T20I Averages- Joke or Not?

[SillyCowCorner1]

This thread inspired by a stat I saw yesterday of Babar Azam's T20I average touching 60 yesterday before his dismissal.
So, I pulled this up:




Records | Twenty20 Internationals | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo

Manish Pandey at #3

 

[Coronis]

This thread could be titled T20 - Joke or Not? My answer would be the same.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Fair point, I'd say

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't think they're a joke but they certainly require more games and more context to mean anything than the longer forms. Pandey's only been dismissed 12 times which, combined with a pretty meh strike rate and batting down the order a lot, means his average doesn't say all that much about him either way.

 

[vcs]

Those names at the top of the list seem OK to me actually (Manish Pandey aside, my memory of him doing anything is a complete blank). All decent players in that format.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I don't think they're a joke but they certainly require more games and more context to mean anything than the longer forms. Pandey's only been dismissed 12 times which, combined with a pretty meh strike rate and batting down the order a lot, means his average doesn't say all that much about him either way.

What blew me away was the number of not outs Dhoni had. A quickfire 15 not out at the end of setting a total. An unbeaten 40 in a chase, etc

 

[Magrat Garlick]

SR/Econ (and runs per innings, not average) is what you want to look at for T20

 

[trundler]

Well Babar Azam was striking at less than run a ball in the last game. Still got 47 or something. Not a good knock. SR is far more important.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Well Babar Azam was striking at less than run a ball in the last game. Still got 47 or something. Not a good knock. SR is far more important.

So joke

 

[cnerd123]

T20 needs more money-ball statistics. Traditional averages don't mean enough. Economy and Strike Rates (batting and bowling) are still useful. What we really need are stats like dot ball/boundary percentages, Econ and SR for each stage of the game (Powerplay, middle overs, death), preferred scoring areas. Stuff like that seems more useful.

 

[Starfighter]

Cricket needs less things which need moneyball statistics.

 

[weldone]

T20 averages are more like a tickbox for me. As long as it's above a certain number, it's meaningless (/joke) i.e. there's no difference between 53 and 31 imo. But below that threshold, T20 average shows the player is joke.

In other words, a T20 average of 38 doesn't necessary say that the batsman is very good; but a T20 average of 3 definitely says that the batsman is ****.

 

[BSM]

T20 averages are more like a tickbox for me. As long as it's above a certain number, it's meaningless (/joke) i.e. there's no difference between 53 and 31 imo. But below that threshold, T20 average shows the player is joke.

In other words, a T20 average of 38 doesn't necessary say that the batsman is very good; but a T20 average of 3 definitely says that the batsman is ****.

Also depends on strike rate as well I guess. If someone has an average between 20 and 25 but their strike rate is about 150 then that's acceptable. The problem is as well that players who bat in the lower order are always going to end up with worse records in the format because they don't have an equal chance and often have to hit out and effectively give up their wicket.

Overall t20I averages (in batting more than bowling) are too volatile to be taken as seriously as test and odi averages to consider whether a player is truly great or just good.

 

[weldone]

Also depends on strike rate as well I guess. If someone has an average between 20 and 25 but their strike rate is about 150 then that's acceptable. The problem is as well that players who bat in the lower order are always going to end up with worse records in the format because they don't have an equal chance and often have to hit out and effectively give up their wicket.

Overall t20I averages (in batting more than bowling) are too volatile to be taken as seriously as test and odi averages to consider whether a player is truly great or just good.

Yes, the threshold that I hinted upon is somewhere around 20 or 25. A batsman with 25 average and 150 SR is in all likelihood better than Misbah.

 

[Second Spitter]

I don't think they're a joke but they certainly require more games and more context to mean anything than the longer forms. Pandey's only been dismissed 12 times which, combined with a pretty meh strike rate and batting down the order a lot, means his average doesn't say all that much about him either way.

Pandey is the Borevan of T20.

 

[Daemon]

Yes, the threshold that I hinted upon is somewhere around 20 or 25. A batsman with 25 average and 150 SR is in all likelihood better than Misbah.

It depends on the team as well doesn't it. For a team like India someone who averages 25 at 150 is immensely valuable, but other lineups with weak top/middle orders might prefer a Misbah.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes, the threshold that I hinted upon is somewhere around 20 or 25. A batsman with 25 average and 150 SR is in all likelihood better than Misbah.

That's not the same as saying that an average of 53 isn't any better than an average of 31. If SRs are the same, then the superior is average is still the better player, comfortably. The 53 averaging player will strike at the same rate as the 31 averaging player, but for much longer, allowing the rest of the team to be more aggressive around him, lose less wickets etc and better help get a higher score.

Of course the key there is "if SRs are the same". If the 31 average (or 20-25 average) player has a significantly better SR than a player with a higher average, then definitely they could be considered to be more valuable despite having a lower average.

 

[randycricfreak]

Not a joke. You really can't have a good average and consistency in T20 cricket without a strike rate.

Take Gayle, Kohli for instance. Pretty good averages

 

[srbhkshk]

That's not the same as saying that an average of 53 isn't any better than an average of 31. If SRs are the same, then the superior is average is still the better player, comfortably. The 53 averaging player will strike at the same rate as the 31 averaging player, but for much longer, allowing the rest of the team to be more aggressive around him, lose less wickets etc and better help get a higher score.

Still depends on SR, 30@110 opener might be better for the team compared to 55@110 opener.

 

[randycricfreak]

Well I don't think there are any 110SR and AVG 50+ top order players.

So can't really fantasize a situation like this.

Obviously a player like Buttler is more favourable than a Babar Azam in T20I cricket. But a player who could consistently churn out 50s off 40 balls should not be neglected either.