• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Steve Smith's Unflinching Average - A Statistical Rebuke to the Inflated Records of 2000s Legends.

ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Coronis said:
Curious as to when Sutcliffe played his 55th test.
Click to expand...
For a moment I thought this was an unbefitting sighting of quality statistics. Indeed, it is true that if Sutcliffe were to play another test (his 55th) and get a pair his average would remain over 57. However, he would also survive his 56th test via the same means. It's only his 3rd test as a ghost that gets him. Disappointing.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
ataraxia said:
For a moment I thought this was an unbefitting sighting of quality statistics. Indeed, it is true that if Sutcliffe were to play another test (his 55th) and get a pair his average would remain over 57. However, he would also survive his 56th test via the same means. It's only his 3rd test as a ghost that gets him. Disappointing.
Click to expand...
Presuming his ghost plays all innings and can get out
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
Sliferxxxx said:
It does and it's a legit stat. 50 +50* > 50+51 average wise but not in terms of actual runs scored.
Click to expand...
Tbf, 50* and 51 ain't the same as well. NOs means the chances to score more runs. How much varies with each instance, but by definition it shan't be just ignored.
 
Sliferxxxx

Sliferxxxx

State Vice-Captain
capt_Luffy said:
Tbf, 50* and 51 ain't the same as well. NOs means the chances to score more runs. How much varies with each instance, but by definition it shan't be just ignored.
Click to expand...
Never said to ignore it but you really believe a player like Chanderpaul with an average of 51 would've scored more runs than lara who averages one run more. Without all those not outs, Shiv is scoring 42 runs per innings!!
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Sliferxxxx said:
Over the course of a career again, makes a difference.
Click to expand...
For 50 + 51, the batsman's RPI and average is 50.5.
For 100 + DNB, the batsman's RPI and average is 100.

If the former is better despite the massive gulf in RPI, doesn't that make that statistic useless?
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
Sliferxxxx said:
Never said to ignore it but you really believe a player like Chanderpaul with an average of 51 would've scored more runs than lara who averages one run more. Without all those not outs, Shiv is scoring 42 runs per innings!!
Click to expand...
Chanderpaul is just one instance. So does Allan Border btw, RPI of 44. No one has ever said Average is an absolutely perfect measure, just that RPI is clearly worse. If someone is staying not out that often, either they are hiding and playing for their no.s (like Chanderpaul, but really nowhere that common) or they just aren't getting out and getting a chance to complete an innings where they could have scored more runs. Some batting at 50* has a really high likelihood of scoring more than 51. Punishing them for not getting to finish imo is not right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top