Jump to content

Talk:Cricket statistics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I added a clarification to the Not Out description so that it won't be confused that all batsmen who do not actually bat during a game (ie, aren't required because their team won) aren't given an NO.

What does "retired not out" mean. And why do refer to it in such an opaque way in this article? (i.e. only through an external link with a reference to "exceptional circumstances". Pcb21| Pete 17:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Cricinfo say "retired hurt" at 301/1, Greenidge's daughter fell ill, and he left the match after the 3rd on 154 not out - presumably playing no further part in the game. --Paul 05:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not out means all batsmen who have gone out to the pitch to bat - they might not have faced a ball though - and are 'not out' at the end of the innings. Batsmen who retire have effectively 'become not out' halfway through the innings through their own choice - usually they can go back in later in the innings if they choose, although this is very rare at professional standards of cricket. more usual is for a batsman to 'retire hurt', after being hit with the ball for example, which means they play no further part in the innings (because they can't due to injury) and are therefore not out. Saccerzd 09:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you retire unhurt, you cannot resume, you are out.

Runs / total innings

[edit]

There used to be a short paragraph on the suggestion that the batting average should be replaced by runs / total innings (ignoring not outs), because not outs inflate a batsman's average. It is certainly the case that people sometimes argue for this, but the premise is wrong. Charles Davis showed in his book The Best of the Best that not outs actually decrease a batsman's average (most of the time), since when they're not out, they tend to be batting well, and would have scored more runs than their average if they'd been able to complete their innings. As an example, Michael Bevan's ODI average is better at 4 (59.6) than at 6 (56.7), despite a greater proportion of not outs at 6. Pappubahry 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added back the trivia about the connection between "Economy Rate" and "Clooney". Don't know why this was removed; it was not included in a separate trivia section (but rather integrated) due to Wikipedia standards. It's an interesting comment about a particular statistic, so I've added it back.

I was the one who deleted it. I didn't think it was relevant to a description about economy rate. I've never come across the term before (granted, I live in Australia) in speech, in print or online. Unless someone can show me examples of its use, I'll delete it again. Pappubahry 22:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; perhaps too colloquial for such a straight-forward page. Burle 17:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

[edit]

This is a top importance article, one of 22, within WP:CRIC because it is the key article in one of the main cricket categories (see structure of Category:Cricket. Jack | talk page 14:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cricket statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket_statistics&oldid=1198464911"