Talk:Cricket statistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cricket Portal Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability Cricket statistics is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Categories and templates: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is fully and correctly categorised and carries all appropriate templates. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Runs / total innings

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)

---

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)

Fair enough; perhaps too colloquial for such a straight-forward page. Burle 17:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)