Let me preface this by saying that I don't really care about ODI averages, since the onus is on how well the team bats; I just think an argument can be made.Slats4ever said:ummm try making your argument...
In limited overs cricket, both innings are completed, therefore whether Hussey is out or not is irrelevant -- once the final ball is delivered, he can no longer score runs. It doesn't matter whether a side are bowled out before the 50th over, or reach the target with overs to spare, the opportunity to make a higher score is gone.
Obviously 20* in a successful chase is different from being dismissed for 20, but the boost that not outs give to an average isn't a reward for good batting -- it's a result of the average being calculated by runs per dismissal, instead of runs per innings.
Innings average isn't a foolproof method -- Hussey has made scores such as 0* without facing a ball & 1* with two balls remaining, scores that would hurt his average if they were counted as complete innings; nevertheless, an innings average of 43.14 (disregarding the 0*) gives a far greater indication of his average than 151.00.
In time his average won't be so astronomical, but for now it's a strange quirk.
In other sports where average scores are significant (eg. basketball), it's a simple matter of points scored divided by games played, despite endless variables (minutes played, foul trouble, shots per game, etc.)
Admittedly, basketball players have at least 48 minutes to score, whereas Hussey might have two balls, but if innings average were the norm, perhaps strike rate would become a more significant stat in the way that field goal percentage is in basketball.
So I can understand if people think not outs discriminate between batsmen who have the opportunity to remain not out and those, who in all likelihood, don't.
There's no concessions made for the bowlers.