## Not outs

### Not outs

Quote:
>   Average  per not out  innings  may not be the  best  indicator of a
>   batsman's abilities/performances,  but IMO   it's the best   method
>   AVAILABLE.  The problem with taking averages  based on Test matches
>   played is that it won't take  account of the  times a batsman never
>   got a  chance to bat  in a  Test  match, or only  got  to bat once.
>   Imagine two batsmen, both having played 10  matches, but one scored
>   700 runs  in 20 innings, where  as the  other  got to  play only 12
>   innings in 10 matches, but scored 600 runs...

Well, let's think about it.  Assuming no rain interruptions (oh no- I'm
starting to sound like an economist :-), Batsmen A has a runs/test "score"
of of 70.  Batsmen B has 60.  Little difference here.

Now, to bat 20 times in 10 tests, it is likely that your team is losing
a lot of the time.  It is also likely that A was a higher order batsman
(i.e. top three), and runs scored at the top of the order are *generally*
more valuable than those scored down the order.  I usually bat about 5 or 6,
so don't flame me over this statement!!  So it may well be than A has
performed very well in a losing side.

B on the other hand is obviously playing in a very strong team, where
lots of people are scoring runs.

I think an argument could be mounted to state that A is making a
more valuable contribution (which I think is the BEST indicator- though
hard to measure of course).

Your example is an extreme one, and also leaves aside the "not-outs" factor.
I'll try to dig up some statistics on real players to see how my
argument holds up.

Any other thoughts?

To be continued.

Cheers

Christian Kelly

### Not outs

: I think an argument could be mounted to state that A is making a
: more valuable contribution (which I think is the BEST indicator- though
: hard to measure of course).

Guess who tries to measure it? C & L!

So who is the most VALUABLE batsman for Australia?

:-)

Cheers, Josh

--
*************************************************************************

*Volvo - it's Swedish for "asleep at the wheel"                               *
*IRCnick: rogan                                                         *
*************************************************************************

### Not outs

]>
]> >   Average  per not out  innings  may not be the  best  indicator of a
]> >   batsman's abilities/performances,  but IMO   it's the best   method
]> >   AVAILABLE.  The problem with taking averages  based on Test matches
]> >   played is that it won't take  account of the  times a batsman never
]> >   got a  chance to bat  in a  Test  match, or only  got  to bat once.
]> >   Imagine two batsmen, both having played 10  matches, but one scored
]> >   700 runs  in 20 innings, where  as the  other  got to  play only 12
]> >   innings in 10 matches, but scored 600 runs...

Before I  go  any further,  let  me make  something clear...I'm not
insisting  that rpi is the  best  method. Only that, runs-per-test,
IMO, is not likely to be a better indicator than runs-per-innings.

]> Well, let's think about it.  Assuming no rain interruptions (oh no-
]> I'm starting   to sound like   an economist  :-),  Batsmen  A has a
]> runs/test "score" of  of 70.  Batsmen  B has 60.  Little difference
]> here.

OK, when  I am  assuming  no not outs  here.   So  Batsman A has  a
runs/test of 70 and rpi  of 35.  OTOH, batsman B  has rpt of 60 and
rpi of 50.

]> Now, to  bat 20 times  in 10 tests, it is  likely that your team is
]> losing a lot  of the time.

Sounds plausible enough.

]> It is  also likely  that A  was  a higher  order batsman  (i.e. top
]> three),

Likely enough.

]> and  runs  scored at  the  top of the   order  are *generally* more
]> valuable than those scored down  the order.  I  usually bat about 5
]> or  6, so don't flame  me over this statement!!  So  it may well be
]> than A has performed very well in a losing side.

Aha...how would we know that B is not  a upper-order batman :-) All
we know  that he batted 20  times  in 10 matches.  Suppose  a lower
order batman gets to bat 20 times in 10 matches, this means that by
default all the upper-order  batsmen  (in the situation   described
above) have batted as well.  So we really can't deduce as to what's
B's  number in the batting order.   If any thing, having scored 600
runs in 12 innings indicates that B *is* an upper-order batsman.

]> B on the  other hand is obviously playing   in a very strong  team,
]> where lots of people are scoring runs.

I take you mean strong "batting" team.  This is IMO by no means
conclusive. (cf. Inzimam-ul-Haq, Martin Crowe)

]> I  think an argument  could be mounted to state  that A is making a
]> more  valuable contribution (which  I think  is the BEST indicator-
]> though hard to measure of course).

Like I said  in my previous post neither  method is perfect, but at
least rpi takes into account how many times a batsman actually went
out to bat, which is not the case in runs per test.

]> Your    example  is an   extreme  one,  and also  leaves  aside the
]> "not-outs" factor.   I'll try  to  dig up some statistics   on real
]> players to see how my argument holds up.

The "not-out" factor is the real  ***, actually :-) I guess, the
idea behind  using only  the  completed innings  in computing one's
batting average was that  the batsman could  have scored more runs,
but had to  stop for whatever  reason.  I  am  of the opinion  that
these things even out in the long run...especially when it comes to
comparing  two  players (since it   both cases  the  same rule will
apply).

As an afterthought  actually it really  doesn't  matter whether the
"not-out" innings are  counted or not,   since the same measure  is
being applied to all players --- of course the method is imperfect,
I never denied that, did I :-)

]> Any other thoughts?

Perhaps we  can use "runs  per test"  (with the  qualification that
only the Tests in which a batsman got to bat are  counted -- on the
same lines as "runs per completed innings").  But if you really ask
me, it's not likely to have much difference.  I did a little research

All-time Australian Test Batting and Fielding Statistics
(till Apr 94, end of Aus in RSA 1993-4)

Test  I   NO   HS   Runs  Avge    RPT

Boon, D.C.         89 160   18  200   6562  46.21   73.73
Border, A.R.      156 265+  44  205  11179  50.58   71.66
Bradman, D.G.      52  80   10  334   6996  99.94  134.54
Chappell, G.S.     97 151   19  247*  7110  53.86   73.30
Chappell, I.M.     75 136   10  196   5345  42.42   71.26
Cowper, R.M.       27  46+   2  307   2061  46.84   76.33
Fingleton, J.H.W.  18   29   1  136   1189  42.46   66.05
Harvey, R.N.       79  137  10  215   6149  48.41   77.83
Hasset, A.L.       43   69   3  198*  3073  46.56   71.46
Jackson,A.A.        8   11   1  164    474  47.40   59.25
Jones, D.M.        52   89  11  216   3631  46.55   69.82
Lawry, W M.        67  123  12  210   5234  47.15   78.12
Macartney, C.G.    35   55   4  170   2131  41.78   60.89
McCosker, R.B.     25   46   5  127   1622  39.56   64.88
McDonald, C.C.     47   83   4  170   3107  39.32   66.11
Matthews, G.R.J.   33   53   9  130   1849  41.09   56.03
Miller, K.R.       55   87   7  147   2958  36.97   53.78
Morris, A.R.       46   79   3  206   3533  46.48   76.80
Ponsford, W.H.     29   48   4  266   2122  48.22   73.17
Redpath, I.R.      66  120  11  171   4737  43.45   71.77
Ritchie, G.M.      30   53   5  146   1691  35.22   56.36
Simpson, R.B.      62  111   7  311   4869  46.81   78.53
Slater, M.J.       15   25   1  168   1157  48.21   77.13
Taylor, M.A.       54   97   6  219   4295  47.20   79.54
Walters, K.D.      74  125  14  250   5357  48.26   72.39
Waugh, M.E.        36   57   4  139*  2177  41.08   60.47
Waugh, S.R.        65   98  18  177*  3495  43.69   53.77
Wessels, K.C.      24   42   1  179   1761  42.95   73.38

Source: CricInfo <gopher://cricinfo.cse.ogi.edu:7070/>

Some facts...when looking  at the column  under Avregae  (i.e. rpi) we
see Bradman is no. 1 followed by Greg Chappell and Alan Border.

Whereas when  the batsmen are ranked  according to  Runs per Test, the
list looks like this: Bradman, Mark Taylor, Bobby Simpson, Lawry, ...

I make no judgements here.  What do you think?  Does, IYO, your theory
is justified in  the  light of the  above data?   It's  an interesting
debate, let it continue :-)

]> To be continued.

Sure...it's rare on rsc to have a purely cricket related discussion
WITHOUT any flames :-)

]> Cheers
]>
]> Christian Kelly

Syed
--
? ?Syed M. Ali?

### Not outs

[snip]

: Some facts...when looking  at the column  under Avregae  (i.e. rpi) we
: see Bradman is no. 1 followed by Greg Chappell and Alan Border.

: Whereas when  the batsmen are ranked  according to  Runs per Test, the
: list looks like this: Bradman, Mark Taylor, Bobby Simpson, Lawry, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That does it! Case closed. Any statistic which even suggests that Taylor,
Simpson and Lawry are better than Greg Chappell is a dud. And why are
they rated better by Runs/Test? For the simple reason that they are
openers and are therefore going to bat more often than a number 4 or 5
like Chappell. Runs per Test is obviously unfair.

Thanks for the great stats Syed....

:Travis