Ian Botham vs Shaun Pollock

[subshakerz]

Not this NOs boost average stuff again.

Pollock batting average: 32
Average in innings that he scored 10 or more: 53
Scored 25 or more :73
50 or more :164

Seems like a typo at the end.

I don't believe in penalising players for NOs but there are exceptions and I don't know how a player who was NO for 1/4th of his total innings should have any of his averages taken at face value.

In terms of pure run output, he is well below guys like Kapil who average the same.

Once set, he scores a lot more. His NOs are denying him a higher batting average, as well as the bigger numbers per innings you want. He's getting the NOs from batting low-2/3 of his innings were from 8 or 9, and almost all the rest from 7. And he's batting low because his team had a bunch of ARs.

Ashwin has fewer NOs because he wasn't as good a bat, and teams found him easier to get out.

The NOs have both the effects of denying him the chances for more runs output but also artificially boosting his average. It's why he averages 41 at no.9. But we can't speculate that he would have scored productively enough if he played those innings longer as he didn't show that ability at no.7 or above.

I agree Ashwin is a slightly worse bat but the flip side is he also scores a higher percentage of fifties and tons than Pollock at the same position.

 

[Coronis]

You should be remaining not out if you’re batting 7th or lower and you actually have some ability with the bat, no? Your job is to remain in, hopefully build a successful partnership with the remaining batsman and not just get out quickly and expose the tail. And if the other established batsmen get out you’re meant to continue batting as long as possible iirc.

 

[Bolo.]

Seems like a typo at the end.

I don't believe in penalising players for NOs but there are exceptions and I don't know how a player who was NO for 1/4th of his total innings should have any of his averages taken at face value.

In terms of pure run output, he is well below guys like Kapil who average the same.


The NOs have both the effects of denying him the chances for more runs output but also artificially boosting his average. It's why he averages 41 at no.9. But we can't speculate that he would have scored productively enough if he played those innings longer as he didn't show that ability at no.7 or above.

I agree Ashwin is a slightly worse bat but the flip side is he also scores a higher percentage of fifties and tons than Pollock at the same position.

164 isnt a typo if that is what you mean.

Not outs do not increase averages. Outs reduce averages. When you have have scored runs already, you are set (and more likely to be in form/batting at an easier time etc). This means you are less likely to get out and are more likely to add to your runs before getting out. So while a not out innings isnt actually decreasing your average, it does decrease what your expected average would be if allowed to continue batting.

His average at 9 is skewed by a couple of huge partnerships with Donald of all people. If Donald had picked the games that Pollock was batting higher to survive in, the averages would have looked very different. You get oddities like this. And, not that I think it is at all meaningful, but he did average more from 7 than 8.

 

[Bolo.]

You should be remaining not out if you’re batting 7th or lower and you actually have some ability with the bat, no? Your job is to remain in, hopefully build a successful partnership with the remaining batsman and not just get out quickly and expose the tail. And if the other established batsmen get out you’re meant to continue batting as long as possible iirc.

Yes on the first part.

But a lower order bat should be looking to start taking some more risks (or farm strike etc) if the guys above them get out and they are batting with notably inferior players below.

 

[Coronis]

Yes on the first part.

But a lower order bat should be looking to start taking some more risks (or farm strike etc) if the guys above them get out and they are batting with notably inferior players below.

Well yes thats what I meant ideally you try to farm the strike as much as possible.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Well yes thats what I meant ideally you try to farm the strike as much as possible.

That does comes with it's own risks. And once you are batting with bunnies 8/9 down, you probably are more often than not better of slogging than trying to farm strike.

 

[subshakerz]

That does comes with it's own risks. And once you are batting with bunnies 8/9 down, you probably are more often than not better of slogging than trying to farm strike.

Pollock wasn't slogging though. He was sharing the strike. He was just a better batter than Donald etc which is why he had more NOs there.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Pollock wasn't slogging though. He was sharing the strike. He was just a better batter than Donald etc which is why he had more NOs there.

I think had he very few not outs, it would be borderline impossible to not rate him in the tier just below Don.

 

[subshakerz]

Not outs do not increase averages. Outs reduce averages. When you have have scored runs already, you are set (and more likely to be in form/batting at an easier time etc). This means you are less likely to get out and are more likely to add to your runs before getting out. So while a not out innings isnt actually decreasing your average, it does decrease what your expected average would be if allowed to continue batting.

This is just factually untrue. If you have 20*, your average goes higher even if you haven't scored more that innings than you actual average.

Pollock was NO in 39 out of 156 innings. NOs take his average from 24 to 32, a huge 8 pt boost. Don't pretend he would have scored that average naturally without this boost.

You are assuming Pollock with 10* is set and would have scored 32 or so on average if the tail didn't get out. That's an assumption that isn't based on his actual skill or record though.

His average at 9 is skewed by a couple of huge partnerships with Donald of all people. If Donald had picked the games that Pollock was batting higher to survive in, the averages would have looked very different. You get oddities like this. And, not that I think it is at all meaningful, but he did average more from 7 than 8.

No the oddity is Pollock having NOs to boost his average, it's obvious. How can you blame a no.10 or 11 bat?

 

[capt_Luffy]

He didn't play 164 innings.


This is just factually untrue. If you have 20*, your average goes higher even if you haven't scored more that innings than you actual average.

Pollock was NO in 39 out of 156 innings. NOs take his average from 24 to 32, a huge 8 pt boost. Don't pretend he would have scored that average naturally with this boost.

You are assuming Pollock with 10* is set and would have scored 32 or so on average if the tail didn't get out. That's an assumption that isn't based on his actual skill or record though.


No the oddity is Pollock having NOs to boost his average, it's obvious. How can you blame a no.10 or 11 bat?

Those are averages

 

[subshakerz]

I think had he very few not outs, it would be borderline impossible to not rate him in the tier just below Don.

Huh? Do you rate Hadlee that high?

 

[subshakerz]

You should be remaining not out if you’re batting 7th or lower and you actually have some ability with the bat, no? Your job is to remain in, hopefully build a successful partnership with the remaining batsman and not just get out quickly and expose the tail. And if the other established batsmen get out you’re meant to continue batting as long as possible iirc.

Sorry but if you are batting no.9 you need to be able to hit out also.

 

[subshakerz]

Those are averages

Oh got it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Huh? Do you rate Hadlee that high?

Among the best after Don?? Surely. Only Sobers is higher and probs Imran with Hobbs almost equal (not counting Grace)

 

[subshakerz]

Among the best after Don?? Surely. Only Sobers is higher and probs Imran with Hobbs almost equal (not counting Grace)

How does an inferior bowler like Pollock get to be best tier after Don with a more representative 32 average?

 

[capt_Luffy]

How does an inferior bowler like Pollock get to be best tier after Don with a more representative 32 average?

On the Greater BAB tier alongside the likes of Steyn and Viv

 

[Johan]

On the Greater BAB tier alongside the likes of Steyn and Viv

Viv better

 

[Bolo.]

This is just factually untrue. If you have 20*, your average goes higher even if you haven't scored more that innings than you actual average.

Pollock was NO in 39 out of 156 innings. NOs take his average from 24 to 32, a huge 8 pt boost. Don't pretend he would have scored that average naturally without this boost.

You are assuming Pollock with 10* is set and would have scored 32 or so on average if the tail didn't get out. That's an assumption that isn't based on his actual skill or record though.


No the oddity is Pollock having NOs to boost his average, it's obvious. How can you blame a no.10 or 11 bat?

When you score runs, your average goes up. When you get out, your average goes down. If not outs were boosting averages, a 0 not out would see your average rise. But it doesnt.

Have another look at those numbers now that you know that they are averages. His NOs were not changing his average. But they were lowering his expected average in relation to having the opportunity to bat the innings to completion.

 

[The Sean]

Pollock averaging 164 when he passes 50 is one of the more extraordinary stats I've heard in a while - particularly given he made only two Test tons and never played an innings that got within 50 of that number.

For context Bradman's average when he passed 50 was 185. Tendulkar's, I have read, was "only" 113.