Kallis vs. Dravid

[Avada Kedavra]

if you translate your example into a real match situation dravid's team will not lose. but kallis' team can.

There's no way you can be sure about that. Scoring more runs = better for winning/saving the match. There's no two ways about it.

 

[bagapath]

There's no way you can be sure about that. Scoring more runs = better for winning/saving the match. There's no two ways about it.

but kallis has to bat two innings to meet that statistical average of 204. dravid does it in a single innigs. no team can lose a test by batting once. so theoretically kallis' team can lose. dravid's team cannot.

anyway if you remove minnows from the opposition dravid averages 184.78 in his 100+ innings. kallis averages 184.40. so the stat you are coming up with says nothing.

 

[bunny]

Kallis still averages higher than Dravid when you remove minnows from both.

Both average close to 185. And it's because of Kallis' not-outs. Ok let me explain how not-outs inflate averages.

Consider Kallis' 100+ average when he is out. It's 134.
(Dravid's 100+ average when he is out is btw 159]

Now if Kallis scores a 120*, it essentially counts as 254 if you take the normal 100+ average. Basically you are assuming that when Kallis scores 120+ and he is not out, he will end up reaching 254. Given that he hasnt even crossed 200 once (and the fact that adding another 134 runs is incredibly hard), it's better to use a 120* as (120 + 54, as a 174). If you do such a calculation you will realize that Kallis' uninflated average would turn out to be 10+ points lower than Rahul's.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

but kallis has to bat two innings to meet that statistical average of 204. dravid does it in a single innigs. no team can lose a test by batting once. so theoretically kallis' team can lose. dravid's team cannot.

anyway if you remove minnows from the opposition dravid averages 184.78 in his 100+ innings. kallis averages 184.40. so the stat you are coming up with says nothing.

If the opposition scores 600 and Dravid scores 186 out and the rest of the team collapses, then what ? Whether Kallis needs to bat 2 innings or 5 innings is irrelevant. The fact is that the opposition cannot dismiss him in one of the innings. By staying at the wicket, he is giving his team a much better chance to survive than Dravid is by sitting in the changing room (I think it is safe to say that Dravid's/Kallis' team cannot win the match because of the opposition scoring 600).

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Both average close to 185. And it's because of Kallis' not-outs. Ok let me explain how not-outs inflate averages.

Consider Kallis' 100+ average when he is out. It's 134.
(Dravid's 100+ average when he is out is btw 159]

Now if Kallis scores a 120*, it essentially counts as 254 if you take the normal 100+ average. Basically you are assuming that when Kallis scores 120+ and he is not out, he will end up reaching 254. Given that he hasnt even crossed 200 once (and the fact that adding another 134 runs is incredibly hard), it's better to use a 120* as (120 + 54, as a 174). If you do such a calculation you will realize that Kallis' uninflated average would turn out to be 10+ points lower than Rahul's.

153 not 159. For the sake of the argument, let's say we remove not outs (which I think is ridiculous), It's Kallis' 134 vs Dravid's 152. I don't see a huge advantage there if you consider that Kallis' rate of scoring centuries is superior.

 

[Ikki]

Both average close to 185. And it's because of Kallis' not-outs. Ok let me explain how not-outs inflate averages.

Consider Kallis' 100+ average when he is out. It's 134.
(Dravid's 100+ average when he is out is btw 159]

Now if Kallis scores a 120*, it essentially counts as 254 if you take the normal 100+ average. Basically you are assuming that when Kallis scores 120+ and he is not out, he will end up reaching 254. Given that he hasnt even crossed 200 once (and the fact that adding another 134 runs is incredibly hard), it's better to use a 120* as (120 + 54, as a 174). If you do such a calculation you will realize that Kallis' uninflated average would turn out to be 10+ points lower than Rahul's.

I meant their career average. Sorry, should have clarified.

Also, there is little problem with counting not-outs here. They're both middle order batsmen, both have the same opportunity to compile those runs and stay not out. And it's a hefty score, so it makes even less sense to demean the not out.

 

[mdoggie]

I was questioning how Kallis can have a 200+ average when he hasnt scored a 200. Obviously it's because he has too many not-outs which usually means too many flat wickets or lowly teams. Once you remove Zim and Bangla, Kallis's average drops down big time (still the notouts remain that he compiled against the lowly WI).

Dravid has played the minows more often than Kallis, Therefore he should have being able to inflate his average. Not being able to do well against minnows is not a feather in his cap. If they were flat pitches then he would have 200 + not out but some of his not outs come where the rest of the team is skittled out and he is the only player to get some runs.

 

[bunny]

153 not 159. For the sake of the argument, let's say we remove not outs (which I think is ridiculous), It's Kallis' 134 vs Dravid's 152. I don't see a huge advantage there if you consider that Kallis' rate of scoring centuries is superior.

I had already removed Zim and Bangla from equation and that's where I got 159.
1) I never said we should remove not outs. I just said they shouldnt be weighed the way they are.

2) If you think Kallis's rate of scoring centuries is superior, Dravid's rate of scoring 90+ scores is comparable. (100 is finally an arbitrarily chosen number). And anyway I was debating here more about the 200+ average that you had posted.

3) 152 is quite bigger than 134, btw. That way there's no difference between somebody averaging 50+ and another averaging 45+.

 

[bunny]

Dravid has played the minows more often than Kallis, Therefore he should have being able to inflate his average. Not being able to do well against minnows is not a feather in his cap. If they were flat pitches then he would have 200 + not out but some of his not outs come where the rest of the team is skittled out and he is the only player to get some runs.

I am not saying that cashing against minnows is bad, but by posting 100+ scores/averages, ppl usually are trying to estimate match winning (saving) potential. (otherwise 200, 300 etc are all statistics which dont matter). Against minnows, rarely do you need a match winning innings, hence including them in the discussion would skew the judgement.

 

[bunny]

I meant their career average. Sorry, should have clarified.

Also, there is little problem with counting not-outs here. They're both middle order batsmen, both have the same opportunity to compile those runs and stay not out. And it's a hefty score, so it makes even less sense to demean the not out.

I am not trying to demean not outs, I am trying to explain how they end up skewing the statistics.

 

[bunny]

I meant their career average. Sorry, should have clarified.

Also, there is little problem with counting not-outs here. They're both middle order batsmen, both have the same opportunity to compile those runs and stay not out. And it's a hefty score, so it makes even less sense to demean the not out.

Btw, Dravid averages more if you ignore innings where he didnt open (which is quite important to this discussion).

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I had already removed Zim and Bangla from equation and that's where I got 159.
1) I never said we should remove not outs. I just said they shouldnt be weighed the way they are.

2) If you think Kallis's rate of scoring centuries is superior, Dravid's rate of scoring 90+ scores is comparable. (100 is finally an arbitrarily chosen number). And anyway I was debating here more about the 200+ average that you had posted.

3) 152 is quite bigger than 134, btw. That way there's no difference between somebody averaging 50+ and another averaging 45+.

1) So Dravid's score goes up if you remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe ? So let's get this straight. Dravid hasn't been able to perform against the minnows. Is this to Dravid's credit ?

2) 100 is, but 200 isn't ? lol

3) How does 152 help the team that much more than 134 when chasing 600 ? Considering that they have the same average, it means Kallis is more consistent.

 

[bunny]

1) So Dravid's score goes up if you remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe ? So let's get this straight. Dravid hasn't been able to perform against the minnows. Is this to Dravid's credit ?

2) 100 is, but 200 isn't ? lol

3) How does 152 help the team that much more than 134 when chasing 600 ? Considering that they have the same average, it means Kallis is more consistent.

1) I was clarifying how I got 159.

2) I have not said one bit about 200+ scores till now. I have got into this debate since you posted that 200+ thingy of Kallis which was not-out and minnow-inflated.

3) Dude, you need a course in statistics now. When somebody averages 152 that doesnt mean his every score is a 152. You get that? Otherwise a player who averages 45 is as good as a player who averages 50 because 5*2=10 runs difference wouldn't matter in almost 99.9% of the test matches.

 

[Sir Alex]

Wow it is surely closer than I initially thought. I am really unable to make my mind, perhaps Kallis gets my vote here. As a cricketer there is no doubt, Kallis ahead of Dravid in a heartbet.

 

[Ikki]

I am not trying to demean not outs, I am trying to explain how they end up skewing the statistics.

They don't skewer the stats, they are the stats. Average = runs/dismissal.

Btw, Dravid averages more if you ignore innings where he didnt open (which is quite important to this discussion).

Even higher if you remove the past few years.

 

[bunny]

They don't skewer the stats, they are the stats. Average = runs/dismissal.



Even higher if you remove the past few years.

You are arguing based on 100+ average, I am saying that 100+ average is not a good enough measure the way it's calculated. Rest is up to you.

 

[Ikki]

100+ average and overall average are calculated the same way. I see no reason given as to why not-outs shouldn't count here.

 

[GIMH]

Rob Key has a double hundred, who gives a ****?

Surely there are other things than that when we argue over two greats like these?

 

[Faisal1985]

Kallis takes it for me.

Kallis has a better capacity to attack the opposition when needed. To me Dravid lacks that slightly.

 

[bagapath]

Rob Key has a double hundred, who gives a ****?

Surely there are other things than that when we argue over two greats like these?

this rob key - jason gillespie example is not a new revelation for me. so dont bring it on as though it is a clincher. we are comparing two batsmen who are very similar in stature. between them one has the ability to score big hundreds and double hundreds. the other one doesnt. that is the difference between them.

if we are comparing joel garner and ambrose and I say ambrose manged more 6 fers than garner and hence he should be considered better, will you counter argue that allan border has manged a seven wicket haul but not garner so this doesnt hold true?