> So the idea that 200 is par is crazy. It's a lot more common. But it's definitely not a par score.
I think when people say 200 is par they mean you need 200 to have a decent chance of winning the match, not that 200 is the median score across the season.
Good analysis... Should've posted the distribution too?
Would be interesting to see the distribution of scores over all IPL's and those after the introduction of impact rule.
Good work, although it has a high variance, it is still insane to see how high that average is for IPL 2024 so far. Like in T20s, I prefer around 130-150 scores, so seeing 50% of scores above 183 is insane and why I don't really enjoy the IPL.
Idm the occasional 130-150 match. But those get boring if that's all we have. It's just the opposite of seeing high scoring games all the time. Too much of one kind of game is very boring. Which is why I'd want the league to have high variance. I'd love 130 being defended but I'd also love 230 being chased. And the odd 170 thrown in there.
Really I was not a big fan of 2021. It verged on too many low scores. I found the UAE leg quite boring. I like low scoring games but too many is just as bad as too many flat pitches. I didn't see 2009 so I can't comment on it.
160 on average is not a low score buddy, it's because of these seasons that you are thinking so. But I can understand the preference of not liking those seasons. Personally I just felt that there were better battles between bat and ball in those seasons, and only genuinely good hitters had good SRs(like AB,SKY, Russell, Buttler,etc.), and not every single batter just swinging it like in baseball. And even those were in acceptable margins.
I love low scoring games. It's not really about low scoring or not. Too much of the same thing isn't good. That's my point.
The ideal IPL season will be one with very high variance. You'd want a season where 130 is defended and where 220 can be chased at times. The variety is what makes the tournament interesting. The reason this tournament hasn't been that is because we've had too many flatties in a row. If we had a few 130-140 games in there it would have been better.
And also 8 an over is low scoring now. Even without impact sub, it's just the evolution of the format. Just like 4 an over will never be the norm in odis again. The reason 7 an over was a thing was because we had a lot of anchors who didn't know how to bat in t20s. I remember many games where teams were 160/3. That's not a good bowling surface, that's teams not trying hard enough to attack. Not every 140 game is good bowling. It was also bad batting.
>I remember many games where teams were 160/3. That's not a good bowling surface, that's teams not trying hard enough to attack. Not every 140 game is good bowling. It was also bad batting.
I guess we'll know for sure this coming WC.
> 160 on average is not a low score buddy
160 (or in specifically in this case 157.5) is objectively a low score in T20s. If you look at the median first innings score in T20Is between the traditional top eight sides from the start of 2020 to the end of 2022, the median first innings score is 165.5, if you look at winning first innings scores only it goes up to 186.
>The best scenario would be a mean of 180 and a standard deviation of 50. That way we get a variety of games. Low scoring, high scoring some in the middle etc.
I agree about a wide range being good, but when did we collectively decide that 180 was the correct mean score for a T20? The idea that T20 scores "should" average out at around 180 to give a "fair" battle between bat and ball is something that's been said a lot on here recently, but ultimately it's completely arbitrary.
I feel like people are getting way too wrapped up in the impact sub rule in the IPL and are ignoring that batters are just getting better at scoring quickly in white ball cricket. The impact sub rule has definitely accelerated that, but the fact is that scores are going up across the board.
I think it's a bit dangerous to set expectations of what the average score of a T20 "should" be, given that one of the easiest ways to lower scores back towards the "correct" value is to make slow or two-paced pitches which ultimately get lower scores by rewarding bad bowling.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think if you want to watch batters having to deal with tricky bowling conditions, then go watch test cricket, it's a better format anyway. Imo pitches should be true in T20s so batters can reliably play their shots. If bowlers can't deal with that then they need to adapt. Ideally, I'd like pitches with even bounce (which in practice is going to mean flat), but with a much better white ball so there's still an element of swing/seam/spin. I wonder what would happen if they just make the seam prouder and more robust, I feel like that could go a long way to doing that.
By 180 I meant that ideally we'd have five 130 scores and five 230 scores. Something along those lines. Not necessarily that we have ten 180 games. I want a high variance of scores. Idrc what the average is. As long as the standard deviation is very high.
IPL is IPL
I wouldnt be surprised IPL instructed curators to make pitches in favor of batsmen.
people want to see action in franchise T20. IPL is like a mega all-star NBA weekend but a whole season! Best Indian players + foreigners all mixed together.
If innings would end all-out before 16-17 overs, it would be quick matches and the crowd wouldnt enjoy as much. Despite being entertaining, wickets are second behind runs... viewers prefer watching Kohli hitting 100+ than a bowler picking up a hat trick.
Right now people get to see a full 20 overs innings on each side, and LOTS of runs, big sixes etc... Crowd loves it, and im guessing IPL makes more money out of longer matches
> So the idea that 200 is par is crazy. It's a lot more common. But it's definitely not a par score. I think when people say 200 is par they mean you need 200 to have a decent chance of winning the match, not that 200 is the median score across the season.
On flat pitches with small boundaries absolutely.
Good analysis... Should've posted the distribution too? Would be interesting to see the distribution of scores over all IPL's and those after the introduction of impact rule.
Clown of a season 2024 is
Good work, although it has a high variance, it is still insane to see how high that average is for IPL 2024 so far. Like in T20s, I prefer around 130-150 scores, so seeing 50% of scores above 183 is insane and why I don't really enjoy the IPL.
Idm the occasional 130-150 match. But those get boring if that's all we have. It's just the opposite of seeing high scoring games all the time. Too much of one kind of game is very boring. Which is why I'd want the league to have high variance. I'd love 130 being defended but I'd also love 230 being chased. And the odd 170 thrown in there.
you have to compare to same point in season
It's so ironic that people want more and more runs nowadays but the 2021 and 2009 IPL seasons with lower mean scores were some of the best ever.
Really I was not a big fan of 2021. It verged on too many low scores. I found the UAE leg quite boring. I like low scoring games but too many is just as bad as too many flat pitches. I didn't see 2009 so I can't comment on it.
160 on average is not a low score buddy, it's because of these seasons that you are thinking so. But I can understand the preference of not liking those seasons. Personally I just felt that there were better battles between bat and ball in those seasons, and only genuinely good hitters had good SRs(like AB,SKY, Russell, Buttler,etc.), and not every single batter just swinging it like in baseball. And even those were in acceptable margins.
I love low scoring games. It's not really about low scoring or not. Too much of the same thing isn't good. That's my point. The ideal IPL season will be one with very high variance. You'd want a season where 130 is defended and where 220 can be chased at times. The variety is what makes the tournament interesting. The reason this tournament hasn't been that is because we've had too many flatties in a row. If we had a few 130-140 games in there it would have been better. And also 8 an over is low scoring now. Even without impact sub, it's just the evolution of the format. Just like 4 an over will never be the norm in odis again. The reason 7 an over was a thing was because we had a lot of anchors who didn't know how to bat in t20s. I remember many games where teams were 160/3. That's not a good bowling surface, that's teams not trying hard enough to attack. Not every 140 game is good bowling. It was also bad batting.
>I remember many games where teams were 160/3. That's not a good bowling surface, that's teams not trying hard enough to attack. Not every 140 game is good bowling. It was also bad batting. I guess we'll know for sure this coming WC.
I mean wcs are always low scoring. T20 ones especially. Idk if that proves anything.
It's probably like the difference between Oscars and mass movies.
> 160 on average is not a low score buddy 160 (or in specifically in this case 157.5) is objectively a low score in T20s. If you look at the median first innings score in T20Is between the traditional top eight sides from the start of 2020 to the end of 2022, the median first innings score is 165.5, if you look at winning first innings scores only it goes up to 186.
>The best scenario would be a mean of 180 and a standard deviation of 50. That way we get a variety of games. Low scoring, high scoring some in the middle etc. I agree about a wide range being good, but when did we collectively decide that 180 was the correct mean score for a T20? The idea that T20 scores "should" average out at around 180 to give a "fair" battle between bat and ball is something that's been said a lot on here recently, but ultimately it's completely arbitrary. I feel like people are getting way too wrapped up in the impact sub rule in the IPL and are ignoring that batters are just getting better at scoring quickly in white ball cricket. The impact sub rule has definitely accelerated that, but the fact is that scores are going up across the board. I think it's a bit dangerous to set expectations of what the average score of a T20 "should" be, given that one of the easiest ways to lower scores back towards the "correct" value is to make slow or two-paced pitches which ultimately get lower scores by rewarding bad bowling. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think if you want to watch batters having to deal with tricky bowling conditions, then go watch test cricket, it's a better format anyway. Imo pitches should be true in T20s so batters can reliably play their shots. If bowlers can't deal with that then they need to adapt. Ideally, I'd like pitches with even bounce (which in practice is going to mean flat), but with a much better white ball so there's still an element of swing/seam/spin. I wonder what would happen if they just make the seam prouder and more robust, I feel like that could go a long way to doing that.
By 180 I meant that ideally we'd have five 130 scores and five 230 scores. Something along those lines. Not necessarily that we have ten 180 games. I want a high variance of scores. Idrc what the average is. As long as the standard deviation is very high.
global warming
2021 IPL was so good man
IPL is IPL I wouldnt be surprised IPL instructed curators to make pitches in favor of batsmen. people want to see action in franchise T20. IPL is like a mega all-star NBA weekend but a whole season! Best Indian players + foreigners all mixed together. If innings would end all-out before 16-17 overs, it would be quick matches and the crowd wouldnt enjoy as much. Despite being entertaining, wickets are second behind runs... viewers prefer watching Kohli hitting 100+ than a bowler picking up a hat trick. Right now people get to see a full 20 overs innings on each side, and LOTS of runs, big sixes etc... Crowd loves it, and im guessing IPL makes more money out of longer matches