Cricket Player Manager
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 183

Thread: The 2nd Greatest Cricketer From A Country

  1. #151
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,750
    Quote Originally Posted by vcs View Post
    It is not that people have a problem with comprehending the mysteries of a batting average... it is just that sometimes it can give a misleading picture of a batsman's ability/contribution.
    And 'number of not outs' cannot be a reason for that misleading picture.

    There are plenty of reasons for which batting average can't be the only measure of a batsman's ability/contribution - era in which they played, quality of bowlers they faced, their longevity as international batsmen, whether they played enough matches so that the average represents a sufficient sample size etc etc and etc...

    Number of not outs is simply not one of those reasons.
    "I want to raise my hand and say one thing. Those who complain about my love for the game or commitment to the game are clueless. These are the only 2 areas where I give myself 100 out of 100."
    - Sachin Tendulkar, as told in an interview published in Bengali newspaper Anandabazar Patrika after his 100th International century (translated by weldone)

  2. #152
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,295
    Quote Originally Posted by 8ankitj View Post
    Uppercut had neatly summed up the role or not outs in batting averages: Scoring runs increases batting average, getting out decreases it. Remaining not out does nothing.

    Very succinct and accurate.
    So if not out does nothing then why is it being held against a batsman if he has a large number of not outs???
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  3. #153
    International Debutant salman85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,168
    Remaining Not Out DOES inflate the batting average.I really don't get how it can be argued that it does not impact the average.

    For example,a batsman who scores 5000 runs in 100 matches,out of which he has been dismissed 95 times with 5 not outs will average 52.6.

    A batsman who scores 5000 runs in 100 matches,out of which he has been dismissed 90 times with 10 not outs will average 55.5.

    It does impact the batting average.The only time it would not have an impact on the batting average is if a batsman has never been dismissed,since that way he would not 'have' an average.Having said that,i do agree that the number of not outs should not be used to judge how good or bad a batsman is.Going by that measure,Walsh had enough not outs to be called an allrounder.

  4. #154
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,715
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    And 'number of not outs' cannot be a reason for that misleading picture.

    There are plenty of reasons for which batting average can't be the only measure of a batsman's ability/contribution - era in which they played, quality of bowlers they faced, their longevity as international batsmen, whether they played enough matches so that the average represents a sufficient sample size etc etc and etc...

    Number of not outs is simply not one of those reasons.
    Not really.. Coz being NOT OUT does not mean you were so good that you did not get out. It simply means you were not dismissed, the reason could be anything.. Being dismissed does not make a batsman lesser to the one who is not dismissed if they were not playing in the same situation and since dismissals impact batting average, remaining not out impacts batting average too... Not outs are just as valid a point as bowling faced, era played in, pitches played in etc. when discussing the merits and demerits of averages of two batsmen...
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed


  5. #155
    International Captain ankitj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hyderabad India
    Posts
    6,395
    Quote Originally Posted by vcs View Post
    It is not that people have a problem with comprehending the mysteries of a batting average... it is just that sometimes it can give a misleading picture of a batsman's ability/contribution.
    Agree, but that's not because of "distortions" due to not outs. That is because a straight average doesn't take into account playing conditions, quality of opposition and match situation.
    RIP Phil Hughes. Forever 63*

  6. #156
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,786
    Quote Originally Posted by salman85 View Post
    Remaining Not Out DOES inflate the batting average.I really don't get how it can be argued that it does not impact the average.

    For example,a batsman who scores 5000 runs in 100 matches,out of which he has been dismissed 95 times with 5 not outs will average 52.6.

    A batsman who scores 5000 runs in 100 matches,out of which he has been dismissed 90 times with 10 not outs will average 55.5.

    It does impact the batting average.The only time it would not have an impact on the batting average is if a batsman has never been dismissed,since that way he would not 'have' an average.Having said that,i do agree that the number of not outs should not be used to judge how good or bad a batsman is.Going by that measure,Walsh had enough not outs to be called an allrounder.
    In your example, the second batsman, with more not outs and the better average, has them because he's played better.

    When batting, it's rather in the team's interest not to be dismissed.

    A batting average is only misleading if you let it be, and start comparing players with different roles. Again, using your example, if the batman averaging 52.6 was an opener and the batsman averaging 55.5 was a middle-order bat, then you can't really compare the averages straight and say the 55.5 batsman performed better. If they were both openers, you can.

    (assuming they played in the same era, for similar strength teams, etc, etc)
    "Your averages, captain, coaches and players can probably survive incompetence over a relatively short series, so if youíre going to be rubbish, make sure itís against Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand or someone."

  7. #157
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,896
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    And 'number of not outs' cannot be a reason for that misleading picture.
    So Bill Johnston had one of the best seasons ever then did he?

    Or as an example a lower order player bats 50 innings. is not out 20 times and scores 1200 runs.

    A top order player in the same matches is not out twice and scores 2016 runs.

    Now tell me why the number of not outs is not misleading?
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  8. #158
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,786
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    So Bill Johnston had one of the best seasons ever then did he?

    Or as an example a lower order player bats 50 innings. is not out 20 times and scores 1200 runs.

    A top order player in the same matches is not out twice and scores 2016 runs.

    Now tell me why the number of not outs is not misleading?
    Okay then, how about this: The number of not outs isn't misleading if you know what you're talking about.

    As has been said time and time again in this thread, averages are not to be compared with any degree of certainty if the players have different roles.

  9. #159
    International Debutant salman85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    In your example, the second batsman, with more not outs and the better average, has them because he's played better.

    When batting, it's rather in the team's interest not to be dismissed.

    A batting average is only misleading if you let it be, and start comparing players with different roles. Again, using your example, if the batman averaging 52.6 was an opener and the batsman averaging 55.5 was a middle-order bat, then you can't really compare the averages straight and say the 55.5 batsman performed better. If they were both openers, you can.

    (assuming they played in the same era, for similar strength teams, etc, etc)
    I completley agree with you.

  10. #160
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    22,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    Okay then, how about this: The number of not outs isn't misleading if you know what you're talking about.

    As has been said time and time again in this thread, averages are not to be compared with any degree of certainty if the players have different roles.
    This does make sense

  11. #161
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    As has been said time and time again in this thread, averages are not to be compared with any degree of certainty if the players have different roles.
    Yes, but the number of people who use a bare average in a certain situation when it is an "inflated" average make the case more relevant.

  12. #162
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5,846
    Quote Originally Posted by salman85 View Post
    Remaining Not Out DOES inflate the batting average.I really don't get how it can be argued that it does not impact the average.
    Of course not being out has an impact on the batting average. It makes the number you divide the runs by completely different. What it doesn't do is inflate it. The average is a cold hard indisputable fact of what happened.
    You might look at Imran Khan's batting average over the second half of his career and think it's quite high for someone of his limited ability with the bat, but that only matters to statsmongers who don't actually watch or read up on cricket.

  13. #163
    International Debutant salman85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,168
    And inflate is different from impact because...?

    Unless we're playing wordplay,i didn't get you.Yes a batting average does not give a true picture of how good or bad a player was,but i don't get the diffrentiation you built between impact and inflate..Especially since statistically speaking,the number of not outs can both make your average higher and lower,depending on the number of not outs you've had.
    Last edited by salman85; 13-05-2011 at 06:29 AM.

  14. #164
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,456
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    IWhen batting, it's rather in the team's interest not to be dismissed.
    Not if the batsman is Kallis.

  15. #165
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,750
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    Or as an example a lower order player bats 50 innings. is not out 20 times and scores 1200 runs.

    A top order player in the same matches is not out twice and scores 2016 runs.

    Now tell me why the number of not outs is not misleading?
    In your example, the top order player averages 42 and the lower order player averages 40. What's your point unless we assume that the lower order player is not as good 'because' he bats lower down the order? - which would be as stupid as assuming that Justin Langer was a better batsman than Adam Gilchrist only 'because' he played higher in the order...absurd...of course if a lower order batsman is very good he will remain not out most of the times...

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Murali The Greatest Asian Cricketer Ever
    By smalishah84 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 289
    Last Post: 21-09-2011, 03:23 AM
  2. Greatest Catches In The History of Cricket
    By bullseye in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 08-09-2009, 11:04 PM
  3. Greatest One Day Upsets
    By bullseye in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 05-09-2009, 01:57 AM
  4. Battrick Team Details
    By superkingdave in forum Battrick
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 04-08-2007, 03:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •