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

[kiwiviktor81]

It's this reason why I tend to be uneasy about questions that ask me who 'the best batsman of all time' was though, as oppose to the 'the best Test batsman' of all time. Things other than Test cricket are still batting, so you have to be a bit subjective in weighting each level (even each format, really) of cricket.

Good post.

I think part of the debate is that you have to subjectively decide the relative importance of strike rate to average in ODI cricket. And you can't easily do this because of a range of factors, some of which I have mentioned above.

If you believe that SR is relatively more important than average, you'll rate players like Maxwell higher, and if you rate average as relatively more important than SR, you'll rate players like Bevan higher. Fair dues.

Grumpy and I seem to rate SR as relatively more important than most people here. That's cool.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Does that mean that Bevan now becomes better than Maxwell when it comes to picking an ATG side?

Yes. Let's say that an entire cohort of modern bowlers arrived with bowling SRs around 25, i.e the current Mitchell Starc level. This would mean that, even in ATG scenarios, most teams would be getting bowled out before their 50 overs, unlike now. This would mean that Bevan's low SR becomes irrelevant, as you're essentially back to playing Test match cricket with a 50 over limit just in case.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Good post.

I think part of the debate is that you have to subjectively decide the relative importance of strike rate to average in ODI cricket. And you can't easily do this because of a range of factors, some of which I have mentioned above.

If you believe that SR is relatively more important than average, you'll rate players like Maxwell higher, and if you rate average as relatively more important than SR, you'll rate players like Bevan higher. Fair dues.

Grumpy and I seem to rate SR as relatively more important than most people here. That's cool.

Kiwivik. No - its not a comparison between averages and strike rates. You had it concise and articulate in your previous posts. Its all about ensuring the highest team total. Its not comparing the respective value of average and SR, its how many runs will this person score in how many balls. The two are joined at the hip. Its x runs scored off y balls for both batting average and SR.

I understand you dumbing it down, but it will confuse people. The batting average metric is inescapable, but its how many actual runs to be scored, there is no benefit given to teams for having a batsman not out. I actually prefer average actual runs scored per innings or per match.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Its all about ensuring the highest team total. Its not comparing the respective value of average and SR, its how many runs will this person score in how many balls. The two are joined at the hip.

Sure, but that's rather my point. Ensuring the highest team total is as much a function of the bowling as it is of the batting. If you're playing against excellent bowlers and there's a real risk of your team being bowled out in the 40th, guys like Bevan become relatively more valuable. If you're playing against pie chuckers and you know you will last the 50, you want Maxwell there to maximise SR.

Keep in mind that there's little value in maximising SR if you get bowled out early.

 

[Dan]

There are plenty of occassions where Bevan adapted to hitting and striking big

This is still one of the most amazing ODI(ish) knocks I've ever seen.

Even more amazing is that he has 188* if the umpire and Caddick do their respective jobs, and the RoW XI wins.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Keep in mind that there's little value in maximising SR if you get bowled out early.

Well that is the conventional wisdom that will also be scrutinised with icing in the middle order.

Will more matches be won at 100/4 or 100/5 by slogging to 250 or 300 all out and risking being all out for 150, or crawling to to 200/220 (with Bevan) and losing anyway?

I prefer the 250/300 option myself.

 

[Dan]

Thats because you are then going to make a massive assumption with that information and pretend that you have basis for knowing how many runs he would score at a higher SR. You're guessing. You do not have statistics to support your view. You have this notion that all players at any time are equal.

Nope, I'm assuming nothing. I'm saying it doesn't matter when it comes to rating players.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Well that is the conventional wisdom that will also be scrutinised with icing in the middle order.

Will more matches be won at 100/4 or 100/5 by slogging to 250 or 300 all out and risking being all out for 150, or crawling to to 200/220 (with Bevan) and losing anyway?

I prefer the 250/300 option myself.

Me too. Hence the two of us thinking Bevan is less useful in an ATG environment.

I wish Glenn Turner posted here. I think he'd agree and have something to add.

 

[Dan]

Will more matches be won at 100/4 or 100/5 by slogging to 250 or 300 all out and risking being all out for 150, or crawling to to 200/220 (with Bevan) and losing anyway?

Contingent on pitch conditions/bowling attacks, no? If you're 100/5 because the batsmen have been utterly inept, then yeah, continuing with business-as-usual batting might make a lot of sense (e.g. that Elliott/Ronchi partnership vs. SL). But if you're up against a gun attack on a difficult pitch -- meaning 220 is actually a good score...

 

[Dan]

Me too. Hence the two of us thinking Bevan is less useful in an ATG environment.

I wish Glenn Turner posted here. I think he'd agree and have something to add.

He'd probably call you an idiot, tell you he could adapt, and that he'd be averaging 60 @ 110 if he were playing today with modern bats, field restrictions, **** bowlers, flat pitches etc. etc.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Sure, but that's rather my point. Ensuring the highest team total is as much a function of the bowling as it is of the batting. If you're playing against excellent bowlers and there's a real risk of your team being bowled out in the 40th, guys like Bevan become relatively more valuable. If you're playing against pie chuckers and you know you will last the 50, you want Maxwell there to maximise SR.

Keep in mind that there's little value in maximising SR if you get bowled out early.

This is why the original scenario is nonsensical except in a game played by robots.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Nope, I'm assuming nothing. I'm saying it doesn't matter when it comes to rating players.

Great, I'm feeling like I'm debating with Dwayne Johnson's "The Rock" stage persona with a god complex.

"but you have no idea or information how their career would have gone if they had batted at a higher strike rate, so you're just guessing and assuming"

"Strike rate? It doesn't matter when rating players"

Noone asked you to rate the players.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Learn to read.

 

[Dan]

What Bevan potentially could have done or potentially could not have done, if he were magically dropped into 2015, bears very little relevance to rating how good Bevan was.
What matters is what he actually did, relative to his contemporaries, in that temporal context.

You're dealing in absolutes, I'm approaching it through relativism (which IMO, PEWS has done a very good job at explaining). Wholly different approaches to the task at hand.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Learn to read.

Stop being juvenile with insults and post something with substance.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

What matters is what he actually did, relative to his contemporaries, in that temporal context.

Sigh. Not when the game was played inefficiently before.

That is the bone of contention. Either you agree that the game was played inefficiently before by batsmen, or not.

If you agree that it was played inefficiently before and is played more efficiently now, the logic of your argument falls apart.

If you don't think the game was played inefficiently before, then you are basically saying that the current crop of bowlers are crap, therefore not all players are the same from generation to generation (I love this inconsistency, just ask PEWS), the new shots are irrelevant and moving one further fielder back out for 15 to 25 overs is making a major difference in team scores.

 

[Prince EWS]

Either you agree that the game was played inefficiently before by batsmen, or not.

Or you're a relativist and you don't think it matters.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Or you're a relativist and you don't think it matters.

But if you're picking players for an ATG side, from all eras, it matters for comparative and relative skill assessment as to what player combination forms the best team.

The question is not is Maxwell a significantly better than mean batsman of his contemporaries than Bevan was to his. That is the fallacy you are trying to reduce the argument down to with your "relativism". Bevan will no doubt win that debate hands down. The question is, who is better for an ODI team at number at 5 or 6 where all players positions are also variable (but have been named) to pick the best XI to win most matches.

I don't know if you're engaging in sophistry for your own amusement or whether you're genuinely mistaken here.

 

[Daemon]

Do you know that he can play any other way?

If he could play another way, how would he play it?

You're guessing.

It was a reply to kiwiviktor to express that comparing both players with their career stats, which are a product of their match situations in the era they played in, and to justify ones inclusion over the other in a current NZ XI using those stats is the wrong way to go about it.

If he'd said instead (as he has later in the thread) that having watched them both he believes Bevan isn't capable of upping his strike rate and Maxwell is more dependable in those situations to bat lower down the order, then that's more of an argument and the discussion can then move on to whether Bevan would be able to adapt and bring out the big shots when necessary.

Personally if given the situation in OP I'd pick Maxwell.

If picking a player to play for NZ I'd take Bevan.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Sigh. Not when the game was played inefficiently before.

That is the bone of contention. Either you agree that the game was played inefficiently before by batsmen, or not.

If you agree that it was played inefficiently before and is played more efficiently now, the logic of your argument falls apart.

If you don't think the game was played inefficiently before, then you are basically saying that the current crop of bowlers are crap, therefore not all players are the same from generation to generation (I love this inconsistency, just ask PEWS), the new shots are irrelevant and moving one further fielder back out for 15 to 25 overs is making a major difference in team scores.

It was a reply to kiwiviktor to express that comparing both players with their career stats, which are a product of their match situations in the era they played in, and to justify ones inclusion over the other in a current NZ XI using those stats is the wrong way to go about it.

If he'd said instead (as he has later in the thread) that having watched them both he believes Bevan isn't capable of upping his strike rate and Maxwell is more dependable in those situations to bat lower down the order, then that's more of an argument and the discussion can then move on to whether Bevan would be able to adapt and bring out the big shots when necessary.

Personally if given the situation in OP I'd pick Maxwell.

If picking a player to play for NZ I'd take Bevan.

It seems as though you're starting to get it.