The Cricket Thread

[southlondonyiddo]

Malan and Morgan went unsold in the IPL auction. Ooooh.

Not as shocking as one might think straight away although in Morgan’s case ‘everyone’ (over here!) says he’s the greatest captain to ever walk the face of the earth so you’d think someone might have picked him up for his experience & nouse ?‍

 

[al_pacino]

What kind of money were they looking for?

Those auctions have always been a bit funny, good players not getting picked up then some random getting half a million quid.

 

[Spurslove]

Malan and Morgan went unsold in the IPL auction. Ooooh.

Well I can understand Malan, but Morgan...? Nah.

.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Morgan averaged 11 in last years IPL with a strike rate of 96 and that was from 16 innings. Which is tail end sort of stuff. He’s been in terrible form for ages and is clearly declining in fitness, maybe they didn’t fancy a punt on him.

 

[Spurslove]

Something has been bothering me for a long time and as much as I try to ignore it, it just keeps nagging at me because there's no way it can be described as being right.

Here's a perfect example of what has been driving me bonkers. I was watching the T20i match between Australia and Sri Lanka (not much else on) and the Aussies were due to bat. Before Ben McAndrew started his innings, his stats came up...

He's played in 20 T20i games and he's scored 235 runs, which is all fine and good. But he's been given an average of 16.79

In nobodys language or understanding is that his average. If he's had 20 games and scored 235 runs, his average is 11.75.

So I have to ask, WTF is going on here?

If I stopped anyone in the street, passed them a calculator and asked them to tell me what 235 divided by 20 was, I just wonder how often I'd get the answer 16.79. I reckon out of maybe 100 people, I'd say NONE.

So why are we being told that's his average score when it's clearly wrong?

.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Something has been bothering me for a long time and as much as I try to ignore it, it just keeps nagging at me because there's no way it can be described as being right.

Here's a perfect example of what has been driving me bonkers. I was watching the T20i match between Australia and Sri Lanka (not much else on) and the Aussies were due to bat. Before Ben McAndrew started his innings, his stats came up...

He's played in 20 T20i games and he's scored 235 runs, which is all fine and good. But he's been given an average of 16.79

In nobodys language or understanding is that his average. If he's had 20 games and scored 235 runs, his average is 11.75.

So I have to ask, WTF is going on here?

If I stopped anyone in the street, passed them a calculator and asked them to tell me what 235 divided by 20 was, I just wonder how often I'd get the answer 16.79. I reckon out of maybe 100 people, I'd say NONE.

So why are we being told that's his average score when it's clearly wrong?

.

When you’re not out, it doesn’t count as a completed innings.

So if out of those 20 matches he’s played, he’s been “out” 14 times. Then his total is divided by 14. That gives his average.

 

[Spurslove]

Thanks, yes, your explanation does make sense as far as it goes, but it can't and shouldn't be given as an average by the same way of calculating averages as people can generally make out.

From those stats, how are we supposed to know how many times he's been in and out? All I want to know as a cricket fan, is how many runs he's 'likely' to score, based on how many times he's previously scored them.

A real average in the true sense of the word would give no consideration to how many times he's been out, just the number of innings divided by the number of runs. How much simpler could it be?

Sorry if I'm not making any sense, but I think my imaginary scenario where I stop loads of people in the street and ask them to calculate 235 by 20 says explains just about everything for me.

.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Thanks, yes, your explanation does make sense as far as it goes, but it can't and shouldn't be given as an average by the same way of calculating averages as people can generally make out.

From those stats, how are we supposed to know how many times he's been in and out? All I want to know as a cricket fan, is how many runs he's 'likely' to score, based on how many times he's previously scored them.

A real average in the true sense of the word would give no consideration to how many times he's been out, just the number of innings divided by the number of runs. How much simpler could it be?

Sorry if I'm not making any sense, but I think my imaginary scenario where I stop loads of people in the street and ask them to calculate 235 by 20 says explains just about everything for me.

.

Can I revert you back to August 2nd 2021 in this very thread where you and I had this exact conversation. Nothing has changed in the world of cricket since.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Average is only measured on completed innings, so basically the calculation at the point he came out to bat would be 100/3 as he’d been out 3 times. If he was out for 0 yesterday the calculation would be 100/4 which would give him the average of 25. If however he ended yesterday on 50 not out, this would not count as a completed innings so his calculation would be 150/3 and give him an average of 50.

@Spurslove from 5 months ago, you asked the same thing.

 

[Spurslove]

Can I revert you back to August 2nd 2021 in this very thread where you and I had this exact conversation. Nothing has changed in the world of cricket since.

AHA...! I knew I'd questioned it before somewhere but couldn't remember exactly where. Maybe it's an age thing.

.

 

[Spurslove]

Actually, I've checked back to August 2nd when we last exchanged posts on this, and although your explanation does still make sense (both then and now) I'm afraid it still doesn't quite compute with me. Well, not completely.

The obvious question I have to ask you and the cricketing media technical people (bear with me on this) is why does the stated average on the stats graphic differentiate between completed and no-completed innings's?

I only ask because by making that differentiation, you're skewing the actual figure. If we were being told how many innings the batsman has completed and not completed, as another figure shown in those stats, then the 'average' would make far more sense to an awful lot of people.

Another question I have to ask you, is when you see the average on the graphic, how do you calculate it in your own head and what does it mean to you?

(I promise I'm going to shut the fuck up pretty soon after this...)

.

 

[al_pacino]

It depends what question you are answering. Average runs per innings played or average runs per times out.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Actually, I've checked back to August 2nd when we last exchanged posts on this, and although your explanation does still make sense (both then and now) I'm afraid it still doesn't quite compute with me. Well, not completely.

The obvious question I have to ask you and the cricketing media technical people (bear with me on this) is why does the stated average on the stats graphic differentiate between completed and no-completed innings's?

I only ask because by making that differentiation, you're skewing the actual figure. If we were being told how many innings the batsman has completed and not completed, as another figure shown in those stats, then the 'average' would make far more sense to an awful lot of people.

Another question I have to ask you, is when you see the average on the graphic, how do you calculate it in your own head and what does it mean to you?

(I promise I'm going to shut the fuck up pretty soon after this...)

.

A batter’s average has been done the same way for 300 years. I’ll be honest, I just know how it works, and get on with it.

I don’t really know what else to say. Apart from, don’t worry about average in T20 cricket, strike rate is a metric that pro’s use as a marker. Above 130 is what they are aiming for. (Jos Buttler quote)

 

[Spurslove]

It depends what question you are answering. Average runs per innings played or average runs per times out.

Innings played. When the stats come up there's no mention of 'average runs per times out', just 'number of innings'.

.

 

[Spurslove]

A batter’s average has been done the same way for 300 years. I’ll be honest, I just know how it works, and get on with it.

I don’t really know what else to say. Apart from, don’t worry about average in T20 cricket, strike rate is a metric that pro’s use as a marker. Above 130 is what they are aiming for. (Jos Buttler quote)

Cheers. So can we at least agree that the figure being given as an average is not actually an average that anyone can work out in their head?

That way I can go to sleep tonight happy that someone actually agrees with me. That's it, I'm done. (Probably)

?‍

.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

Fucks sakes.

 

[Spurslove]

Fucks sakes.

I know, it's a pisser isn't it.

.

 

[southlondonyiddo]

Cheers. So can we at least agree that the figure being given as an average is not actually an average that anyone can work out in their head?

That way I can go to sleep tonight happy that someone actually agrees with me. That's it, I'm done. (Probably)

?‍

.

lol it really isn’t rocket science. When you work out somebody’s average it tells you how many times they’ve batted in total but also how many times they’ve not been out within that total

It makes sense not to include the times the player hasn’t been out because he could well have gone on to make lots and lots more runs had it not been for the fact that he ran out of partners/overs or they won the game etc

If your 70 not out smashing it all round the ground, seeing it like a football it’s a bit unfair/misleading to count that as an innings because the player would most probably have gone on to make heaps more, given the chance…..

 

[PCozzie]

Actually, I've checked back to August 2nd when we last exchanged posts on this, and although your explanation does still make sense (both then and now) I'm afraid it still doesn't quite compute with me. Well, not completely.

The obvious question I have to ask you and the cricketing media technical people (bear with me on this) is why does the stated average on the stats graphic differentiate between completed and no-completed innings's?

I only ask because by making that differentiation, you're skewing the actual figure. If we were being told how many innings the batsman has completed and not completed, as another figure shown in those stats, then the 'average' would make far more sense to an awful lot of people.

Another question I have to ask you, is when you see the average on the graphic, how do you calculate it in your own head and what does it mean to you?

(I promise I'm going to shut the fuck up pretty soon after this...)

.

Damn, missed this yesterday.

Your batting average is not your average amount of runs per innings, but your average amount of runs per wicket.

Crudely speaking, if you have a batting average of 50 and you end one match 25 not out, you could expect to score another 25 in your next match/innings before getting out. Though to be fair, there are so many variables in cricket - location, weather, opposition, state of game, that a batting average is something to look at over the long term rather than series to series (as much as I love a graph!).

 

[PCozzie]

Anyway, came in to post this, which I think is quite good, before I got distracted.

End of Broad and Anderson made sadder by them being last of their kind | Jonathan Liew

In an era of white-ball proliferation, England may well never produce another pair of specialist red-ball bowlers to match the record-breaking partners

www.theguardian.com