Is Dhoni greatest OdI cricketer off all-time

[honestbharani]

HOWEVER, someone to be in contention of such accolades that have to be present in most all time XIs and there must be consensus among the voices and people that matter (not just biased fans).

So obviously your opinion means **** on this topic. Thanks for accepting that fact.

 

[h_hurricane]

So obviously your opinion means **** on this topic. Thanks for accepting that fact.

On the evidence of what we are seeing in this forum, on every topic.

 

[a massive zebra]

On the evidence of what we are seeing in this forum, on every topic.

Never a truer word spoken.

 

[Red]

I know you're trying to be clever and you have your little hype men but as I stated, it is not just dismissals per innings. I also qualified looing at 200 dismissals minimum but if we go back to Dhoni v Gilly, Dhoni played 63 more games. If he is better, can you explain why he couldn't even take one more dismissal every other game?

I might have a long wait

This might be the strangest and most illogical attempt at determining someone's ability I've ever seen.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How the **** are we still taking about this dismissals per game ****

Thinking dismissals per game is a meaningful stat is nearly as dumb as thinking that not outs boost average

 

[trundler]

The not out argument is basically just people being pig headed about something that's pretty obvious when you watch a game of cricket. I'm not taking a side here; the RPI argument is doing pretty much the same thing in reverse.

If Botham had as many not outs as Imran he'd average over 40 even with the late career decline. In extreme cases averages can be deceptive for a whole host of reasons.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If Botham had as many not outs as Imran he'd average over 40 even with the late career decline. In extreme cases averages can be deceptive for a whole host of reasons.

Irrelevant. He didn't have as many not outs. You could also say "If Botham had as many runs as Bradman he would average over 40" and it would have just as much meaning*.

Not outs aren't a magical status that gives you a bonus. If you have more not outs for the same amount of runs, then (all other things being equal) you batted better.

*I haven't actually done the math on that, but you get the gist

 

[Red]

How the **** are we still taking about this dismissals per game ****

Thinking dismissals per game is a meaningful stat is nearly as dumb as thinking that not outs boost average

how many times does it need to be explained to you that the people you think think "derp derp not outs boost batting average" actually dont think "derp derp not outs boost batting average" but understand that cricket statistics have nuances and that many not outs contribute to batting averages being a less useful metric in limited overs cricket because if they are looked at purely in terms of who has a higher one they dont give an accurate picture of contributions within each match?

 

[TheJediBrah]

how many times does it need to be explained to you that the people you think think "derp derp not outs boost batting average" actually dont think "derp derp not outs boost batting average" but understand that cricket statistics have nuances and that many not outs contribute to batting averages being a less useful metric in limited overs cricket because if they are looked at purely in terms of who has a higher one they dont give an accurate picture of contributions within each match?

Nah they actually do

 

[Red]

Nah they actually do

nah they actually dont

 

[TheJediBrah]

totes do

 

[trundler]

They can though. Just like bashing up minnows can. Getting a not out while opening is so rare and difficult, it literally has a special name. The lower you go, the easier it is to get one.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They can though. Just like bashing up minnows can. Getting a not out while opening is so rare and difficult, it literally has a special name. The lower you go, the easier it is to get one.

Yes they can, and if they do it's because of another tangential factor. Not because you have more not outs. For example, say you're looking at a Steve Waugh, or Chanderpaul, who many would argue got a lot of not outs from "selfish batting" (in Tests) in various situations. If you're comparing them with a Steve Smith who throws his wicket away often when the tail is in, or a delcaration is coming, it's fair to say that the Waugh/Chanderpaul type has a "boosted" average relatively-speaking.

But it's because of selfish batting, not because generally-speaking "having more not outs mean that your average isn't worth as much", which people genuinely do think.

 

[ankitj]

It's a different argument if you say batting in lower order is easier than to say not outs boost average. Former may have some merit at least in some situations, latter is just ... I don't want to use the word in my mind.

 

[Migara]

If Botham had as many not outs as Imran he'd average over 40 even with the late career decline. In extreme cases averages can be deceptive for a whole host of reasons.

He was not good enough to achieve it.

 

[Migara]

Not outs aren't a magical status that gives you a bonus. If you have more not outs for the same amount of runs, then (all other things being equal) you batted better

Unless you got for that extra run in the last ball of the innings and get runout. Otherwise, not getting out is a skill, and that has to be taken in to any statistical account.

The real question is how much weightage should be given for it.

 

[a massive zebra]

Here is a brief article on the not out myth from the esteemed cricket statistician Charles Davis:

The batting average, which is a measure of the runs scored by a batsman between dismissals, is a very useful measure, but it has been questioned from time to time on the grounds that unbeaten innings are not handled reasonably. How often has it been said that a batsman who finishes an innings not out has 'boosted' his batting average?

It is time this myth was put to bed. A not out innings can be looked at in two ways, either as an avoidance of an impending dismissal, or as a loss of a run-making opportunity. In the first scenario, the batting average has indeed been boosted, in the second, the potential batting average has been diminished. It can be shown that, over an entire career, the second case is more likely, reducing a batsman's potential to make easy runs when the going is good, and thus reducing rather than increasing the batting average.

Figure 7.3 shows the most likely number of runs a batsman will add as he reaches successively higher scores. The median score, probably a better indicator of the most likely outcomes, has been included on the graph.

The most likely number of runs added when a batsman is 0 is 33.68, which is equivalent to the 'average batting average' for all batsmen. As a batsman scores more runs, the most likely number of runs added becomes slightly higher than when the innings began. The implication is clear: a batsman who finishes not out has most likely been deprived of a number of runs similar or slightly higher than the batting average.

That is to say, if cricket allowed all the batsmen to play all of their unbeaten innings to completion, they would actually finish with slightly higher career batting averages. So in the long term, finishing not out is bad for your average.

An example may clarify this. Say Sachin Tendulkar plays an unbeaten innings of 50, has he boosted his batting average? The obvious answer might be yes; however if we look at all of Tendulkar's scores of 50 or more, we find that they average around 113, that is, he typically scores 63 additional runs. So if the 50* had been allowed to continue to completion, its most likely outcome would have been 113. A quick calculation will show that a dismissal for 113 would lift Tendulkar's career average more than a score of 50*. So it is likely that by stopping his innings at 50, his average was adversely affected, even though it does not count as a dismissal.

A batsman finishing not out has 'artificially boosted' his average only if it is assumed that his dismissal was imminent and inevitable. When you think about it, this is obviously a fallacy in most situations.

 

[ankitj]

I did some simulations to show this.

Definitive proof that not outs don't inflate batting averages

Take any practical case and you will know. In case of Bevan you would have to assume 55 more runs every time he remained not out. Out of all the innings Bevan was dismissed he averaged 32. And out of all the innings he remained not out his runs/ innings is 42. So you are saying he would have...

www.cricketweb.net

 

[honestbharani]

To me, RPI is a better metric in tests (still very context heavy and therefore prone to be used badly) than it ever is in LO formats. And it is a poor metric on its own, even in tests.

 

[Red]

Yes they can, and if they do it's because of another tangential factor. Not because you have more not outs. For example, say you're looking at a Steve Waugh, or Chanderpaul, who many would argue got a lot of not outs from "selfish batting" (in Tests) in various situations. If you're comparing them with a Steve Smith who throws his wicket away often when the tail is in, or a delcaration is coming, it's fair to say that the Waugh/Chanderpaul type has a "boosted" average relatively-speaking.

So you basically agree with the thing you've spent years vehemently arguing against, lol? FMD