Who would you rather have come in at No. 6 for your team with 15 overs to go?

[Gob]

Kane Williamson obviously

 

[Cabinet96]

As others have said you need a lot more statistical context. I'd like to know what player A's best innings in terms of strike rates are for example. Similarly what are player B's top scores. Would reveal whether player A is a quality bat who can bat big if needed or someone who only has one gear, and whether B is a proper batsman or just a slogger.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Kane Williamson obviously

53 @ 90

 

[marc71178]

A will last longer, he will face more balls, but he will only score 2 more runs per match than B where B will score far more swfitly and leave more balls to the next batsman to face.

Give it a ****ing rest.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

i choose charizard

ffs viktor up your game every CW poll needs a joke option

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Give it a ****ing rest.

You seem like an angry man. This is no quality or substance to your post at all. You should hang out with furball. Maybe join a national front political movement and shave your head.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

As others have said you need a lot more statistical context. I'd like to know what player A's best innings in terms of strike rates are for example. Similarly what are player B's top scores. Would reveal whether player A is a quality bat who can bat big if needed or someone who only has one gear, and whether B is a proper batsman or just a slogger.

Potential. You eternal optimist you.

 

[Dan]

Skill absolutism. Ugh.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Skill absolutism. Ugh.

Can you explain what this is? I've heard it mentioned but can't figure out what it means.

 

[Prince EWS]

Can you explain what this is? I've heard it mentioned but can't figure out what it means.

Skill absolutism is the idea that players should be rated by the absolute standard of their skills, and not by their performances relative to their peers.

To me it makes as much sense as a first year uni student claiming he's a better scientist than Isaac Newton because he's acquired more knowledge in that field, but it's pretty common on cricket forums.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bevan SR in losing chases was 69. Higher than his SR in winning chases of 67.

Sorry PEWS, I don't agree with your point as a rule of his 'optimal' chasing.

But hey, lets continue to celebrate the players of yesterday with their high batting averages and low team scores and put all these bigger team scores today down to field restriction changes, poor bowling and big bats.

Batting strategy has not entered the equation at all. Teams batting deeper into the innings and more wickets falling is just a correlation.

Skill absolutism is the idea that players should be rated by the absolute standard of their skills, and not by their performances relative to their peers.

That's cute. But Vik and I are saying that ODI cricket was played inefficiently before. It took until 1992 for Greatbatch. If it was played correctly before, Bevan may not make the team. Which is what Vik is saying about today. Its about the philosophical change to the way ODI cricket is being played. Not to mention that Dan champions a "Philips Curve" theory of batting average to SR - so Bevan should lose runs off his average as his SR increases according to him, which may or not be correct in fact (when Williamson and Amla are batting higher averages with SR's approaching Viv Richards). I understand Dan's Philips Curve point, but it needs statistical analysis for its actual, if existing at all, impact. Although I freely agree that Maxwell could well score runs if he batted more slowly. Corey Anderson - I am not so convinced.

I am far more persuaded that ODI cricket was played inefficiently with regard to batting before than it is becoming to be played now.

 

[Dan]

Skill absolutism is the idea that players should be rated by the absolute standard of their skills, and not by their performances relative to their peers.

To me it makes as much sense as a first year uni student claiming he's a better scientist than Isaac Newton because he's acquired more knowledge in that field, but it's pretty common on cricket forums.

This, alongside the fact that Bevan apparently should have spent the 90s averaging 50@95 to be rated by forum users 20 years later, rather than best ensuring he was winning games in the actual context in which he found himself.

Players are products of their eras; ignoring that to rate them on absolute skills is such a flawed system. Whether you want to class it as improvement or not, the game has changed.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

This, alongside the fact that Bevan apparently should have spent the 90s averaging 50@95 to be rated by forum users 20 years later, rather than best ensuring he was winning games in the actual context in which he found himself.

Players are products of their eras; ignoring that to rate them on absolute skills is such a flawed system. Whether you want to class it as improvement or not, the game has changed.

Still eleven players a team, 3 stumps and 2 bails to make a wicket.

The batting approach has changed more than a tweaking to the field restrictions of 4 or 5 players outside the circle.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Skill absolutism. Ugh.

It's even worse when people do this for ODIs than tests. The ODI format has changed so dramatically for a number of reasons over the last 15 years that it just leads to absolutely ridiculous conclusions like Maxwell>Bevan

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

It's even worse when people do this for ODIs than tests. The ODI format has changed so dramatically for a number of reasons over the last 15 years that it just leads to absolutely ridiculous conclusions like Maxwell>Bevan

Yeah, its a team game, not a tennis match. I think that where a low of CW forum members start clouding their analysis.

Who is better for a team, Maxwells' 27 actual runs average per match at 30 average and SR 120, or Bevan's 29 actual runs average per match at 50+ and SR 75.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Skill absolutism is the idea that players should be rated by the absolute standard of their skills, and not by their performances relative to their peers.

To me it makes as much sense as a first year uni student claiming he's a better scientist than Isaac Newton because he's acquired more knowledge in that field, but it's pretty common on cricket forums.

I'm going to have to think about that some more. It's a new concept and I have to get my head around it.

For now I'm looking at it like this. Say Bevan and Maxwell were both available for the Black Caps right now.

I would see no place for Bevan in the side. We have enough cake with Guptill, Williamson and Taylor, and all of them score significantly faster than Bevan. He can't replace Elliott at 5 because he takes up balls that we'd rather Anderson, Ronchi and Santner got to face.

Maxwell, on the other hand, would walk straight in at 5 over Elliott any day of the week.

There is a certain irony here that many of the people accusing me of being a statsmonger have little to support Bevan over Maxwell other than his massive average. The truth is that once your SR falls below a certain level, you're a liability to the team, and the bigger your average the more balls you suck up therefore the bigger the liability. This is more true the lower down you bat.

 

[Dan]

The batting approach has changed more than a tweaking to the field restrictions of 4 or 5 players outside the circle.

Yes, I agree (though whether that is good or bad is up for debate). But I don't think that should mean that we write off everyone but Viv from those old days because the game was 'wrong', even though they were head-and-shoulders above their contemporaries at playing it and winning games.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I'm going to have to think about that some more. It's a new concept and I have to get my head around it.

For now I'm looking at it like this. Say Bevan and Maxwell were both available for the Black Caps right now.

I would see no place for Bevan in the side. We have enough cake with Guptill, Williamson and Taylor, and all of them score significantly faster than Bevan. He can't replace Elliott at 5 because he takes up balls that we'd rather Anderson, Ronchi and Santner got to face.

Maxwell, on the other hand, would walk straight in at 5 over Elliott any day of the week.

There is a certain irony here that many of the people accusing me of being a statsmonger have little to support Bevan over Maxwell other than his massive average. The truth is that once your SR falls below a certain level, you're a liability to the team, and the bigger your average the more balls you suck up therefore the bigger the liability. This is more true the lower down you bat.

I disagree with this in bold. There are 300 balls. Both openers (I prefer one to be a 100+) and the number 3 should be 85 SR + ideally.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I wouldn't take Bevan in a current ODI team. But I wouldn't take Maxwell in the mid-90's against Donald, the two W's and Ambrose.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

The ODI format has changed so dramatically for a number of reasons over the last 15 years that it just leads to absolutely ridiculous conclusions like Maxwell>Bevan

Maxwell's SR is 126. Bevan's is 72. Why is it so ridiculous to suggest that, in a form of the game where scoring quickly is crucial to winning the match, that Maxwell > Bevan?