The 2nd Greatest Cricketer From A Country

[marc71178]

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.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

 

[salman85]

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.

 

[Blaze 18]

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

Not if the batsman is Kallis.

 

[weldone]

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...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

Impact and inflate are not remotely the same word. Inflated implies that it's higher than it deserves to be, which is not possible.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

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.

The part in bold makes a lot of sense. Just to add further to the point, in most cases, the number of not outs would be greater for a semi-decent lower batsman than for a good top-order batsman.

Someone mentioned Glichrist and Langer here. To anyone who's seen them play, it becomes very clear that Langer is a better player. The fact that he opened (or played No. 3 initially) meant he had to face the new ball a lot and his technique against the moving ball, grit and run-hunger really saw him through. Shoaib Akhtar, for one, rates Langer as the best batsman against pure pace.

With the kind of line-up they had, Gilly would mostly be coming in at 340/5 (or thereabouts) and his job was to punish tired bowlers and make Australia's score unreachably high. He did a great job at that with Warne, Lee and Gillespie supporting him. McGrath or MacGill not so much! Since these lesser players would invariably get out sooner, you'd see someone like Gilly having a lot of not outs.

Langer M- 105 Inns- 182 Not Outs- 12 Runs- 7696 Ave- 45.27

Gilchrist M- 96 Inns- 137 Not Outs- 20 Runs- 5570 Ave- 47.60


That is clearly seen in their Not Outs: Innings ratio and would be a factor in their averages. In comparing players with very different job descriptions and team roles, this factor must not be overlooked. Pure stats only reveal so much.

 

[vcs]

Hmm.. interesting comparison between Gilchrist and Langer. Very different batsmen and hence tough to compare but if I had to take one I'd take Gilchrist.

 

[zaremba]

So Bill Johnston had one of the best seasons ever then did he?

People are so profoundly wrong about this issue that I will now deploy bold text to help them understand. The reason why people get so muddled about what a batting average means is that they think it is some kind of measure of runs per innings. It isn't. If that's what you're looking to it to measure, then not outs would indeed "inflate" your average. What the average signifies is how many runs you score per dismissal. End of story.

(Well, nearly end of story, because I would add that (and admittedly this is slightly more controversial) how many runs you score per dismissal is about as good a measure of how good a batsman is there is, provided you keep in mind the sample size you're dealing with. And the sample size is measured not by the number of times that you're not out, but by the number of times you are out.)

Anyway so Bill Johnton scored 102 for once out in 17 innings on the 1953 Aussie tour of England. Does the fact that he averaged 102 mean that he had one of the best seasons ever? Well I would respond as follows.

1. No. By scoring 102 for once out he averaged 102. But the sample size is still one. Just as if he'd scored a fluky hundred - as tailenders sometimes do - in the only innings he played.

2. That said, batting on 17 occasions and only being out once is in fact an incredible statistical achievement. To score 102 runs, while having to start batting 17 times, is much harder than to do it all in one go, when for most of the time you've got your eye in. Brian Lara used to say something like "the first 15 minutes belong to the bowler; after that you cash in". Well a tailender who builds up an average through short unbeaten knocks is batting in that difficult first 15 minutes for a disproportionately high amount of time. So if someone scores 102 runs over 17 innings, and to be defeated only once in the course of amassing those 102 runs, well in my book that's an awesome achievement.

3. Sadly, Johnston's case is in fact a little misleading because, as his average mounted, his team-mates and opponents started to conspire in allowing him not to be dismissed.

 

[zaremba]

And inflate is different from impact because...?

I'll remind you that you asked that question when your airbag fails to work...

 

[akilana]

Not if the batsman is Kallis.

or Tendulkar

 

[honestbharani]

People are so profoundly wrong about this issue that I will now deploy bold text to help them understand. The reason why people get so muddled about what a batting average means is that they think it is some kind of measure of runs per innings. It isn't. If that's what you're looking to it to measure, then not outs would indeed "inflate" your average. What the average signifies is how many runs you score per dismissal. End of story.

(Well, nearly end of story, because I would add that (and admittedly this is slightly more controversial) how many runs you score per dismissal is about as good a measure of how good a batsman is there is, provided you keep in mind the sample size you're dealing with. And the sample size is measured not by the number of times that you're not out, but by the number of times you are out.)

Anyway so Bill Johnton scored 102 for once out in 17 innings on the 1953 Aussie tour of England. Does the fact that he averaged 102 mean that he had one of the best seasons ever? Well I would respond as follows.

1. No. By scoring 102 for once out he averaged 102. But the sample size is still one. Just as if he'd scored a fluky hundred - as tailenders sometimes do - in the only innings he played.

2. That said, batting on 17 occasions and only being out once is in fact an incredible statistical achievement. To score 102 runs, while having to start batting 17 times, is much harder than to do it all in one go, when for most of the time you've got your eye in. Brian Lara used to say something like "the first 15 minutes belong to the bowler; after that you cash in". Well a tailender who builds up an average through short unbeaten knocks is batting in that difficult first 15 minutes for a disproportionately high amount of time. So if someone scores 102 runs over 17 innings, and to be defeated only once in the course of amassing those 102 runs, well in my book that's an awesome achievement.

3. Sadly, Johnston's case is in fact a little misleading because, as his average mounted, his team-mates and opponents started to conspire in allowing him not to be dismissed.

But the whole point, Z, is that no matter how many "outs" you do have, it still does not mean the same thing, as the classic case of Bevan Vs Sachin or IVR in ODIs would show... To me, a 35 trying to hit out when batting with the tail is more valuable than a 30* trying to ensure you do not get out... It comes down to personal preference, I guess, but you have to understand that a guy like Ponting has had more opportunities to remain not out than a Lara or a Sachin in the first half of his career, simply because of the team he played in. And that is a pretty big facet and a reason why I tend to disregard differences of around 7 or 8 runs in averages if I have watched most of the players in question...


As with anything in cricket (and in life itself), context is everything.

 

[Howe_zat]

Zaremba won this thread.

 

[Teja.]

Zaremba won this thread.

Indeed.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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.

It can overstate the impact that one's batting has on a match, though.

EDIT: It's the thing that gets me when people say "well, he averaged 50 over this period" (him being anyone in particular) but the question is how many games did he positively impact for his team. I'll take the guy who makes more runs for me every time than the guy who remains not out, because I'm interested in winning games of cricket. People correlate average with performance straight naturally, it's the first thing people look at, but it's not always the case.

 

[honestbharani]

Zaremba won this thread.

Indeed.

Hmmm.. Not really.. coz of this:

It can overstate the impact that one's batting has on a match, though.

EDIT: It's the thing that gets me when people say "well, he averaged 50 over this period" (him being anyone in particular) but the question is how many games did he positively impact for his team. I'll take the guy who makes more runs for me every time than the guy who remains not out, because I'm interested in winning games of cricket. People correlate average with performance straight naturally, it's the first thing people look at, but it's not always the case.

Jack with the last minute steal and win..

 

[smash84]

some good points from both sides but I guess context would be very important to make sense of the numbers

 

[smash84]

People are so profoundly wrong about this issue that I will now deploy bold text to help them understand. The reason why people get so muddled about what a batting average means is that they think it is some kind of measure of runs per innings. It isn't. If that's what you're looking to it to measure, then not outs would indeed "inflate" your average. What the average signifies is how many runs you score per dismissal. End of story.

(Well, nearly end of story, because I would add that (and admittedly this is slightly more controversial) how many runs you score per dismissal is about as good a measure of how good a batsman is there is, provided you keep in mind the sample size you're dealing with. And the sample size is measured not by the number of times that you're not out, but by the number of times you are out.)

Anyway so Bill Johnton scored 102 for once out in 17 innings on the 1953 Aussie tour of England. Does the fact that he averaged 102 mean that he had one of the best seasons ever? Well I would respond as follows.

1. No. By scoring 102 for once out he averaged 102. But the sample size is still one. Just as if he'd scored a fluky hundred - as tailenders sometimes do - in the only innings he played.

2. That said, batting on 17 occasions and only being out once is in fact an incredible statistical achievement. To score 102 runs, while having to start batting 17 times, is much harder than to do it all in one go, when for most of the time you've got your eye in. Brian Lara used to say something like "the first 15 minutes belong to the bowler; after that you cash in". Well a tailender who builds up an average through short unbeaten knocks is batting in that difficult first 15 minutes for a disproportionately high amount of time. So if someone scores 102 runs over 17 innings, and to be defeated only once in the course of amassing those 102 runs, well in my book that's an awesome achievement.

3. Sadly, Johnston's case is in fact a little misleading because, as his average mounted, his team-mates and opponents started to conspire in allowing him not to be dismissed.

gun post

 

[weldone]

People are so profoundly wrong about this issue that I will now deploy bold text to help them understand. The reason why people get so muddled about what a batting average means is that they think it is some kind of measure of runs per innings. It isn't. If that's what you're looking to it to measure, then not outs would indeed "inflate" your average. What the average signifies is how many runs you score per dismissal. End of story.

(Well, nearly end of story, because I would add that (and admittedly this is slightly more controversial) how many runs you score per dismissal is about as good a measure of how good a batsman is there is, provided you keep in mind the sample size you're dealing with. And the sample size is measured not by the number of times that you're not out, but by the number of times you are out.)

Brilliant. That's the point I'm trying to drive across for so long.

 

[weldone]

...as the classic case of Bevan Vs Sachin or IVR in ODIs would show...

Not at all, HB.

Bevan averaged more than Sachin and IVR in ODIs. But remember, unlike in test matches averages (or adjusted averages of any sort) tell only half the story in ODIs. Strike rates become as important as average in ODIs.... And this is disregarding the fact that Sachin and IVR had much larger longevity than Bevan and IVR played in an era much tougher for ODI batting than Sachin's or Bevan's.