• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Ian Botham vs Shaun Pollock

Better Cricketer

  • Total voters
    27
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
ataraxia said:
That's preposterous. That implies that had he continued batting in those 39 not-out innings, he would have added 12 more runs on average. If he scored a couple of 70s, then he'd average 9 from that point in the other 37 innings. I'm pretty damn sure that he would have done better than Mohammad Shami.
Click to expand...
It makes sense given that he batted mostly at number 8/9 with tailenders
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
subshakerz said:
I am not expecting him to have zero NOs, just that his are way more than usual.

Do you consider Pollock as good as Kapil whom he averages more than, and if not, why?
Click to expand...
Close one actually. As shown Pollock's average was clearly harmed by his not outs but then again Kapil has longevity on his side.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
subshakerz said:
Runs with NO do boost your average compared to the same runs with dismissals. That's just a fact.

And thanks for admitting we don't know how much Pollock would have scored. No, I don't take those stats as indicative he would have scored more if he had to bat longer because the fact is he was always going to be a lower order bat in that position.

We can argue how good he may really have been but in effect he was a Ashwin/Hadlee level bat.
Click to expand...
It is a fact that runs increase averages and outs decrease them. Sure, if you change runs without changing outs, average goes up. Because you have added runs.

Stop with this constant 'thanks for admitting it' stuff. You are arguing absolutes on a hypothetical. Im showing you data that very, very strongly suggests you are wrong. The fact that I recognize that existing data can't be used to predict hypotheticals with 100% accuracy is never a gotcha.

Who do you believe is more likely to score more runs before being dismissed- a bat who already has runs on the board, or one who doesn't? Divorce this question from your opinion on any specific bat, and answer in general terms.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Ok let's say that the stats lie, and actually, Pollock's RPI actually indicates his worth a lot better than his average, because he got persistent lucky with innings finishing right when he was in a spot of bother and looked likely to get out. Say then, that for each of his not outs he was likely to score 24 more runs if he had kept batting, with endless time and wickets in hand, until he got out – because that's his RPI, right?

With all that bullshit, he still averages 30. It's an insignificant two-run difference.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
ataraxia said:
Ok let's say that the stats lie, and actually, Pollock's RPI actually indicates his worth a lot better than his average, because he got persistent lucky with innings finishing right when he was in a spot of bother and looked likely to get out. Say then, that for each of his not outs he was likely to score 24 more runs if he had kept batting, with endless time and wickets in hand, until he got out – because that's his RPI, right?

With all that bullshit, he still averages 30. It's an insignificant two-run difference.
Click to expand...
Great so how much would you deduct for flatter era too? Let's say 1-2 points. Then his averages comes to around what I suggested it practically is.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Bolo. said:
Sure, if you change runs without changing outs, average goes up.
Click to expand...
Great we agree NOs make a difference then. Just saying it in different ways.

Bolo. said:
Stop with this constant 'thanks for admitting it' stuff. You are arguing absolutes on a hypothetical. Im showing you data that very, very strongly suggests you are wrong. The fact that I recognize that existing data can't be used to predict hypotheticals with 100% accuracy is never a gotcha.
Click to expand...
I don't read the data that way since average is still affected by NOs. What is that data for Hadlee and Ashwin? I'm assuming Pollock is better but just curious.

Bolo. said:
Who do you believe is more likely to score more runs before being dismissed- a bat who already has runs on the board, or one who doesn't? Divorce this question from your opinion on any specific bat, and answer in general terms.
Click to expand...
Again Pollock is batting at 8/9, that position doesn't allow for longer innings even if he is settled in the crease.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Great so how much would you deduct for flatter era too? Let's say 1-2 points. Then his averages comes to around what I suggested it practically is.
Click to expand...
Bro this is South Africa, and much of his career was in the 1990s. Furthermore, he played a disproportionate proportion of his games at home which negatively affected his average.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top