Adding the extra 20 runs & Dizzy's double

Charles' Davis discusses Brain Lara's 400* and comes up with an interesting stat - probability of a Test batsman scoring the extra 20 runs from 100 to 120, then 120 to 140 and so on. It is based on all Test scores by top order batsmen (almost - perhaps the figures include no. 7 & tailender tons but exclude their scores below 100) in the history of cricket. It shows that approximately 1 out of every 3 batsmen falls before scoring the next 20 runs at each stage.

We have all heard about batsmen scoring bigger in the last 10 years than ever before. That stat would have been even more interesting if broken up in pre-1996 and post-1996 groupings.

For the 0-99 stats we can see that (33822 + 2942 =) 36764 top order batsmen have gone out to bat in Tests till date. Taking the figures from Charles' charts, a top order batsman scoring a double century is achieving a 0.76% probability task for any top order batsman.

Wonder what the figure is for lower order batsmen (nos. 7 to 11). We do not have the figures in Charles' analysis but for the job at hand we assume that 3.5 lower order men get to bat for every six top order batsmen getting a hit in Tests (Teams often do not bat till the last wicket, epecially in 2nd innings). So that 36764 for specialist batsmen will roughly be 21445 for the clan of all-rounders + tailenders.

Charles discussed Brian's highest score. Let me make a point on Dizzy Gillespie's double against Bangladesh in 2006 which turned out to be his last for Australia.

Dizzy's double century works out to a feat of 1 in 21445 i.e. 0.0047 % probability. I wonder if anyone in any sport has had a chance to go out on that kind of a high!

Footnote: Dizzy maximised a bonus that most tailenders get only a few times in their career. He was a nightwatchman in that match. But amongst non-allrounder lower order batsmen who made significant contributions to match results (and even series results) with their batting Dizzy will perhaps rank right near the top. He deserved it all.
Since Charles' stats included batsmen number 1 to 6, this particular Gillespie effort has perhaps featured in it. I only tried to put in a more accurate perspective.