|WikiProject Baseball||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Cricket||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I will settle for good :) I actually wrote "good" to start with & then decided to go the superlative.
Just to be a geek, I downloaded the stats and found that 45 out of 151 qualifiers for the BA championship in the majors hit .300 (53/258 with 300 PA, 69/430 with 100 PA). So I agree, "good", at least among regulars. Of course, if you're a bench player hitting .300 you probably won't be a bench player much longer.
Then again, in the American league in 1968, a batting average of .300 was unquestionably excellent. But that was then, and this is definitely an era of offense. User:Dze27
Hmm.. I'm not big follower of cricket but there is a potential conflict here between cricket and baseball. Althouh I would guess that an obsession with batting averages is more usual for baseball fans than avid followers of cricet where other statistical evaluations are also made. Mintguy 17:39 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I now believe there are strong advantages to keeping the discussion of cricket and baseball batting averages on one page, as they are related historically and discussing each in the context of the other is valuable and provides insights that fans of either sport alone may never discover otherwise. -dmmaus 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This article should be split into separate Batting average (baseball) and Batting average (cricket) articles. While the concept of "batting average" in both cricket and baseball are certainly related, and do share many similarities, there is a distinct difference between the two. The history behind the statistic is obviously related (and the content will therefore be basically the same for either article), once you move beyond the history behind the term the concepts of how it's calculated and used diverge rather strongly. While the following is admittedly a straw man argument, it strikes me that the arguments to retain only a single batting average article could be applied equally to the main cricket/baseball articles as well, which I don't think would garner the same amount of support as having this article be a single article has here. There's no evidence visible to the "benefits of having a single page probably outweigh the drawbacks" argument, other than that stance being the personal preference of a couple of editors from several years ago. I don't really edit popflock.com resource any longer because I have no interest in getting involved in the pissing matches that these discussions inevitably become, but if there's someone out there that wants to pick up the ball here and run with it then I hope that I've provided an opportunity for them to do so. Regards,
-- V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a little (possibly silly) thought that I set down here for consideration... if we accept the Steven Jay Gould argument that the decline of the .400 hitter in baseball is because of the tendency for (simplistically speaking) top stats to get lower as well as bottom stats to get higher, why has the benchmark for the very top Test cricketers been an average in the high fifties for decades now? The extraordinary one-off of Bradman aside, no-one has ever averaged over 61 in Tests - Herbert Sutcliffe averaged 60.73 before the war, while Rahul Dravid is currently averaging 57.86 and seven other current players are over the 55 mark. Loganberry (Talk) 04:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the following contribution from the article to here. It may well be worth discussion in the article, but the contributed text as it stands could use some clean-up and NPOVing, preferably from someone with a better understanding of the baseball history involved than I have. -dmmaus 00:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Moved text follows:
You're kidding, right? When was hitting .400 common? There were only 13 cases of an average above .400 between 1900 and 1941. That's considered common? Take in the fact that those 13 times were accomplished by only 8 men. So only 8 talented men were capable of hitting .400 after 1899, and this is called a "not uncommon" occurance? I think this needs to be edited. Here's the list of men:
--188.8.131.52 04:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
What real use is the histogram as illustrated? It is just a list of numbers in picture form which says no more than reading the list of numbers does. It would be more useful if it had a column listing runs scored innings-by-innings linked to an indication of career batting average innings-by-innings and possibly current "form" as a moving average, last five innings for example. This would be useful too for baseball stats. Baseball statisticians are fond of winning/losing streaks. The drawback is that 3 at-bats per game over a 160-game season is too many columns for one chart, which rules out Albert Pujohls, but the principle is sound enough. It could be particularly useful for post-season analysis.
Guy 15:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Bradman's final average was 99.94. What is amazing about this is that in his final innings he needed just one run to take his average to 100, and was out for a duck (no runs). Incredible then that he didn't play again so that he could have made the career average of 100, clearly a different era meant a different attitude! --Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk)
The time has come for the tables of leading batting averages to be revised. Firstly by date. Both games are very different nowadays from what they were decades ago. Hence there should be tables for currently active players separate from those retired. Baseball should have a separate tables for regular season and post-season, possibly a further split between championship series and world series, and possibly split again for semi-finals since the start of wild cards. For cricket, one-day stats are equally as useful and relevant as full-term games nowadays, and there should be tables for first-class averages as well as test match. A lot of table-making for somebody. Guy 04:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems clear that the international game has changed in the era of the ODI (the last thirty-five years). A simple batting average is not adequate to compare test-match batsmen over a 120-year period. The ICC stats, published here  do not seem to be totally satisfactory either. One feature is the recent introduction of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh to the list of ten test-playing countries. Some averages have been inflated by batsmen filling their boots against weak opposition - Sri Lanka too was a softer opponent when they were first admitted. India and New Zealand also won very few test matches for many years, but that was at least forty years ago (until Geoffrey Boycott became the first losing England captain in New Zealand in 1978). At the risk of falling foul of the popflock.com resource strictures about original research, it should be possible for a proper statistician to analyse the numbers over the years to compare averages (for example, a correlation between average and tests/innings played for batsmen averaging over 50, or fitting the histograms to bell-shaped curves). The ODI histogram is significantly narrower in the base than the test histogram. I am inclined to think that the test averages of players active since the introduction of ODIs will converge in a similar manner to those of ODI batsmen. I think one factor is that the modern batsmen who have sustained a high average are all exceptional players who have responded to the higher pressure of the game compared to, for example, timeless tests against South Africa in the old days, but then W.R. Hammond will have felt the pressure walking out on the Melbourne Cricket Ground. There is plenty here for cricket-lovers to discuss - for my part all contributions made to the discussion in the spirit of the game are welcome, and will be taken seriously - call me an idiot if you like, as long as you supply supporting evidence.
Guy 05:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
As ardent a cricket fan as I am, I must say that I oppose the addition of these extensive tables of batting averages to this article. Firstly, I don't think popflock.com resource is an appropriate place for lists of frequently updated sports stats - other sites that we link to do a better job of that. Secondly, this makes the article look cricket-heavy, at the expense of baseball. I strongly believe that fans of both sports gain an advantage by discussion of batting average being combined on one page, rather than split into two, as the statistics are historically related, and discussing them in the context of one another provides valuable insights and comparisons. Overloading the page with current cricket stats interferes with that insightful comparison and may make people start to agitate to split this article up into a separate article for each sport, which would be a tragedy. Therefore, I suggest we remove the additional tables, perhaps placing them on a separate page such as List of cricket batting averages. I'm listing this here for discussion rather than just removing the tables, because I suspect some people might feel differently, and I want everyone to know why I think they should be removed from this article. -dmmaus 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Baseball is far more popular (especially regarding this term) AND baseball is first alphabetically. Really no excuse not to have baseball be the first thing you see. 220.127.116.11 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Two points: Cricket is more popular than baseball on a global scale (although in fact that point is completely irrelevant to the ordering in this article - I am merely correcting your factual error). The main point is that baseball batting average is directly descended from cricket batting average. Therefore, to give proper historical context, it is necessary to discuss cricket batting average first, so that people researching baseball batting averages can learn about the history of the statistic. This point has been discussed several times previously on this talk page, and consensus reached that the current ordering makes the most sense. -dmmaus 00:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to reword it, but in case I fail (or don't get back to it) this note should let someone else know the problem exists. The article claims that the increase in strikeouts and walks makes it more difficult to hit .400. But the walks should actually make it easier to hit .400, because they pad the Plate Appearance total (which needs to be at least 502 in a 162 game season) without adding extra at-bats (which are the denominator in the batting average calculation). As such, a higher walk rate increases the chances of hitting .400 by increasing the statistical noise within a small sample (the smaller number of at-bats). The rewrite will need to note that while the increase in strikeouts makes the .400 average less likely, the increase in walks makes it more likely. --Llewdor 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Llewdor is correct. Walks do "power" a hitter's BA. Two examples to prove my and Llew's statement. Rod Carew, finished the 1977 season with 616 AB's, 239 Hits and 69 BB's for a .388 BA. Ted Williams, ended the 1941 season with 456 AB's, 185 Hits and 145 BB's for a .406 BA. Williams .406 was "powered" by BB's, not Hits. This "section" of the article needs clarification.Dcrasno (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has added a request for a citation for the statement that baseball averages descend directly from cricket averages. I have the citation at home, and will add it as soon as I get home from work. -dmmaus 22:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The example given batting averages being inflated by not-outs about Phil Tufnell is a pretty weak example of the point that is trying to be made. The issue with his average is not that it was inflated by not-outs, but that he was only out once and trying to take a statistical average over one sample point is not going to produce a reliable result. i.e. the issue with Phil Tufnell is the same issue as somebody having played one innings and scoring 200 then having an average of 200. I'm not what value this paragraph adds to the article, but if it does stay then removing the example or fining a better one would be a good idea. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I basically agree. However, it is not so much that the example is weak, but rather that that this aternative measure is weak. Phil Tufnell has an arguably inflated average not due to an intrinsic problem with the method of calculation, but rather with the fact that he hadn't played enough innings for a reliable statistic. Batting average is the perfect statistic as long as a batsman has played a sufficient number of innings. Batting average comes down to "number of runs per number of outs", which is exactly what it should be. To illustrate the point, if one were to use runs per innings, even the great Sir Donald Bradman would have had a poor average if he were the number 11 batsman throughout his career. Put another way, if Phil Tufnell had played ten thousand innings at number 11, scored a ten thousand runs in total, and got out only once, his average would be very high yes, but deservedly so given that he scored ten thousand runs and only got out once (that would make him a genius of sorts). In short, runs per inning is a vastly inferior measure of a batsman's prowess to runs per number of outs. It isn't even a debatable point. Either the comment regarding runs per innings should be taken out completely, or it should be made clear that the notion of it being a more reliable statistic than runs per out is non sensical.
In fact, a lower order batsman is clearly disadvantaged by even the batting average statistic in that he more infrequently gets the opportunity to "bat himself in". A batsman is more likely to get out with a delivery during the early stages of his inning than later stages.
The Mendoza Line is named for Mario Mendoza. The version of the story that I understand is that one Sunday, George Brett walked into the Royals clubhouse and picked up the paper (newspapers on Sunday used to publish the batting statistics of every player in the league with a minimum number of plate appearances) and said, "So, let's see who's below the Mendoza Line this week," and the name stuck. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimpoz (talk o contribs) 17:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
In average&redirect=no&oldid=228139725 the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
""1920-1944 - A player had to appear in 100 games to qualify. The lone exception was 1938: By order of the AL president, Jimmie Foxx (.349, in 149 games and 565 at-bats) was awarded the batting title over rookie Taffy Wright (.350, in 100 games and only 263 at-bats).""
If you only had to play in 100 games then Jimmie Foxx who played in 149 games would have qualified. I have heard this story before but I don't know where the mistake is. --Npnunda (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
THE AMERICAN LEAGUE QUALIFICATION FOR WINNING THE BATTING TITLE IN 1938 WAS 400 AT-BATS. WRIGHT WAS DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE HE HAD ONLY 263 AT-BATS. THE RULE APPLIED ONLY TO THE AMERICAN LEAGUE WHICH ENACTED SUCH IN ITS MEETING ON DECEMBER 9, 1936. THE NATIONAL LEAGUE CONTINUED WITH THE 100 GAME QUALIFICATION UNTIL 1950 WHEN BOTH LEAGUES BECAME UNIFORMED WITH 400 AT-BATS.
This section seems very incongruous in an article devoted to batting averages rather than overall tallies. The edits seems to indicate that the table is relevant to assessing a batsman's relative status. So what? This is not the subject matter of the article. If that is the purpose of the table then (a) it should be deleted and moved to an article which is devoted to assessing Test crcket batsmen's status (if such a thing exists and can be written in a non-partisan manner). Or otherwise (b) delete it as the data is already recorded under the relevant section of the Tect cricket records article here. Or failing that (c) reformat the table for the present article and describe it as something like "Leading averages for batsmen who have scored 9,000+ Test runs" (in which case it will need to be re-ordered). But at the moment the table looks out of place. For the purposes of this article I propose either option (b) or instead option (c). I note that the baseball section of the article does not have an analagous table for all-time runs scored, as clearly that is not the subject matter of the article. Kind regards--Calabraxthis (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I must be missing something really obvious.
Starting a discussion here due to recent reverts to the article. There seems to be a disagreement on which should come first. I see a discussion further up on this page on this topic, which also references earlier discussions which I can't seem to locate.
While I usually like the concept of alphabetical formatting; in this case, I support leaving the article with Cricket first for two reasons. First, that's how the article has been structured for quite some time with no issues; unless there's good reason to change it, the sequence should be left with Cricket first. Second, and more importantly, I support leaving Cricket first because chronologically that is the most logical sequence; the use in baseball was based off of the concepts created for cricket - so cricket should come first to give the correct background. --- Barek (talk o contribs) - 22:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Until October 15, 2009, the article contains a section about the "decline of the .400 hitter". At that date, an anonymous editor deleted the entire section, and nobody ever brought it back. I miss that section: I think that the "0.400" batting average and its disappearance is a very common issue when discussing batting averages (which, after all, is the topic of this article), and not even mentioning once in this article is strange. Books have been written about it (e.g Gould's Full House), so the least we can do is write a paragraph about it! Nyh (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Having read the section on cricket averages it mentions that there are 4 other players (excluding the Don) with an average over 60, which is immediately contradicted by the list of leading averages, where only 3 other players have an average over 60. A previous discussion took place further up the page (several years ago) mentioning this, and I assume something was changed, but over time it appears to be have been changed back.
Why are hypothetical players only referred to in a male sense? I am not referring to the term 'batsmen'. There are lots of instances where this article uses 'he' and 'his' where 'they' and 'their' would suffice, and be more accurate, as lots of females also have betting averages.
I am only concerned with the cricket section of the article, and the baseball section seems to be fine in this regard.
From a different person: You're objecting to the use of masculine pronoun in a context where you could be referring to either sex? That's not the first time I've seen that come up. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's manual of style specifically states to avoid the generic 'he', where this can be done with clarity and precision. This should apply here. http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=popflock.com Resource: Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday, I put in a note about this in the "list of batting champions" talk page. For example, if you are requiring 2.6 at-bats per game in a 154-game schedule, the exact solution is 400.4 , thus the lowest integer meeting or exceeding that is 401, not 400.
That's List of Major League Baseball batting champions which I am referring to.
As at 24 February 2016, Adam Voges appears to qualify for inclusion in the cricket portion of the article with a batting average of 95.50. However, given that Voges has only completed 14 innings (albeit played 21 innings), and instinct and conservatism tell me that perhaps it is statistically premature to draw any conclusions, I have only added in a very brief line of text.
I have also not updated the table which appears to be constructed on the basis of a minimum of 20 completed innings, rather than innings played (and which I note is different to the approach taken by Cricinfo). Kind regardsCalabraxthis (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Cobb's career BA was originally reported here as .366, just 8 points ahead of 2nd place Hornsby's. It (Cobb's career BA) was adjusted to .367 by Ryk72 (talk | contribs) at 16:00, 2 December 2015 to reflect the variance reported by leading statistics-mongers. See the Ty Cobb page for a full explanation of this variance, due partly to a suspected error of double-reporting a game. I completed this adjustment by fixing the delta over Hornsby: Cobb's .367 leads Hornsby's .358 by 9 points. Bookerj (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion on splitting this article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Batting_average Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I see the idea of splitting the article has arisen again. As in the past, I prefer to see this article kept together, for 2 reasons:
I believe this articles should be split, as they are two different sports using the same term, and so the article is really just two articles in one. No need for this combined articles, as it's likely readers will be looking for either cricket or baseball information, but probably not both. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)