Ian Botham vs Shaun Pollock

[Randomfan]

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.

It can boost average in some situations.

Some one batting at 9th position can score 4* - 15 times , but not sure if we can argue that batsman should be seen as regular 60 avg top order batsman. Volume of runs is also important.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Um, the same number of runs will be boosted further with a NO than with a dismissal. A 10* boosts your average. lol why are you arguing basic maths?

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 opportunity to bat to completion doesn't mean he would definitely have scored the number of runs to maintain a 32 average. That is your assumption and you don't address the argument. Whereas remaining NO means he is never

The only reason he is averaging so high with those scores down the order is because of NOs.

 

[subshakerz]

It can boost average in some situations.

Some one batting at 9th position can score 4* - 15 times , but not sure if we can argue that batsman should be seen as regular 60 avg top order batsman. Volume of runs is also important.

This is obvious. Batting average is meant to give an indication what volume you are expecting in an average score.

Pollock averaging 32 is an outlier where he can't be expected to actually regularly score those number of runs.

Pollock at no.9 played 20 innings, was NO is 7 of them, averages 41. We can't take it that seriously.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Yeah. I think there are lot of reflex votes here.

'Oh Botham didn't average under 25 with ball, default Pollock'

Do you think Botham is a better bowler than Shaun Pollock?

 

[Coronis]

This is obvious. Batting average is meant to give an indication what volume you are expecting in an average score.

Pollock averaging 32 is an outlier where he can't be expected to actually regularly score those number of runs.

Hmm.

Pollock scored 32+ in 51/156 innings or 32.69%
Tendulkar scored 54+ in 110/329 innings or 33.43%

Can we also not reasonably expect Tendulkar to live up to his average?

 

[Randomfan]

This is obvious. Batting average is meant to give an indication what volume you are expecting in an average score.

Pollock averaging 32 is an outlier where he can't be expected to actually regularly score those number of runs.

Pollock at no.9 played 20 innings, was NO is 7 of them, averages 41. We can't take it that seriously.

Pollock was a good lower order batsman. Based on what I saw, I I think he may have averaged 32 while batting higher as well, but I won't say that he would have certainly averaged 32 while batting high. I think he was underutlized and should have batted higher.

Anyway, 300+ wickets with avg of 20 and a very good lower order batsman - A fantastic cricketer for 3/4th of his career.

 

[subshakerz]

Do you think Botham is a better bowler than Shaun Pollock?

No I said he isn't.

 

[subshakerz]

Hmm.

Pollock scored 32+ in 51/156 innings or 32.69%
Tendulkar scored 54+ in 110/329 innings or 33.43%

Can we also not reasonably expect Tendulkar to live up to his average?

Apples and oranges.

Pollock in lower order would need to hit out eventually, take more risks, etc.

 

[subshakerz]

Pollock was a good lower order batsman. Based on what I saw, I I think he may have averaged 32 while batting higher as well, but I won't say that he would have certainly averaged 32 while batting high. I think he was underutlized and should have batted higher.

Anyway, 300+ wickets with avg of 20 and a very good lower order batsman - A fantastic cricketer for 3/4th of his career.

You can hold that view, though I didn't see Pollock as that good at all, but at least we should admit it's speculative and not take a 32 average at face value.

 

[Bolo.]

Um, the same number of runs will be boosted further with a NO than with a dismissal. A 10* boosts your average. lol why are you arguing basic maths?


The opportunity to bat to completion doesn't mean he would definitely have scored the number of runs to maintain a 32 average. That is your assumption and you don't address the argument. Whereas remaining NO means he is never

The only reason he is averaging so high with those scores down the order is because of NOs.

Does zero not out boost your average? This should make it a lot clearer.

We dont know what he would have averaged if batting till outs. But we do have his numbers that strongly suggest he would have averaged more. Test it with basically any bat with a substantial body of runs you can think of. The magnitude of the jumps will differ, but the trend will be similar.

Or just think about it logically. Who do you think is more likely to score more runs in the remainder of their innings- a bat who is set or one who isnt? If you are watching a 50 average bat, are you more worried about them getting out when they are on 0* or 50*?

 

[Randomfan]

You can hold that view, though I didn't see Pollock as that good at all, but at least we should admit it's speculative and not take a 32 average at face value.

He pretty much batted at 7 or lower with 24-25 runs per inning contribution. That's as good as it gets for a pacer batting that low.

It's surely speculative but he has a very good case for averaging 32 while batting higher given how Pollock batted. His runs did not come due to slogging and he was not easy to dismiss. He was under untilized and should have batted higher.

Think of it this way, he was already scoring 24-25 runs per inning batting 7 or low and remained not out many times. We also see that he was hard to dismiss when he got some runs. I would say a perfect candidate to contribute well when batting a bit higher. Not sure why he shouldn't be seen as 32 avg batsman, its not as if he was scoring 15 runs per inning. Difference between 25 and 32 is not that big. Anyway, it's speculative because he did not bat higher up regularly.

 

[Coronis]

He pretty much batted at 7 or lower with 24-25 runs per inning contribution. That's as good as it gets for a pacer batting that low.

It's surely speculative but he has a very good case for averaging 32 while batting higher given how Pollock batted. His runs did not come due to slogging and he was not easy to dismiss. He was under untilized and should have batted higher.

Think of it this way, he was already scoring 24-25 runs per inning batting that low and remained not out many times. We also see that he was hard to dismiss when he got some runs. I would say a perfect candidate to contribute well when batting a bit higher. not sure why he shouldn't be seen as 32 avg batsman, its not as if he was scoring 15 runs per inning. Difference between 25 and 32 is not that big.

Tell Zak Crawley.

 

[Randomfan]

I think we shouldn't dismiss Pollock's runs so quickly due to him batting lower most times. To put it in context,

A list of bowlers with 100+ wickets with while batting 7 or lower, Pollock with 3600 plus runs in 100-110 tests is very good. I am not saying that he was a top class batsman but for some one batting at 7 or lower most times, he scored lots of runs in his career.

Only Jadeja and Cairns are averaging higher than him here. Only Dev and Vettori have more runs than him here.

3600 runs are not too little. A fantastic pacer who contributed with bat as well consistently.

 

[subshakerz]

Does zero not out boost your average? This should make it a lot clearer.

We dont know what he would have averaged if batting till outs. But we do have his numbers that strongly suggest he would have averaged more. Test it with basically any bat with a substantial body of runs you can think of. The magnitude of the jumps will differ, but the trend will be similar.

Or just think about it logically. Who do you think is more likely to score more runs in the remainder of their innings- a bat who is set or one who isnt? If you are watching a 50 average bat, are you more worried about them getting out when they are on 0* or 50*?

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.

 

[subshakerz]

He pretty much batted at 7 or lower with 24-25 runs per inning contribution. That's as good as it gets for a pacer batting that low.

It's surely speculative but he has a very good case for averaging 32 while batting higher given how Pollock batted. His runs did not come due to slogging and he was not easy to dismiss. He was under untilized and should have batted higher.

Think of it this way, he was already scoring 24-25 runs per inning batting 7 or low and remained not out many times. We also see that he was hard to dismiss when he got some runs. I would say a perfect candidate to contribute well when batting a bit higher. Not sure why he shouldn't be seen as 32 avg batsman, its not as if he was scoring 15 runs per inning. Difference between 25 and 32 is not that big. Anyway, it's speculative because he did not bat higher up regularly.

His RPI of 24 is around the Ashwin/Hadlee range, below that of Kapil who had a similar average.

Nobody is saying to dismiss his runs, but his batting was Ashwin/Hadlee level and only looks better due to a combo of reasons including NOs, flatter era, etc.

 

[ataraxia]

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

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.

I think these stats from Pollock are abnormally good tbh. Rate him a lot higher as a batter now, well above Ashwin or Hadlee.

 

[ataraxia]

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

What is the mean score that you would expect Pollock to achieve if he reached 20* and was permitted to bat until his dismissal?

 

[subshakerz]

What is the mean score that you would expect Pollock to achieve if he reached 20* and was permitted to bat until his dismissal?

I expect without unusually higher NO boost he would be averaging 26-28.

 

[ataraxia]

I expect without unusually higher NO boost he would be averaging 26-28.

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.

 

[subshakerz]

I think these stats from Pollock are abnormally good tbh. Rate him a lot higher as a batter now, well above Ashwin or Hadlee.

What are the respective stats for Hadlee and Ashwin though? I would still consider Pollock a tad better than them but we should compare.