Using dismissals at the deominator in calculating averages

[Hamez]

For example with your logic Peter Handscomb would average 16.52 instead of 29.23 from a total of 380 runs in t20 cricket. (23 innings, 10 n.o)

 

[2006_Eagles]

For example with your logic Peter Handscomb would average 16.52 instead of 29.23 from a total of 380 runs in t20 cricket. (23 innings, 10 n.o)

Is he really worthy of a 30 run average?

I highly doubt it

 

[2006_Eagles]

I guarantee that if averages were calculated as "at bats" instead of "when outs" it would be 100% better way of analysing players

 

[2006_Eagles]

If we were to assess my performance irrespective of everyone else, it is more useful to say I managed to score 70 runs before someone could get me out, than it is to say I averaged 35 an innings. Because the latter does not take into account the fact that I was let down by my partners, not my own ability.

You should not be rewarded for your terrible bastmen teamates failures and that is what happens

 

[Demosthenes]

You should not be rewarded for your terrible bastmen teamates failures and that is what happens

No it isn't. By your teammates failing, you've been deprived of the opportunity to go on and make more runs.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

What about test matches then? Following your logic, shouldn't it be divided by match rather than innings? After all, the fact a team wins by an innings, or leaves a batsman stranded (not out) are both largely out of the control of the batsman, so why not use runs per match?

Using your theory of runs per innings...some of the best batsmen drop substantially. Are you suggesting they are over-rated?

S.Waugh - pretty handy batsman at 51 average? Nah, he drops 18% to 42 falling behind Bill Lawry, Justin Langer and Inzy!
A.Border - 51 to 42 (17%)
S.Chanderpaul - 49 to 41 (16%)

Certainly, it helps players who do not finish the job, Lara (53 to 51), and Sehwag (54 to 52) are barely affected at all as they almost always got out before the end.

Poor old Pigeon. He's hard-fought average of 7.3 drops to 4.6 - a 37% drop!

 

[2006_Eagles]

No it isn't. By your teammates failing, you've been deprived of the opportunity to go on and make more runs.

Doesn't mean you didn't go out and bat that day

But under current conditions for average you are said to not have batted and your runs are just spread around like a jelly wrestler spreads jelly all over their naked body before a fight

 

[2006_Eagles]

What about test matches then? Following your logic, shouldn't it be divided by match rather than innings? After all, the fact a team wins by an innings, or leaves a batsman stranded (not out) are both largely out of the control of the batsman, so why not use runs per match?

Using your theory of runs per innings...some of the best batsmen drop substantially. Are you suggesting they are over-rated?

S.Waugh - pretty handy batsman at 51 average? Nah, he drops 18% to 42 falling behind Bill Lawry, Justin Langer and Inzy!
A.Border - 51 to 42 (17%)
S.Chanderpaul - 49 to 41 (16%)

Certainly, it helps players who do not finish the job, Lara (53 to 51), and Sehwag (54 to 52) are barely affected at all as they almost always got out before the end.

Poor old Pigeon. He's hard-fought average of 7.3 drops to 4.6 - a 37% drop!

That's some efficient calculating if you actually went and did the Maths

But I still can't fault the logic in making average per innings

It would stop inflation of averages. Steve Waugh did not get a 50 every time he batted that is ludicrous.

 

[Whiskers]

There is a flaw that if you never get out you don't have an average, and that does not sit well with me.

You've made the worst thread I've ever seen, and that's saying something.
You simply don't get maths at all. If a player never goes out then they are a genius batsmen. Although you need a fair sample size.
You bat 70 times and you get 30no each time, you're better than Bradman.
Or if you got dismissed once in those 70 innings, you're average is 2,700 and rightfully so.

 

[Scotland]

Mitch Marsh.

In the last two tests he's made 1* and 18*.

Using runs per innings he's averaging 9 for the series. Does his career average deserve to have 19 runs added to it before being divided by two more innings?

 

[corbies]

Damon_3388 you finally have someone who agrees with your runs per innings stats.

 

[G Mus]

Your average is how much your wicket is worth.... You don't lose your wicket if you don't get out

 

[Scotland]

The funny thing is averages aren't intended to be a reflection purely of how many runs you score.

Tailenders for example might average 10 per innings then end up with an average of 15 or 20. If you've got tailender who can hang around for a few overs each match and keep lower order batsman company then that's great, just like it's great to have a tailender who can come in and swing the bat and maybe hit 3 or 4 boundaries before getting out.

 

[Marklar_33]

Well, there it is. The dumbest thing I'll see today

 

[Marklar_33]

Is he really worthy of a 30 run average?

I highly doubt it

He does, because he scores 30 runs for every time he is dismissed

 

[Bradesmaen]

Doesn't mean you didn't go out and bat that day

But under current conditions for average you are said to not have batted and your runs are just spread around like a jelly wrestler spreads jelly all over their naked body before a fight

But the runs in that bat are counted... so it does mean he went out to bat. You are looking at this from a purely statistical point of view, not taking into account all variables which is what an average in cricket does. Your view is so narrow.

 

[Mitchell54]

There is a flaw that if you never get out you don't have an average, and that does not sit well with me.

Everyone gets out. your not gonna make it through a series without having got out(unless your a bowler and never go out to bat in the first stage).

 

[JackOutback]

Well, there it is. The dumbest thing I'll see today

I feel like I've been saying that a lot recently.

 

[The_Reaper]

For T20 it should be strike rate (as a decimal) multipled by average.

So a 30 run average but a strike rate of 100 gives 30 and a 20 run average but a strike rate of 150 gives 30

 

[The Sultan]

i agree should be runs divided by innings, in theory that should even the averages out as they skew the advantage to middle order batmen, and bar the forth innings how many openers carry there bat through and innings?

 

[Marklar_33]

i agree should be runs divided by innings, in theory that should even the averages out as they skew the advantage to middle order batmen, and bar the forth innings how many openers carry there bat through and innings?

Openers more often get to complete their entire innings...ie get out!

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

It's in a batsman's control to go out and bat. And the average should say 'Ok, you went out to bat 80 innings in your career, therefore you should have your runs divided by 80.
Not some some factors out of your control making it so you didn't get out.

That goes against the very fabric of Maths which is defined by it's quantifiability and traceability.

Not getting out is far more under a batsman's control than not getting in.

If you want to look at what an individual can control : Scoring runs is in your control. Getting out is in your control, if you get to bat (that part is not in your control).
So, runs scored divided by dismissals makes much more sense by that measure.

Should the same be done with bowlers? Just divide the runs conceded by the innings they bowled a ball in. (Yes, I'm being absurd, but its the same principle.)

The thing for me is that you don't know how many more runs a batsman would have scored before he got out, which makes it unfair to make innings played as a basis for batting averages. (Of course, I say this as a number eleven's number eleven, whose average only stayed above 1 because of all those 4* that would have been hundreds is I had batted at six.)
That could be a useful analysis for other purposes, but not for batting averages.

 

[eddiesmith]

On the plus side it would fix some of the joke averages lower order players have

For example a certain overrated lower order hack averages 42 in ODIs due to a number of not outs which is not reflective of his true value. Go by innings and it drops to 24, much fairer assessment of his ability.

 

[Millky95]

Should it replace an average? Probably not. Could it be used as another statistic like strike rate? Yes. But more so in ODIs and T20 than tests.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

I take it the '2006' in your username is your year of birth?