There's a fair few people who've talked down the worth of not-outs down the years. CBA to name 'em all, and even if I did I'd be bound to miss some, which would lead to "why say me? X and B and J said exactly the same thing..." etc.
You know Richard, you must learn to at least try and see another point of view. It might, at times, enhance yours. Thhis is meant as no criticism.
There IS merit in taking into account the not outs, but it has to be tempered. I have thought a lot about this over the years. And here is my take on it.
The reason why we do not consider a players not out innings has an implicit assumption that he could go on to play another 'full innings' from the end of the undefeated one. Of course, this cant be true for all the unbeaten innings. A batsman DOES have to get out
sometimes and it is safe to assume that Lara batting at 400 might be closer to getting out than Lara batting at 10. I know, I know all about being in and being set at the crease but as I said before, a batsman will eventually get out.
I, therefore, have always felt a slightly modified form of accounting for not outs may be a better approximation than the currently prevalent one. Mind you it is NOT perfect and nothing can be in these 'hypothetical situations.
I think all unbeaten innings of lower than a batsman's average innings score should be not be counted as a complete innings and all his unbeaten innings above his average score should be counted as out.
As I just said this is not perfect but I think it is better than assuming that at the end of each unbeaten innings, Bradman would have scored another 99 runs before getting out (as the present system assumes) OR
That at the end of every unbeaten innings, he would have got out without scoring, if he had continued as counting all not out innings as out assumes.