Top 30 batsmen of the modern era (1990s -Current)

[srbhkshk]

My personal opinion is that not outs hurt batting average and such averages should actually be adjusted upwards.

 

[harsh.ag]

Any attempt to take "not outs" out of the batting average equation is a totally illogical from a mathematical point of view. A batting average is simply runs scored per dismissal. Why try to adjust an average simply because a batsman wasn't dismissed? A ludicrous suggestion.

It's not about taking not outs out of average, it's about reducing the influence of not outs in rankings.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Not Outs don’t boost an average. A batting averaging is indisputable. For some reason a lot of people seem to see being Not Out as some sort of selfish nefarious act that needs a remedy.

 

[TheJediBrah]

My personal opinion is that not outs hurt batting average and such averages should actually be adjusted upwards.

This actually makes more sense than the opposite. Vast majority of not outs in Test matches for top & middle order batsmen will be either at the end of successful run chases or being declared on. It's nuts to think that this is helping your batting average. You're having your innings terminated earlier even though you've played yourself in and gotten used to the conditions. Much more likely to actually hurt your batting average.

It's not about taking not outs out of average, it's about reducing the influence of not outs in rankings.

Why would you ever want to do that though?

 

[Bolo.]

I'd argue a batsman who stays not out but scores fewer runs is the one actually worse at batting (in the vast majority of test match scenarios)

And I dont think the formula is actually "penalising" not outs.

More team runs are better than less team runs, unsurprisingly. The more useful innings is the one that results (or is expected to result) in more team runs. If you have a last wicket partnership with Chris Martin 10 is likely to be a more useful innings than 0*. If you have an 11 batting with Bradman, you basically dont care what he scores. A not out will give you a huge partnership most of the time. Whether you rate a 0ish* as a better innings than a quickfire 40 is another matter, but it will probably get you more runs.

 

[Daemon]

This actually makes more sense than the opposite. Vast majority of not outs in Test matches for top & middle order batsmen will be either at the end of successful run chases or being declared on. It's nuts to think that this is helping your batting average. You're having your innings terminated earlier even though you've played yourself in and gotten used to the conditions. Much more likely to actually hurt your batting average.

I agree with your usual rant on this topic but not this. It’s not more likely imo to hurt your average imo.

It only hurts your average if, at the point your innings was cut short, you would have gone on to score another X amount of runs that is greater than your batting average.

100,100,100*, average 150.

Say the last not out ended with less than an additional 150 scored. Maybe 200 total. That would bring your average to 133. So it hurts your average by scoring another 100 runs but getting out.

 

[srbhkshk]

It only hurts your average if, at the point your innings was cut short, you would have gone on to score another X amount of runs that is greater than your batting average.

That's almost always the case though. A set batsman is more likely to score more incremental runs than a batsman on zero - that's what getting set is.

 

[Daemon]

That's almost always the case though. A set batsman is more likely to score more incremental runs than a batsman on zero - that's what getting set is.

True but I think it often depends on what stage you get that red inker at tbf.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I agree with your usual rant on this topic but not this. It’s not more likely imo to hurt your average imo.

It only hurts your average if, at the point your innings was cut short, you would have gone on to score another X amount of runs that is greater than your batting average.

Precisely, which is more likely to be the case in an innings that is cut short with a not out than one where you start again from scratch.

If you disagree then you must think that a batsman is more likely to score their average starting from 0 than they would be continuing on, say, 50 not out, which I really don't think is supported by history at all. The only circumstance where this would be viable is a very specific case of a batsman that maybe gets tired easily and quickly (or has concentration issues) and is hence more likely to get out after making a start than they would be on 0.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, Daemon's right. You would have to score double the runs of your not out score to maintain the same average. That is pretty likely if you were 20* but not if you were 100*. Lots of nuance here

 

[srbhkshk]

Yeah, Daemon's right. You would have to score double the runs of your not out score to maintain the same average. That is pretty likely if you were 20* but not if you were 100*. Lots of nuance here

Sachin averages 212 when he scores at least 100 runs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, Daemon's right. You would have to score double the runs of your not out score to maintain the same average. That is pretty likely if you were 20* but not if you were 100*. Lots of nuance here

100,100,100*, average 150.

Say the last not out ended with less than an additional 150 scored. Maybe 200 total. That would bring your average to 133. So it hurts your average by scoring another 100 runs but getting out.

Nah, this is a very extreme and rare example. We are talking about averages over the course of careers and no one is walking around averaging 150.

 

[Daemon]

Sachin averages 212 when he scores at least 100 runs.

Adjust for not outs pls

 

[Line and Length]

It's not about taking not outs out of average, it's about reducing the influence of not outs in rankings.

Which is a flawed proposition. I have seen many arguments on CW. Some valid. some logical. This is both invalid and illogical and reflects poorly on the thinking of the proponents.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, Daemon's right. You would have to score double the runs of your not out score to maintain the same average. That is pretty likely if you were 20* but not if you were 100*. Lots of nuance here

This is also incorrect. You are literally saying here that you think the batsman is likely to score more runs starting again on 0 than continuing from 100 not out. That is rarely the case, see srbhksh's sachin example.

 

[srbhkshk]

Technically saying I am sure Harsh would be right at some point when the fatigue sets in - but it's probably more of something that happens a lot later than 100 for most good batsman.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Technically saying I am sure Harsh would be right at some point when the fatigue sets in - but it's probably more of something that happens a lot later than 100 for most good batsman.

Yes, which means it's only relevant if a batsman has most of their career not outs at a score (or higher) where they were unlikely to make more than their average. So Sachin, with an average of 54, is only helped by not outs if they occured at a score where he is likely to get out before making another 54 runs. I can only assume that this would be a very high score, if any. Unless a majority of his 33 not outs were on huge 150-200+ scores then not outs hurt his average rather than helping it (which maybe they actually were, I dont know. But definitely not the case for most players).

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, Daemon's right. You would have to score double the runs of your not out score to maintain the same average. That is pretty likely if you were 20* but not if you were 100*. Lots of nuance here

Wait, this is wrong.

Suppose a batsman scores 50, 50, 50*. Average 75. If he had to maintain an average of 75 across three completed innings, he would have to score 125 in the third. So 75 more than his 50*. The probability of this is lower than 50%.

Another example. 30, 30, 30*. Average 45. He would have to score 75 to maintain 45 average across three completed innings. So 45 runs more than his 30*. Again, not that probable.

So, yeah, TJB is right that the batsman would have to score his average from the not out score.

But he is probably wrong that the probability of this is high, or higher than 50%, at least. I mean all the time. It's maybe possible at some scores, I dunno.

 

[harsh.ag]

20, 50, 30, 60, 40*
Average - 50
For average to be 50 across 5 completed innings he would have to score 90 in the last one (50 more than his 40*). Again, doesn't seem that likely. I would bet less than 50% probability.

So, yeah, a slight adjustment as Venky has done is probably just the right amount of adjustment. Imo. It's perfectly fine to disagree.

 

[TheJediBrah]

@harsh.ag those examples are all great but they're not really accurate in this context or necessary to demonstrate the point. It's as simple as whether or not the batsman in question is more likely to make his average again from the not out score, or more likely to do it from 0. That's all it is.

If you think that not outs help your average then you must think that in the majority of that batsman's not outs, they were better off starting from 0 again than they would have been if they got to continue from their not out score. Personally I think that is almost never going to the case, like less than 5% of the time. Most players are more likely to make their averages again after making a start than starting again from scratch. I can look up some numbers if you like.