Not-Out Batting Averages: How Unfinished Innings Inflate Cricket Statistics
Cricket's batting average formula (total runs divided by number of times dismissed) creates a systematic anomaly for players who frequently finish innings 'not out' — remaining unbeaten at the end of an innings without being dismissed. A batsman who scores 50* (not out) in one innings contributes 50 runs to their total but does not register a dismissal, making their average look higher than their actual per-innings contribution. This not-out inflation is most pronounced for lower-order batsmen (who often remain unbeaten when the innings ends) and for finishers in limited-overs cricket (who end innings not out in successful chases). The question of whether batting average correctly represents 'true' batting ability is one of cricket statistics' oldest debates.
How batting average is calculated: batting average = total runs scored ÷ number of times dismissed (not total innings played). Example: a batsman plays 100 innings, scores 4,000 total runs, and is dismissed 80 times (remaining not out in 20 innings). Their average = 4,000 ÷ 80 = 50.00. The same batsman plays another 100 innings, also scores 4,000 runs in 100 innings, but is dismissed all 100 times. Their average = 4,000 ÷ 100 = 40.00. Both batsmen contribute the same total runs in the same number of innings — 40 runs per innings on average. But the standard batting average presents the first batsman's average as 50.00 (25% higher) because 20 innings ended without their dismissal. Why not-outs arise more often for certain players: (1) Lower-order batsmen (Nos. 8-11) often bat in the final wicket — when the innings ends, if they are at the crease, they are 'not out' regardless of whether they scored 0* or 50*. A fast bowler who bats at No. 11 and faces 10 balls while the final wicket falls may accumulate many not-out innings without contributing meaningfully to the total. (2) Limited-overs finishers: in ODI and T20 cricket, a batsman who finishes a successful chase is 'not out' — often in innings of significant value (the crucial late runs). MS Dhoni's ODI batting average of 50.57 from 350 innings (173 not outs — 49.4% of his innings) reflects this finisher effect — he scored 10,773 runs across 350 innings but was dismissed only 173 times.
Famous Cases of Not-Out Inflation'
Players whose averages are most affected by not-out inflation: (1) MS Dhoni (India, ODI): Dhoni's ODI average of 50.57 from 350 innings with 173 not outs (49.4% of innings) is cricket's most discussed not-out inflation case. His per-innings average (total runs ÷ innings played) is approximately 30.8 — dramatically different from the 50.57 standard average. This doesn't mean Dhoni was less valuable — as a finisher, not being dismissed was part of his function (finishing chases without getting out is desirable). The metric doesn't capture that value well. (2) Michael Bevan (Australia, ODI): Bevan's ODI average of 53.58 reflected his outstanding finishing role — similar to Dhoni. Bevan averaged 36-37 per innings played but 53.58 by the standard formula. He was universally considered exceptional and the not-out inflation in his case reflected genuine value (he consistently finished chases). (3) Don Bradman (Australia, Test): Bradman's 99.94 average includes 10 not outs from 80 innings. If his famous final-innings duck (which brought his average from 101.39 to 99.94) had been a not out (if he hadn't been dismissed), his average would be 101.39. The not-outs in Bradman's career are a minor factor — his dominance is so extreme that the not-out effect is relatively small compared to the overall scoring rate.
When Not-Outs Represent Genuine Value'
The statistical debate vs match reality: the not-out inflation problem in cricket statistics is real — but it's important to distinguish cases where not-outs represent inflated statistics from cases where they represent genuine match value. (1) The finisher's genuine value: MS Dhoni's 173 ODI not-outs represent games his team won successfully — a chase finished without his dismissal means he achieved the match goal (winning) while minimising unnecessary risk (getting out when the target was reachable). The not-out in a winning chase is not a statistical artefact — it is evidence of effective match management. (2) The lower-order inflation: a No. 11 batsman who has 15 not-out innings of 0* (they came to bat with 10 balls remaining and faced 2 balls before the innings ended) has career runs from these innings of 0 but 15 fewer dismissals. Their average appears higher — but those 15 innings contributed nothing. This is genuine inflation with no match value justification. (3) The 'protected batting' case: some batsmen in specific roles are specifically 'protected' from dismissal by the bowling team (a declaration, an early end to the innings) — their not-outs are a byproduct of match circumstances rather than their own skill. Distinguishing these cases from genuine finishing skill is difficult purely from the standard average. The solution for interpretation: experienced cricket statisticians always present not-out percentage alongside batting average — a player with 40% not-out innings and a high average is interpreted very differently from one with 5% not-out innings and the same average.
Frequently asked questions
What is not-out inflation in cricket batting averages?
Not-out inflation occurs when a batsman's standard batting average (runs ÷ dismissals) is higher than their per-innings contribution because they frequently end innings 'not out' (unbeaten when the innings ends, without being dismissed). The formula counts not-out innings in the runs total but not in the dismissal total — systematically raising the average above the actual per-innings scoring rate. MS Dhoni's ODI average of 50.57 with 49.4% of his innings as not-outs is the most cited example.
Is MS Dhoni's batting average artificially inflated?
Technically yes — Dhoni's standard ODI average of 50.57 overstates his per-innings scoring rate (approximately 30.8 runs/innings) because 49.4% of his innings ended not out. However, many of those not-out innings were genuinely valuable: finishing winning chases without dismissal is exactly what a finisher's role requires. The not-out inflation in Dhoni's case partly reflects genuine match contribution — consistently finishing chases — rather than purely statistical artefact. The debate is about whether the standard batting average correctly measures 'value' for a finisher whose job is to not get out.
How is batting average different from runs per innings?
Batting average = runs ÷ dismissals (not-out innings excluded from denominator). Runs per innings = runs ÷ total innings played (including not-out innings). Example: a player scores 3,000 runs from 100 innings with 30 not outs. Batting average = 3,000 ÷ 70 = 42.86. Runs per innings = 3,000 ÷ 100 = 30. The gap (42.86 vs 30) represents the not-out effect. Neither is 'better' as an absolute measure — they capture different things. Standard average is what cricket convention uses and what is historically comparable.
Does Don Bradman's 99.94 average include not-out inflation?
Bradman had 10 not-out innings from 80 innings (12.5% not-out rate) — his 6,996 runs from 70 dismissals gives 99.94. His runs-per-innings average is 6,996 ÷ 80 = 87.45. Even at 87.45 per innings, Bradman's average would be the highest in Test cricket by a massive margin (second on the all-time list is Graeme Pollock at 60.97 by standard average). The not-out effect on Bradman's average is approximately 12.5% inflation — still leaving him in an incomparable position.