Definitive proof that not outs don't inflate batting averages

[RossTaylorsBox]

Fmd, someone translate this thread into english for me please

It's actually manages to be even less interesting if you do that.

 

[ankitj]

Wasn't it a big deal when Sachin got his first 0 after a long, long time?

IIRC that was first golden duck. Against Akhtar if you mean.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Fmd, someone translate this thread into english for me please

Porridge.

 

[Second Spitter]

Adam Voges recorded a not out in 23% of his Test innings, but nobody is going to confuse him for Steve Smith.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Adam Voges recorded a not out in 23% of his Test innings, but nobody is going to confuse him for Steve Smith.

I don't think that this is in the spirit of the thread

 

[Jack1]

That's a long wind up to laying the boot into Dhoni (with a side kick to Tendulkar for lols)

Dhoni plays his role superbly. While steering the innings towards victory, he also provides stability at one end to make sure they get there.

Sure, his recent years have been less successful, however just about all players have to run through a late career decline. Bevan got lucky in that he had great players to push him out of the team before his decline. Any fault lies in selection, rather than with the player. When Dhoni finally goes you will realise his value. The replacement might win some games with boom but will also lose a number from being unable to hang around.

I know he is a good player but if he was less selfish he would have been a better one over the years. That’s my opinion. His mindset held him back as he has more ability than he realises and a he could easily have held a 40 average and 105 SR over career, but he doesn’t and that’s due to selfish play in my view . In terms of a replacement well I still consider Dhoni a top 25 batsmen in ODI history, just not top 10 due to his mindset and overly average orientated play. He is an enigma, obviously he’s going to be hard to replace but that wasn’t really the point and I was only comparing him to the top 10 greatest odi batters when I made that comment

 

[stephen]

I know he is a good player but if he was less selfish he would have been a better one over the years. That’s my opinion. His mindset held him back as he has more ability than he realises and a he could easily have held a 40 average and 105 SR over career, but he doesn’t and that’s due to selfish play in my view . In terms of a replacement well I still consider Dhoni a top 25 batsmen in ODI history, just not top 10 due to his mindset and overly average orientated play. He is an enigma, obviously he’s going to be hard to replace but that wasn’t really the point and I was only comparing him to the top 10 greatest odi batters when I made that comment

I've heard Bevan in interviews say that her prioritised giving the bowlers something to defend in the first innings. Even though he could go harder earlier the winning play was to set his sights 20 runs lower than what it could have been if he played riskier, at least once he was out of good batting partners.

Of course that was in the first innings. In the second innings he simply batted at the speed needed to win the game, because having a set batsman to chase things down late in the innings was far more important in the 90s than it is today due to the softer and more dirty late innings balls.

So what some call selfishness was actually giving his team the best chance to win. Australia didn't have a great batting lineup when Bevan was at his peak. It was basically him and the Waugh brothers until Ponting and Gilchrist came good in the late 90s/ early 00s. Look at the 96 WC final. Other than Bevan and the Waugh brothers you had an early Ponting (who had shown glimpses of greatness but was highly inconsistent), Mark Taylor and Stuart Law, neither of which were any good in ODI cricket.

Of course once Australia brought in Hayden, Gilchrist, Martyn and Symonds and the bowling greats of the 90s started to retire that style of play wasn't really needed by Australia any more since they had a genuinely ATG top 6. Bevan was declining by that point as well, his return in the 00s was much lower than in the 90s.

He probably would have become that 45 average 105 SR player of he'd debuted ten years later with the big bats that modern cricketers get to use if that was the best way for him to win ODIs for his team.

 

[h_hurricane]

He probably would have become that 45 average 105 SR player of he'd debuted ten years later with the big bats that modern cricketers get to use if that was the best way for him to win ODIs for his team.

This is clearly a hyperbole. Even more agressive batsmen like Warner, Dhawan in today's world have a strike rate of some 10 runs below this.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is clearly a hyperbole. Even more agressive batsmen like Warner, Dhawan in today's world have a strike rate of some 10 runs below this.

He'd probably be closer to Mike Hussey (avge 48, SR 87), but probably a bit better. If he stayed at no. 6, 45 @ 105 isn't an absurd guess. It is of course pure guesswork though. He could just as easily have been more like 55 at SR 85-90

 

[h_hurricane]

He'd probably be closer to Mike Hussey (avge 48, SR 87), but probably a bit better. If he stayed at no. 6, 45 @ 105 isn't an absurd guess. It is of course pure guesswork though. He could just as easily have been more like 55 at SR 85-90

I think 50-55 at SR 85 is achievable for him. Bevan batting at SR of 105 is near impossible to imagine. You need a lot of hitting power to achieve that. Even Devilliers didn't quite reach that SR. Thinking of current players, I can think of only Butler, Russel and Pandya (probably 1 or 2 others) who exceeded that SR. All of them had shortish careers.

 

[vcs]

He'd probably be closer to Mike Hussey (avge 48, SR 87), but probably a bit better. If he stayed at no. 6, 45 @ 105 isn't an absurd guess. It is of course pure guesswork though. He could just as easily have been more like 55 at SR 85-90

Yep, Mike Hussey was amazing in ODIs and just as good as Bevan a decade earlier IMO. He only suffers in comparison to Bevan because he had nothing to do in World Cup 2007 and couldn't manage to play a decisive knock in the 2011 QF. I remember his innings with Ponting in that 438 match, crazy stuff.

 

[ankitj]

I think if Bevan was a Physicist he would have reconciled General Relativity with Quantum Physics.

 

[vcs]

I think if Bevan was a Physicist he would have reconciled General Relativity with Quantum Physics.

Steve Smith is already working on that between overs when he bats in the Ashes.

Heard he's coming out with a paper proving P != NP as well.

 

[h_hurricane]

Steve Smith is already working on that between overs when he bats in the Ashes.

Heard he's coming out with a paper proving P != NP as well.

If Steve Smith was a contemporary of WG Grace, Max Planck would have had to do something else to earn a living.

 

[stephen]

This is clearly a hyperbole. Even more agressive batsmen like Warner, Dhawan in today's world have a strike rate of some 10 runs below this.

Clearly. I was mostly riffing on what John said.

Bevan wasn't as slow as his headline stats say. I think if he was born a decade later his strike rate would have improved by a good 10+, given the general strike rate improvements on offer.

Not being a power hitter would have hurt him but he'd probably have batted 4 for longer in a more modern side. Basically being a better Michael Clarke.

 

[Spark]

In Hussey's defence in 2011, he probably shouldn't have been picked i.e. rushed back like he was.

 

[Bolo]

That's a very specific, and uncommon, scenario though. It's hardly going to make up a large proportion of individual innings in general, out or not out.

It is the one situation where "not outs boosting average" might have merit. ie. if you're comparing 2 players with the exact difference that you mentioned. I doubt such a situation really exists in reality.

In the spirit of this thread, it probably makes more sense to say that outs from trying to force the run rate decrease batting average.

I don't think it's an unusual situation. The best middle order bats typically average more in the second innings due to a high proportion of not outs, despite second innings runs being regarded as more difficult.

The guys that accelerate more tend to have a greater split between 1st and second innings number of NOs- AB is 10/29, while kallis is 19/34. I don't know how much of this split is a result of what I'm describing and how much is noise though.

 

[stephen]

In the spirit of this thread, it probably makes more sense to say that outs from trying to force the run rate decrease batting average.

I don't think it's an unusual situation. The best middle order bats typically average more in the second innings due to a high proportion of not outs, despite second innings runs being regarded as more difficult.

The guys that accelerate more tend to have a greater split between 1st and second innings number of NOs- AB is 10/29, while kallis is 19/34. I don't know how much of this split is a result of what I'm describing and how much is noise though.

The outlier of course is Bevan, who had more not outs batting first where his strike rate was 13 higher than in the second innings. Not sure what to make of that, especially given he has a lower average in the first innings than the second.

My guess is that era and location makes a big difference too. Batting first is an advantage in Australia and England but a disadvantage in India where the dew sets in.

 

[Jack1]

I've heard Bevan in interviews say that her prioritised giving the bowlers something to defend in the first innings. Even though he could go harder earlier the winning play was to set his sights 20 runs lower than what it could have been if he played riskier, at least once he was out of good batting partners.

Of course that was in the first innings. In the second innings he simply batted at the speed needed to win the game, because having a set batsman to chase things down late in the innings was far more important in the 90s than it is today due to the softer and more dirty late innings balls.

So what some call selfishness was actually giving his team the best chance to win. Australia didn't have a great batting lineup when Bevan was at his peak. It was basically him and the Waugh brothers until Ponting and Gilchrist came good in the late 90s/ early 00s. Look at the 96 WC final. Other than Bevan and the Waugh brothers you had an early Ponting (who had shown glimpses of greatness but was highly inconsistent), Mark Taylor and Stuart Law, neither of which were any good in ODI cricket.

Of course once Australia brought in Hayden, Gilchrist, Martyn and Symonds and the bowling greats of the 90s started to retire that style of play wasn't really needed by Australia any more since they had a genuinely ATG top 6. Bevan was declining by that point as well, his return in the 00s was much lower than in the 90s.

He probably would have become that 45 average 105 SR player of he'd debuted ten years later with the big bats that modern cricketers get to use if that was the best way for him to win ODIs for his team.

Difference between Bevan and Dhoni, Dhoni was powerful. in his prime and could destroy attacks at the back end of the innings with brutal six hitting. They played in different times, Bevan played on worse wickets with a soft and discoloured ball at times but look at the difference in sixes hit per game it says a lot when Dhoni's still only managing a 87.56 S/R in the eras he's played in despite his power and his high (running) speed between the wickets.

Dhoni has 826 sixes off 12303 balls.

Bevan 21 off 9320.

Dhoni can be destructive and be destructive sooner (less so now, he's past his best). But so often he'd rather stat pad the average first.

Personally I think Dhoni marginally plays for himself more than the win at all times. The reason he still manages to win games is he's ****ing good at batting and has played for a very good team at times, but that's besides the point. He should be less selfish in his general all round play, most players are playing full tilt for the win always.

The main thing is first innings in particular Dhoni has batted like a snail with wickets in hand at times and his career SR is well under par for a finisher in this era. The older he's got the more average happy he's become.

If I captained Dhoni I'd have pushed him a lot harder to score quicker and be more destructive sooner.

 

[stephen]

Don't underestimate the advances in bat technology between the 90s and 00s. Bats became a lot more powerful, enabling most batsmen to clear the ropes much more easily than in the 90s. Mark Waugh (for example) only hit 57 6s over his ODI career. Hansie Cronje (to pick another batsman from the same era) only hit 33 6s. Nick Knight only hit 21 6s.

ODI cricket has changed a lot since around 2002/03. It has become a lot more about power with the new style bats. If you ever get the chance, try someone's old bat from the 90s. They've got no middle and vibrate like your mother's special drawer. Modern bats are much thicker for the same weight and the middle basically extends to the edges.