Retired hurt - impact on average?

[shortpitched713]

So looking at this scorecard, being a prime example of material impact being made through multiple injuries on a match:

WI vs IND Cricket Scorecard, 4th Test at Kingston, April 21 - 25, 1976

Get cricket scorecard of 4th Test, WI vs IND, India tour of West Indies 1975/76 at Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica dated April 21 - 25, 1976.

www.espncricinfo.com

It made me think, does the way that retired hurt ends up being recorded, end up giving an inadequate impression of the skills of the players involved? Because all the retired innings for batsmen are counted as not out, and no wicket is awarded to any bowler, even if they were the one causing the innings ending injury. As macabre as that is, it's for all effects and purposes a wicket which is not being counted.

So, as the 70s West Indians were the most notorious for bump ball tactics, before the rules changes adding more limits, does that mean that the averages of those great pacers in actual effect should be even lower than they currently are? Or is the impact actually too small to be materially relevant?

Has anyone ever attempted an analysis on the impact of these retired hurt innings not being counted as wickets?

 

[ataraxia]

So, as the 70s West Indians were the most notorious for bump ball tactics, before the rules changes adding more limits, does that mean that the averages of those great pacers in actual effect should be even lower than they currently are? Or is the impact actually too small to be materially relevant?

Different things but any positive improvement to their average would be negated by no balls being recognised as runs conceded.

Anyway it's an interesting point but not altogether too relevant – and of course not all retired hurts have been caused by the bowler bowling.