviation from the average in data of domestic consumption of Pakistan wheat in last 30 years. The standard deviation in Pakistans wheat export is 577.8332 and this value show the deviation from the average in data of export of Pakistan wheat in last 30 years.
Co-Efficient of Variance: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)
The value Co-Efficient of Variance of production of wheat is showing that there is 23.5% per year variation in production of wheat by Pakistan. The value Co-Efficient of Variance of domestic consumption of wheat is 21.02% per year variation in domestic consumption of wheat by Pakistan. As well as export concerned in export data the value of Co-Efficient of Variance is 178.01%.
it shows the per year variation in export of wheat by Pakistan.
15
June 27, 2011
Skewness: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

Skewness value of wheat production is 0.198 which means that it is right skewed and most of the data is clustered on the left side. Skewness value of wheat of domestic consumption is -0.34223 which means that it is left skewed and most of the data is clustered on the right side. Skewness value of export of wheat is 2.377759 which means that It is right skewed an dmostly data is clustered on the left side.
MEXICO:
Table: 3
Production Mean Median Standard Deviation coefficient of Variance Kurtosis Skewness Domestic Consumption 3578.9 Mean 3587.5 Median 524.1380017 Standard Deviation coefficient of 15% Variance -0.644972214 Kurtosis -0.09289545 Skewness Export 5146.233333 Mean 5223 Median Standard 749.3137404 Deviation coefficient of 14.6% Variance -1.388933856 Kurtosis -0.063532895 Skewness 362.1333 271 386.0117 106% 0.963786 1.161069
Explanation: Mean
The mean is the average value of the wheat which produce in Mexico is 3578.9 in this period. These results also show that the average domestic consumption of wheat on these 30th years is 5146.233333. And also this result show that the average Export of wheat in Mexico in this 30th year period is 362.1333.
16
June 27, 2011
Median: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

The median is also use for the average value. In this period the average production of wheat is 3587.5. This result is also show that the average domestic consumption of wheat on these 30 th years
is5223. And also this result show that the average Export of wheat in this 30th year period is 271.
Standard Deviation: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

The standard deviation of wheat production of Mexico in this period is 524.1380017 which mean that there are 524.1380017 deviations from the average, in the data of Indian production of wheat for last 30 years. The standard deviation of wheats domestic consumption in Mexico is 749.3137404 in that period. The standard deviation of export of wheat is 386.0117.
Co-Efficient of Variance: (Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

The CV value of wheat production is showing that there is 14% per year variation of wheat production in Mexico of that period. As long as the domestic consumption is concerned the CV value is explaining the 14.6% variation of domestic consumption. Now the CV of export of wheat is illustrating the 106% variation per year export of Mexico.
Skewness: (Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

Wheat production skewness is-0.644972214 indicates that production in left skewed and most of the data is clustered on the right side. Boundarys skewness is -0.063532895 illustrating that domestic consumption is also left skewed and most of the data is clustered on the right side. Export of production skewness is 1.161069 indicates that export of wheat are right skewed and most of the data is clustered on the left side.
Comparison of Averages
17
June 27, 2011
Our data has outliers so that we have calculated the Median. We have also calculated the Mean.
Production:
Now we can compare the averages of production from our above data. The average production of India is 60613.27 and average production of PAKISTAN is 16868.66 and the average production of MEXICO is 3578.9 in last 30 years. From these averages we can say that India is best producer of wheat in last 30 years and PAKISTAN is second best producer of wheat in this period and as far MEXICO is consider it is the lower producer of wheat from other two countries in this period.
Domestic Consumption:
As comparing the averages of domestic consumption of wheat in these countries we found that the average of INDIA is 60451.8 average of PAKISTAN is 17862.03 and the average of MEXICO is 5146.23.these result shows that averages of domestic consumption of wheat in these countries are varying from each others and INDIA consumes domestically very high from two countries and PAKISTAN is on second number as well as MEXICO consumes very low domestically. All these countries consume wheat domestically in these 30 years very differently. EXPORT: This data of three countries about EXPORT for last 30 years shows the average of export of INDIA is 832.5333 and the export of PAKISTAN is 324.6 where as the export of MEXICO is 362.1333. These averages shows that the average EXPORT of INDIA is higher than other two countries and MEXICO is on second number where as PAKISTAN export of wheat is lower than two other countries.
Comparison of Standard Deviation:

As we have already stated above that Standard deviation is the most commonly used tool of dispersion. Still it is the most accurate measure of dispersion. It is used to find the deviation in data. The less the standard deviation the more consistent the data will be. We are going to compare the S.D of all three countries comparison is as bellow;
18
June 27, 2011
Production:
The S.D of India is, 13362.26 Pakistan is 3964.253039 and Mexico is 524.1380017. According to our result the S.D of India is again more than that of other two countries; it means its deviation from the mean is more. There is more spread in his data, means no consistency. The deviation of pakistan is less than the india but greater than mexico, which shows that it is more consistent in producing wheat than india but less consistent than mexico . Here the deviation of mexico from the mean is less than the other two countries
The S.D of india is, 12830.12 pakistan is3756.152 and mexico is 749.3137404. According to our result the S.D of india is again more than that of other counyries; it means its deviation from the mean is more. There is more spread in his data, means no consistency. The deviation of pakistan is less than the other two countries which shows that it is more consistent in consumption of wheat than both of other two. Here the deviation of mexico is less than the india. . EXPORT: The S.D of india is 1430.318 , pakistan is 577.8332 and mexico is 386.0117 . According to our result the S.D of india is more than that of other two countries, it means its deviation from the mean is more. There is more spread in his data, means no consistency. The deviation of mexico is less than that of other two countries which shows that it is more consistent in export. Here the deviation of pakistan is less than the india but greater than the mexico.
Comparison of C.V:
As we know that the Co-efficient of Variance (C.V.) tells us the Variation per unit. So the less the value of C.V. the more it will be favorable and it also tells us the consistency. Now the comparison of all three countries which is as under:
Production:
The C.V of india is 104.46%,the C.V of pakistan is 23.5% and the mexico C.V is 15% Our result shows that the per year variation of maxico is again less than that of other countries.
The C.V of india is106%,the C.V of pakistan is 21% and the mexico C.V is14.6% Our result shows that the per year variation of maxico is again less than that of other countries. EXPORT: The C.V of India is18.017%, the C.V of Pakistan is 178% and the Mexico C.V is106%.
19
June 27, 2011
Scenario # 1
Production
We check that the mean of wheat production of the three countries production. (India Pakistan and Mexico) are same in year. For this job the following data is taken from SBP (State Bank of Pakistan) record. Use these data to test whether the populations mean of production of these countries are different. Use = 0.05 India 3.6313 3.7452 4.2794 4.5476 4.4069 4.7052 4.4323 4.6169 5.411 4.985 5.5134 5.569 5.721 5.984 6.547 6.2097 6.935 6.635 7.078 7.6369 6.968 7.181 6.51 7.215 6.864 6.935 7.581 7.857 8.068
20
Pakistan Mexico 3.05 1.1473 4.2 1.1304 3.2 1.2414 4.2 1.0882 4.4 1.1703 4.5 1.3922 3.7 1.202 3.2 1.2675 4 1.4419 3.93 1.4429 4.061 1.4565 3.621 1.5684 3.582 1.6157 4.151 1.5212 3.468 1.7002 3.107 1.6907 3.639 1.6651 3.235 1.8694 3.05 1.7858 3.4 2.1079 3.27 1.9024 3.23 1.8227 2.7 1.9183 2.42 1.95 3.02 2.1612 3.24 2.1277 3.593 2.3295 4 2.0959 4.3 2.4033
June 27, 2011
8.071
2.39
3.9
Null Hypothesis
H 0 : 1 2 3
Alternative Hypothesis
H1 : 1 2 3
Distribution
We use F-Distribution, because we have more than one population or to run the hypothesis testing.
Critical Region
f tab = v1 ,v2 ,
F tab=2, 84, .05

=3.105
If f >3.105, so we reject H0
ANOVA Table TABLE: 4 ANOVA

Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total SS 287.8838833 57.60466839 345.4885517 df MS F P-value F crit 2.11E33 3.105157
2 143.9419 209.8983 84 86 0.68577
21
June 27, 2011
BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS Calculated f value > Tabulated f value
f = 208.475 is greater than the tabulated value which is 3.105 As well As P value < So we reject Ho
Explanation:
We know that if the means of all the population are equal then the production sample means taken from three different countries production will still be not equal because the variation between them will be very large and as a result the value of MSB will be less. If the means of all populations under concern are not equal then variation between sample means will be high and the value of MSB will also be high. As long as the MSW is concerned, the MSW value tells the variation within the different samples data taken from the different populations. Here the variation within sample is 696.31 So in the light of the above discussion we can see in the above table that the value of MSB is very high and our results are also indicating towards rejecting the Ho which means that all population means are not equal. The critical value is 3.101 and our f calculated value is 3929 which is greater than the critical value which illustrates that reject Ho. As we know that the oneway ANOVA test is always right tail and the f calculated value is lying in the rejection region which is the main reason to reject Ho. If we compare the p value, the p value is 0.023 which is less than the (0.05) and the rule is , if p value is less than the then reject Ho otherwise do not reject. It is also supporting our conclusion. As we have rejected the Ho, which means at least one mean should not be equal, so now we want to know that which population mean is not equal to the other population means. For this purpose we will calculate the Fisher LSD which will tell us about which mean is not equal.
22
June 27, 2011
Domestic Consumption Scenario # 2

We check that the mean of wheat domestic consumption of three different countries (INDIA, PAKISTAN and MEXICO) are same in One year. For this job the following data is taken from SBP (State Bank of Pakistan) record. Use following data to test whether the populations mean of domestic consumption of these countries is different. Use = 0.05.
INDIA Pakistan Mexico 3.6313 4 1.1215 3.7838 4.093 1.1521 4.2029 4.1 1.2 4.3076 4.35 1.2312 4.3719 4.64 1.2754 4.5567 5.112 1.32 5.6492 4.272 1.38 4.8929 4.103 1.4886 5.3201 4.7595 5.8009 5.7515 5.3377 5.833 6.4978 6.6064 6.9246 6.3707 6.8793 6.6821 6.5125 7.4294 6.8258 7.2838 6.998 7.3477 7.6423 7.0924 7.8201 8.2435 23 1.5316 1.6206 1.6907 1.7405 1.79 1.8137 1.8904 2.0124 2.0258 2.1284 2.0452 2.05 1.98 1.838 1.89 1.95 2.01 2.17 2.24 2.28 2.32 2.4
4.152 4.454 4.622 4.888 5.398 5.265 4.707 4.815 5.181 5.409 5.378 5.58 5.818 5.9 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 5.5 6 6.2 6.25
June 27, 2011
Null Hypothesis
H 0 : 1 2 3
H1 : 1 2 3
Distribution
Critical Region
f tab = v1 ,v2 ,
F tab=2, 84, .05

=3.105
ANOVA Table TABLE: 5

ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total
SS 299.1501 60.26766 359.4177
df 2
MS 149.575
F 208.475
P-value F crit 2.68E33 3.105157
84 0.717472 86
24
June 27, 2011
BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS Calculated f value > Tabulated f value
f = 208.475 is greater than the tabulated value which is 3.105 As well As P value < So we reject Ho
Explanation:
As the f calculated value is 208.475, Greater than the f critical value, means 208.475 > 3.101296 so we do not reject Ho which means average domestic consumption by all three countries are equal. Our P value is also showing the different results because it is less than the alpha so we reject Ho. As in above table the value of MSB is very large than the comparison of production, it is showing the large variation in the sample means taken from the different three countries. It happens when the population means are equal, so the comparison between critical value and f calculated value has justified that the population means are equal. The value of MSW 0.717472 is showing the variation within the sample data taken from the different Countries We have selected the competitive Countries so that the number of domestic consumption are not close to each other because on every production compite the domestic consumption is difficult and sometimes impossible, so therefore on average these three countries number of domestic consumption are not same.
Comparison:
We have calculated the ANOVA of three players regarding boundaries hit by them so if we compare the findings of the ANOVA with the raw data, the value of MSB is showing the less variation between the means of the samples data which gives the indication about the equality in the population means regarding the boundaries. The findings of the ANOVA about the boundaries demonstrate the average boundaries hit by all the three players on the population base are same because the players we have selected have more strike rate, means they have made more runs on less balls played. This happens only because of hitting more boundaries so all three players have the same average on population bases regarding the boundaries.
25
June 27, 2011
Scenario # 3
Export
We check that the mean of wheat export by three different Countries (INDIA, PAKISTAN and MEXICO) are same in One year. For this job the following data is taken from SBP (State Bank of Pakistan) record. Use these data to test whether the populations mean of Wheat export by the three different Countries. Use alpha= 0.05.
India Pakistan Mexico 0 5 0 1 10 0.78 0.35 2 2.05 1 5 0.49 4 6 0 5 3 0 5 52 0 0.2 231 0 0.2 200 0 2 7 0 6.8 8 0.1 0.5 8 0.5 0.28 12 0 1 135 0.06 15 472 0.01 20 227 0.01 0 374 0.12 0 311 0 2 404 0 15.69 705 2.53 30.87 548 4.95 48.5 597 11.85 56.5 451 1.93 21.2 504 6 8.01 533 6 0.94 548 7 0.49 1261 22 0.23 1406 21 1 839 3 2 1000 7 26
June 27, 2011
Null Hypothesis
H 0 : 1 2 3
H1 : 1 2 3
Distribution
Critical Region
f tab = v1 ,v2 ,
F tab=2, 84, .05

=3.105
ANOVA Table TABLE: 6 ANOVA

Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total SS 2625191 4196022 6821213 df 2 MS 1312596 F 26.2768 P-value F crit 1.37E09 3.105157
84 49952.64 86
27
June 27, 2011
Calculated f value > Tabulated f value f =26.2768 is greater than the tabulated value which is 3.105 As well As P value < So we reject Ho
Explanation:
As the calculated value is 26.2768 greater than the critical value means 26.2768 > 3.105 so we reject the Ho which means all means are not equal. According to the results the average export by these three countries on production bases are not equal. P value is also less than the alpha so we reject Ho. The value of MSB is high but some time less or greater than the value of the production.
Comparison
Here the value of MSB is high but still less than the (balls value of MSB). According to our ANOVA calculations our P and F value are in the favor of Ho so because of these calculations we also have concluded that the population means (of Runs) are equal and there is less (but not that much less variation as compared to the boundaries) in sample means. It is all because of high MSB value than boundaries but less than balls MSB value, as we have found the MSB value of balls very high and on this base we have rejected Ho. So as a result we have concluded that on average they made almost same runs in their every match.
28
June 27, 2011
Correlation Analysis of INDIA

Following is the Correlation Analysis of our collected data.
TABLE: 7
Correlation Table
Production Production Domestic Consumption Exports 1 0.95653 0.272128 1 0.322684164 1 Domestic Consumption Exports
Explanation:
In the above table we can see that the relation between X1 and X2 is 82.76%, it is showing that there is strong positive correlation between our both independent variables. Now the relationship between X1 and Y is 92.32% which is indicating that our dependent variable Runs is depending strongly on the Balls. It happens in real life as well because without playing balls the player cant make the runs so thats why there is strong positive correlation between Runs and Balls. Now the value 97.133% is also showing the strong positive correlation between the Boundaries and Runs. This value is greater than the value of Balls relationship because boundary can increase the runs in high proportion and we have selected those players whose boundaries are more than the other bats men. Therefore the relation ship between Boundaries and the Runs is more. Now we are going to check that whether or not the relations discussed above exist on the population bases. For this purpose we will apply the hypothesis.
SCENARIO 1:
We have gotten the
= 0.9232 so now we want to check that whether this relation exists
actually on population bases or not. Ho: 0

29
June 27, 2011
BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS H1: < 0
Test Statistic:
=1.701 If t calculated value is < 1.701 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject.
Conclusion:
Value = 32.588905, so it is > 1.701, which, means we do not reject Ho. This result is showing that the relation on the base of sample data exists in the population as well. It means
that there is strong positive correlation between Balls and Runs. SCENARIO 2:
We have gotten the
= 0.97133 so now we want to check that whether this relation exists
actually on population bases or not. Ho: 0 H1: < 0
=1.701 If t calculated value is < 1.701 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject.
Conclusion
Value = 34.8655, so it is > 1.701, which, means we do not reject Ho. This result is showing that the relation on the base of sample data exists in the population as well. It means
that there is strong positive correlation between Number of Boundaries and Runs.
30
June 27, 2011
Correlation Analysis of PAKISTAN TABLE: 8
Correlation Table
Production Production Domestic Consumption Exports 1 0.937507914 0.59856792 1 0.504225813 1 Domestic Consumption Exports
Explanation:
In the above table we can see that the relation between X1 and X2 is 84.91%, it is showing that there is strong positive correlation between our both independent variables. Now the relationship between X1 and Y is 91.36% which is indicating that our dependent variable Runs is depending strongly on the Balls. It happens in real life as well because without playing balls the player cant make the runs so thats why there is strong positive correlation between Runs and Balls. Now the value 97.79% is also showing the strong positive correlation between the Boundaries and Runs. This value is greater than the value of Balls relationship because boundary can increase the runs in high proportion and we have selected those players whose boundaries are more than the other bats men. Therefore the relation ship between Boundaries and the Runs is more. Now we are going to check that whether or not the relations discussed above exist on the population bases. For this purpose we will apply the hypothesis. SCENARIO 1: We have gotten the = 0.9136 so now we want to check that whether tH1s relation exists
actually on population bases or not.

Ho: 0 H1: < 0
=1.701
31
June 27, 2011
If t calculated value is < 1.701 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject. = t = 35.3425 Conclusion: Value = 35.3425, so it is > 1.701, which, means we do not reject Ho. This result is showing that the relation on the base of sample data exists in the population
as well. It means that there is strong positive correlation between Balls and Runs.
SCENARIO 2: We have gotten the = so now we want to check that whether this relation exists

Ho: 0 H1: < 0
=1.701 If t calculated value is < 1.701 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject. = t = 37.739
32
June 27, 2011
Conclusion: Value = 37.739, so it is > 1.701, which, means we do not reject Ho. This result is showing that the relation on the base of sample data exists in the population as well. It means that there is strong positive correlation between Boundaries and Runs.
Correlation Analysis of MEXICO TABLE: 9
Correlation Table
Production Production Domestic Consumption Exports 1 -0.243877355 -0.134459644 1 0.717375962 1 Domestic Consumption Exports
Explanation:
In the above table we can see that the relation between X1 and X2 is 71.821%, it is showing that there is strong positive correlation between our both independent variables. Now the relationship between X1 and Y is 86.53% which is indicating that our dependent variable Runs is depending strongly on the Balls. It happens in real life as well because without playing balls the player cant make the runs so thats why there is strong positive correlation between Runs and Balls. Now the value 93.76% is also showing the strong positive correlation between the Boundaries and Runs. This value is greater than the value of Balls relationship because boundary can increase the runs in high proportion and we have selected those players whose boundaries are more than the other bats men. Therefore the relation ship between Boundaries and the Runs is more. Now we are going to check that whether or not the relations discussed above exist on the population bases. For this purpose we will apply the hypothesis.
33
June 27, 2011
SCENARIO 1:
We have gotten the
so now we want to check that whether this relation exists

Ho: 0 H1: < 0
=1.701
If t calculated value is < 1.701 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject. = t = 21.63
Conclusion:
Value = t = 21.63, so it is > 1.701, which, means we do not reject Ho. This result is showing that the relation on the base of sample data
exists in the population as well. It means
that there is strong positive correlation between Balls and Runs.
SCENARIO 2:
We have gotten the = so now we want to check that whether tH1s relation exists
actually on population bases or not. Ho: 0 H1: < 0
= 1.701 If t calculated value is < 1.701 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject.
34
June 27, 2011
t = 23.44
Conclusion:
Value = 23.44, so it is > 1.701, which, means we do not reject Ho. This result is showing that the relation on the base of sample data exists in the population as well. It means that there is strong positive correlation between Boundaries and Runs.
Regression Analysis of INDIA

Following is the Regression Analysis of our data:
TABLE: 10
Regression Table
Coefficients Intercept Production Domestic Consumption -1324.14 -0.04597 0.081772 Standard Error 1243.271851 0.066270106 0.069018762 t Stat -1.06504 -0.69373 1.18478 P-value 0.296288459 0.493779102 0.246428801
Our multiple regression equation is: = a + (b1*X1) + (b2*X2) = -0.4177 + 0.6097*X1 + 4.1337*X2
Explanation of the above Equation:

Our intercept a = -0.4177, it means that if every value other than a is equal to 0 then the runs of the Afridi will be -0.4177. It is showing the negative value of the intercept which indicates that the average Runs of the Afridi will go in minus if he could not score the runs in the match because as his matches will increase and if he could not play the bat or could not score the runs the over all average will be decreased.
35
June 27, 2011
Now the value of b1 = 0.6097, it is showing the 0.6097 change in the runs due to the change in one ball. Its value is small so that it has not that much significant affect on the model but as the value is showing the less impact on the model, it is showing this result because there is a possibility not to make the runs on every ball. But in reality without balls runs cant be made. The value of b2 = 4.1337 which is showing the 4.1337 change in the runs due to the change in one boundary. This value is showing the significant contribution in the model. Now to generalize the above slopes to the population we will have to calculate the hypothesis which will tell us that whether or not the above discussed changes exist on population base.
SCENARIO 1:
According to our calculation the value of b1 =0.609794. Now we want to check that whether this per unit change exists in the population or not. Ho: Hi: >0 <0
= 1.701 If t calculated value is < 1.701 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject. t = 4.798473
Conclusion:
As t = 4.798473 which is > 1.701 so we do not reject H. It means that we are in the favor of H that indicates, the per unit b1 = 0.609794 change exists in the population.
SCENARIO 2:
According to our calculation the value of b = 4.13377197. Now we want to check that whether this per unit change exists in the population or not. Ho: Hi:
36
>0 <0
June 27, 2011
= 1.701 If t calculated value is <1.701 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject.
= 32.5288
Conclusion:
As t = 32.5288 which is > 1.701 so we dont reject H. It means that we are in the favor of H that indicates, the per unit b = 4.13377 change exists in the population. We have proved the per unit changes on the bases of the samples on the population. Now we want to check that how much our regression model is reliable or up to what extent we can control the errors. For this purpose we will apply the Coefficient of Determination. It is denoted by r.
TABLE: 10.1
Regression Statistics
Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Observations 0.346141 0.119814 0.054615 30
Explanation:
In the above table the value of r = 0.9886 which is showing that we are controlling errors. It means that the Runs which we have taken as dependent variable is strongly depending on the factors we have selected as independent variables like Balls and Boundaries. There are only approximately 2% chances that the dependent variable will be affected by other factors i.e. state of pitch, match pressure etc. As the more variables are added to the model the value of will be more.
37
June 27, 2011
The value of is also showing the fitness of our model, we are approximately 98% confident that our selected model is suitable to predict our dependent variable. Our sample is also showing that we can strongly control the dependent variable with our independent variable, which we have taken. Actually the r tells us the reliability of the model more than the original thats why we use adjusted r to know the approximately close answer to the reality. The value of adjusted r is always less than the value of the r as given in the table. Adjusted R = 0.9878. This value is showing that still we can control the errors up to approximately 98% which is good indication for our model.
ANOVA of Regression Analysis Overall Affect of Balls and Boundaries

Now we want to check the overall affect of the Balls (b) and Boundaries (b) on the Runs. So we will have to apply ANOVA to check this.
TABLE: 10.2
ANOVA
Df Regression Residual Total 2 27 29 SS MS 7108367.665 3554184 52220085.8 1934077 59328453.47 F 1.837663842 Significance F 0.178549
Explanation:
As we can see from the above table, the value of the MSR is greater than the MSE due to this the f calculated value will be greater and it will tell us about whether b and b that we have calculated, can be generalized on the populations or not. Now we will apply the hypothesis to test the overall affect of the changes in balls and boundaries. Ho:
38
=0
June 27, 2011
BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS H1: 0
= 4.24 If calculated value is < -4.24or > 4.24 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject. Conclusion We do not reject Ho because our f calculated value is 1178.0717 which means that the over all affect of Balls and Boundaries exist on population bases.
Regression Analysis of PAKISTAN TABLE: 11
Regression Table
Coefficients Intercept Production Domestic Consumption -938.981 0.151507 -0.07234 Standard Error 426.5087124 0.063218223 0.066720678 t Stat -2.20155 2.396576 -1.08423 P-value 0.03642519 0.023740225 0.287851529
Explanation:
Our intercept a = -0.293, it means that if every value other than a is equal to 0 then the runs of the Yuvraj will be -0.293. It is showing the negative value of the intercept which indicates that the average Runs of the Yuvraj will go in minus if he could not score the runs in the match because as his matches will increase and if he could not play the bat or could not score the runs the over all average will be decreased. Now the value of b1 = 0.3630, it is showing the 0.3630 change in the runs due to the change in one ball. Its value is small so that it has not that much significant affect on the model but as the value is showing the less impact on the model, it is showing this result because there is a possibility not to make the runs on every ball. But in reality without balls runs cant be made.
39
June 27, 2011
The value of b2 = 4.7083 which is showing the 4.7083 change in the runs due to the change in one boundary. This value is showing the significant contribution in the model. Now to generalize the above slopes to the population we will have to calculate the hypothesis which will tell us that whether or not the above discussed changes exist on population base. SCENARIO 1: According to our calculation the value of b = 0.36302. Now we want to check that whether this per unit change exists in the population or not.
Ho: = 0 H1: 0 = 2.048 If t calculated value is < -2.048or >2.048then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject. t = 17.622 t= Conclusion: As t = 17.622 which is > 2.048 so we will reject H. It means that we are in the favor of H that indicates, the per unit b = 0.36302 change exists in the population. SCENARIO 2: According to our calculation the value of b =4.7083. Now we want to check that whether this per unit change exists in the population or not. Ho: H1: = 2.048 If t calculated value is < -1.701 or >1.701 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject. t = 36.58
40
=0 0
June 27, 2011
Conclusion:
As t = 36.58 which is > 2.048 so we will reject H. It means that we are in the favor of H that indicates, the per unit b = 4.70831 change exists in the population.
We have proved the per unit changes on the bases of the samples on the population. Now we want to check that how much our regression model is reliable or up to what extent we can control the errors. For this purpose we will apply the Coefficient of Determination. It is denoted by r.
TABLE: 11.1
Regression Statistics
Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Observations 0.62053 0.385057 0.339506 30
The value of R square is telling that we can control approximately 98.12% errors by using the above regression model. The variables are very important to represent the dependent variable Runs. The value of Adjusted R square tells the accurate value than the R square value.
ANOVA of Regression Analysis

Now we will apply the hypothesis to test the overall affect of the changes in balls and boundaries.
TABLE: 11.2
ANOVA
df Regression Residual Total 41 2 27 29 SS MS 3728451.183 1864226 5954394.017 220533.1 9682845.2 F 8.453268432 Significance F 0.00141
June 27, 2011
BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS Ho: H1: = =0 0
= 4.24 If calculated value is < -4.24or > 4.24 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject. Conclusion We do not reject Ho because our f calculated value is 706.972039 lying in the rejection region which means that the over all affect of Balls and Boundaries exist on population bases.
Regression Analysis of MEXICO TABLE: 12
Regression Table
Coefficients Intercept Production Domestic Consumption -1681.01 0.031707 0.374968 Standard Error 577.6260941 0.101635148 0.071092842 t Stat -2.91021 0.311969 5.274339 P-value 0.007151896 0.757460537 1.45836E-05
Explanation:
Our intercept a = -0.3125, it means that if every value other than a is equal to 0 then the runs of the Yuvraj will be -0.3125. It is showing the negative value of the intercept which indicates that the average Runs of the Yuvraj will go in minus if he could not score the runs in the match because as his matches will increase and if he could not play the bat or could not score the runs the over all average will be decreased.
42
June 27, 2011
Now the value of b1 = 0.4097, it is showing the 0.4097 change in the runs due to the change in one ball. Its value is small so that it has not that much significant affect on the model but as the value is showing the less impact on the model, it is showing this result because there is a possibility not to make the runs on every ball. But in reality without balls runs cant be made. The value of b2 = 4.3161 which is showing the 4.3161 change in the runs due to the change in one boundary. This value is showing the significant contribution in the model. Now we will generalize the above findings to the populations.
SCENARIO 1:
According to our calculation the value of b = 0.4097 . Now we want to check that whether this per unit change exists in the population or not. Ho: = 0 H1: 0 = 2.048 If t calculated value is < -2.048 or >2.048 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject. t = 5.285 Conclusion: As t = 5.285which is > 2.048 so we will reject H. It means that we are in the favor of H that Indicates, the per unit b = 0.4097 change exists in the population. If t calculated value is <- 2.048 or > then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject.
SCENARIO 2:
According to our calculation the value of b = 4.3161. Now we want to check that whether this per unit change exists in the population or not. Ho: H1:
43
=0 0
June 27, 2011
= 2.048 t = 3.344 Conclusion: As t = 3.344which is > so we will reject H. It means that we are in the favor of H that indicates, the per unit b = 4.3161change exists in the population.
ANOVA of Regression Analysis Overall Affect of Balls and Boundaries

Now we will apply the hypothesis to test the overall affect of the changes in balls and boundaries.
TABLE: 12.1
ANOVA
df Regression Residual Total 2 27 29 SS 2231316.65 2089828.817 4321145.467 MS 1115658 77401.07 F 14.41399149 Significance F 5.51E-05
Ho: H1:
=0 0
= 4.24 If calculated value is < -4.24or > 4.24 then we will reject Ho otherwise dont reject.
Conclusion
We do not reject Ho because our f calculated value is 287.928 lying in the rejection region which means that the over all affect of Balls and Boundaries exist on population bases.
44
June 27, 2011
Comparison of COUNTRI
So according to our findings the intercepts of all three players are showing the negative value which means that all of these three players should make the runs in their coming matches because if they dont make the runs then their over all average will be reduced as the intercept point is showing. As they increase their runs or strike rate more their average will start going up. On the other hand the affect of the Balls and Boundaries is almost the same on all of the players. Because we have selected those players who have high strike rate so that they increase their runs by hitting more boundaries. If we talk about the balls separately then the b (Balls) has almost the same affect on the model of all three players. It has less affect than boundaries on runs because we have already stated in the correlation topic that there are 50% chances of making runs on every ball and if they make the runs but not hit the boundary it will affect less than the boundaries. As boundaries increase the runs in high proportion so that b boundaries are showing more affect on the model of the regression. If we talk about the R square of the all three players, the value of the R square of all three players is also almost close to each other. All three players have the value of R square more than 95% so the variables which we have selected are very useful for our three selected players. If we compare the results of the Correlation of all three players then the results of these players again showing approximately the results very close to each other. The results of correlation table of all three players are showing almost more than 97% relation of the dependent variable (Runs) with dependent variables (Balls) and (Boundaries).
45
June 27, 2011
Crux of Study
In this project we have applied following statistical tools Mean, Median, Stander Deviation, Skewness, Kurtosis, Hypothesis, ANOVA, Multiple Regressions, and Correlation. After using these statistical tools we get some results like the average ball played by the Shahid Afridi are 29.933 or approximately 21 balls, whereas the average ball played by Yuvraj Singh is 40 and the average balls played by Chris Gayle are 29.5 or 30 balls. This calculation shows that the Indian player Yuvraj Singh has played maximum balls as compared with other two players. If we talk about the Median, it is another type of average. We have calculated Median because there are too many out lair in this data. The reason of calculating Hypothesis is to check that the sample is generalized able to the population or not. On the bases of our calculation the sample is generalize able to the population data. Just like that we have used Skewness which shows the symmetry of the data. Here in this project all the values of Skewness are positive which shows that the data is positively skewed or symmetry of the data exists at right side. And if we talk about the Kurtosis it shows the out lairs in the data. In this data all the out lairs exist on the positive or right side. ANOVA shows the overall reliability or fitness of the model. And correlation shows the relation among Independent variable and dependent variable individually.
46
June 27, 2011
Recommendations
We have some recommendations for the players which we have selected in the light of our findings. As we have concluded that as compared to the other two players Afridi is not a consistent player and he got 0 runs in more matches than other two players shown in our raw data. So we recommend the Shahid Afridi that he should stay on the wicket, as we have calculated his intercept is in minus which shows the decrease in the average runs of the Afridi as his matches increase. If he could not do so his average will go down worst. Now we have some recommendations for Yuvraj. He is a good and consistent player than Afridi. According to our findings his intercept is also in minus which illustrates the decrease in the overall average if he could not make the runs in his matches. His intercept value is -0.29324
which is still less than the both Afridi and Gayles intercept value. As he is consistent player than Afridi so besides standing on the wicket he should hit some boundaries to boost up his average. The Chris Gayle is very good player in these other two players. His intercept is also in negative but is less than Afridi. His intercept value is -0.31253 so more strike rate is also needed by the Gayle to increase his average scores.
47
June 27, 2011
Conclusion
From this project we have concluded that the Pakistani Cricketer Shahid Afridi is not a consistent player. There are many out lairs in his data, which means that he had played matches but he is unable to make any score in most of the matches as compared with other cricketers. This analysis shows that he is not a good player among these 2 players. He is not a fixed player in his batting order because he comes on 2nd number or in 7 number beside this all he is a good hitter of the ball he has a very good experience but one thing in himself is that after hitting a ball he become aggressive after the another ball he loose his wicket thats the main draw back of him. Just like Shahid Afridi, Chris Gayle is also not a good player. His strike rate is lower then the Shahid Afridi but the average runs are more then the Shahid Afridi. Actually he is an opening batsman the reason behind of his loosing wicket early and his low strike rate are when the match starts the Pitch condition is soo speedy and grassy we can say that bowling wicket. For first 10 to 15 overs the Pitch is speedy so it is difficult for him to survive or stay on the wicket. If we talk about the Yuvraj Singh he is better then other these two players because his strike rate is good and also the average runs of Yuvraj Singh is more then other two players. And also Yuvraj Singh is consistent player because he is a middle order batsman his batting style is calm and steady he gets the benefit for late coming the reason is that the rival players become little bit lazy and the ball become older and it is a good chance for making a score.
Thank You
48

Business Quantitative Techniques

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Quantitative Techniques

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Quantitative Tools & Tetchiness

Submitted to: Date:

Mr. Abid Awan June 27, 2011

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

MBA (Fall 2010) SECTION (A)

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

History of Indian wheat

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

History of Pakistans wheat

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

History of Mexico Wheat

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

Description of all Statistical Tools

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

Multiple Regression Analyses:

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

Brief description of variables

Production: (Independent Variable)

Domestic consumption: (Independent Variable)

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

Descriptive Analysis INDIA

Explanation: MEAN (PRODUCTION, DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION AND EXPORT)

Standard Deviation: (Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

Co-Efficient of Variance: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

Skewness: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

Explanation: MEAN (production, domestic consumption and export)

Median: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

Standard Deviation: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

Co-Efficient of Variance: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

Skewness: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

Median: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

Standard Deviation: Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

Co-Efficient of Variance: (Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

Skewness: (Production, Domestic Consumption and EXPORT Respectively)

June 27, 2011

BUSINESS QUANTITATIVE TOOLS & TETCHINESS

Comparison of Standard Deviation: