Are Players Overly Concerned with their Stats?

[sideshowtim]

AFAIC, Bradman's average is 100

Seriously, does anyone consider decimal points when discussing averages ?

Haha, it's something I find quite funnny. If someone these days has an average of 54.94 we'd just say 55, but you never hear anyone saying "Bradman averaged 100".

 

[Richard]

But if someone has an average of 49.97, despite the fact we should say "he averages 50", we don't.

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha, it's something I find quite funnny. If someone these days has an average of 54.94 we'd just say 55, but you never hear anyone saying "Bradman averaged 100".

But if someone has an average of 49.97, despite the fact we should say "he averages 50", we don't.

I'd usually come up with something like "a tick under 55" for the former or "just below 50" for the latter. Slightly anal, perhaps.

 

[Richard]

Haha, only ever heard Bill Lawry use the "a tick under" catchphrase ITBT.

 

[GIMH]

I always say KP averages 50, tends to fluctuate from 48 to 53 IIRC

 

[Ikki]

I disagree strongly. However, I've had this argument with you before and I believe it dragged on for about 7 pages, so I have no intention of going through all that again. I just needed to make my presence felt on the issue, really.

I don't remember the argument frankly, and I find it hard to believe you disagree.

When I say they are equal in everything, I mean EVERYTHING. They can play slow innings when they need to. They can save a draw by batting for their lives. They can bat fast to steal a win...everything.

I'm interested to know, what is there to disagree upon?

 

[Ikki]

That is a very strange call, IMO. Given Bradman's stats suggest he was in slight decline and the fact that he was 40 odd, what makes you think his average would have gone up? It wouldn't just be a matter of him batting well, but averaging over 100 - something he didn't even manage throughout his entire career which included his prime as a cricketer.

Actually, Bradman's stats suggest he wasn't on the decline. They actually suggest he was batting better, believe it or not.

As you can see, Bradman improves on his average 10 years after when he returns. Bradman keeps it hovering above 100 for most of that time. Quite amazing.

 

[Son Of Coco]

35 not-outs out of how many?

37? Sure.

113? No.

In the case of making 200 runs it's the difference between adding an average of 6 to the team total every time you bat and 1.8-ish...not that useful in either case.

As a no.11 I can average 25 for the season but it doesn't mean I've won any games for the team with my batting or even contributed more than once as I'm likely to be not out a lot as one of the last 2 batsmen left.

 

[Richard]

In the case of making 200 runs it's the difference between adding an average of 6 to the team total every time you bat and 1.8-ish...not that useful in either case.

I'm sure I should understand that, but I don't.