'Real' (ie Standardised) Test Batting Averages

[Goughy]

As with the bowling thread, this is an effort to standardise Test batting averages by looking at comparable situations.

In order to do this draws have again been removed. Including draws would prejudice in favour of batsmen that play a disproportionate number of games on easy batting tracks where no result is possible and wickets are difficult to get and against those that play on more result friendly wickets.

The numbers are standardised for games where one team has been capable of taking 20 wickets/winning the match. This means the type of games analysed are a) of a similar and more comparable nature and b) are meaningful in terms of a positive outcome

Also, runouts have been removed as a form of dismissal as it doesnt relate to the actual batting ability of a player even if it can impact a game.

EDIT- To also add the same time periods have been used as in the Bowing thread and the players averages have weighted against the global batting average for that period. This means for example that runs score in the Interwar period and in the 2000s are worth less than runs scored in the 19th Century etc

To start with I have take a group of 5 players across time.

Hobbs
Test Av = 56.94
Standardised Av = 61.64

Bradman
Test Av = 99.94
Standardised Av = 98.23

Sobers
Test Av = 57.78
Standardised Av = 53.96

Gavaskar
Test Av = 51.21
Standardised Av = 38.84

Lara
Test Av = 52.88
Standardised Av = 45.79

Ponting
Test Av = 59.29
Standardised Av = 56.85

Thats a start with 5 guys I chose off the top of my head as big names across time. Im willing to do more if requested.

*Waits for peoples panties to get in a twist*

 

[Matt79]

Wow - Gavaskar, and to a lesser extent, Lara get slammed. To be first amongst the hordes that will demand it, what does Sachin's average come out as?

 

[pskov]

Run outs very much do reflect on the batting ability of a player. Running between the wickets is one of the most important skills for a batsmen. I don't see why that is removed.

 

[pasag]

Can't wait for Inzi's.

 

[Turbinator]

Could you do Sachin and Dravid?

Thanks.

 

[silentstriker]

Bradman = more and more insane. I think he might have been an imaginary figure tbh. Gavaskar is odd because he had to go for as many draws as possible since he had crap bowling that couldn't win, so a draw is as good as a win for him. But statistically speaking, it impossible to separate those out from when it was more the pitch...so I'm fine with it.

 

[Dasa]

First problem I see is that draws are dependent on the quality of bowlers...batsmen shouldn't really be penalised if the bowlers can't take wickets, I'm sure there are cases where brilliant bowlers have made a 'draw' pitch into a 'result' pitch.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd like to see:

• Viv Richards
• Boycott
• Tendulkar
• Gilchrist

 

[Pup Clarke]

Goughy could you please do when you have the time

George Headley
Graeme Pollock
Kevin Pietersen
Mohammed Yousuf
Steve Waugh
Matthew Hayden

 

[Goughy]

First problem I see is that draws are dependent on the quality of bowlers...batsmen shouldn't really be penalised if the bowlers can't take wickets, I'm sure there are cases where brilliant bowlers have made a 'draw' pitch into a 'result' pitch.

It is possible for brilliant bowlers to make difference and in if they are on the opposition they will register in the average in the loss statistic. For draws it means that both teams failed to take 20 wickets and not just (in this case India) that one sides bowlers were ineffective.

Given that roughly half the games Gavaskar played in were draws and that he averaged approx 65 in those draws it is a fair to draw conclusions over the bat-friendly nature of these tracks especially when compared to his average in Indian victories (approx 45) and in Indian losses (approx 35)

It isnt unfiar to draw conclusions over the difficulty to take wickets in the drawn games when his average is so much higher in the drawn games compared to wins.

 

[sohummisra]

I think one thing you could look at is not outs--because this one factor affects averages pretty solidly. The way one statistician did it for ODI's is a not out would count only if the batsman faced >= the average number of balls that they faced per innings. It's a little iffy, but I still think you should look at not outs where very few runs have been scored, as they add up to make a nice, large innings without a dismissal.

 

[sideshowtim]

Wow, Ponting owns Lara. Not surprising though really.

 

[Goughy]

Dravid
Test Av = 57.46
Standardised Av = 50.95

Boycott
Test Av = 47.72
Standardised Av = 44.32

Tendulkar
Test Av = 55.44
Standardised Av = 46.47

Inzamam-ul-Haq
Test Av = 50.07
Standardised Av = 50.59

 

[silentstriker]

Hmm, Inzy and Hobbs the only ones that went up?

 

[sohummisra]

Inzamam-ul-Haq
Test Av = 50.07
Standardised Av = 50.59

Well, you sure must have removed a lot of run outs.

 

[Richard]

Inzy's been run-out 6 times in Tests.

 

[sohummisra]

Inzy's been run-out 6 times in Tests.

Can't say I'm not surprised.

 

[Goughy]

Inzy's been run-out 6 times in Tests.

Only 5 apply here though as 1 was in a draw

 

[pasag]

Well, you sure must have removed a lot of run outs.

Just looked it up, if I'm correct, suprisingly he's only been run-out in Tests 6 times, compared to say Ponting and Dravid on 9 times. ODIs are another matter however, he's been run-out 40 times there which is the record I think.

Edit Richard beat me.

 

[shortpitched713]

Hmm, Inzy and Hobbs the only ones that went up?

I'm sure you'll agree with me that batsmen usually get things way too easy.

Also its not surprising that Inzy's is the only one of the modern batsman's to go up considering his sick average in wins.