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

[Daemon]

How do you arrive at this conclusion from the graphs?

How do you not?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

How do you not?

Two main reasons.

1. The increase in strike rate over time in those graphs is better explained by the fact that the players in question have become more skilled as they gain more international experience. The more skilled the player, the faster he will score on average. The fact that their averages tend to go up as well as their strike rates supports this.

2. The player with by far the longest career of those graphed (Sachin Tendulkar) showed no meaningful increase in strike rate over 22 years.

What would be useful for the sake of your hypothesis would be a graph of the strike rates of all players who debuted in the year in question. This would take the confounding variable of increasing international experience leading to higher strike rates out of the equation.

 

[Athlai]

You're aware that Tendulkar completely changed how he played ODIs right and using the greatest ODI batsman ever as an example of how most players developed over the years is the most crazy thing.

 

[Dan]

The graphs aren't meant to actually show anything scientific or meaningful (the scales are completely arbitrary and inconsistent, for instance). More an interesting 'hey SRs have gone up across the board, maybe the game has changed and good players can adapt!' thing.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

The graphs aren't meant to actually show anything scientific or meaningful (the scales are completely arbitrary and inconsistent, for instance). More an interesting 'hey SRs have gone up across the board, maybe the game has changed and good players can adapt!' thing.

Out of curiosity, do you have a graph for the strike rates and averages of batsmen in their debut year across recent decades, say from 1990 (Tendulkar's debut)? It would settle at least one of the debates on this thread.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

You're aware that Tendulkar completely changed how he played ODIs right and using the greatest ODI batsman ever as an example of how most players developed over the years is the most crazy thing.

If Bevan's SR of 72 can be adjusted upwards because batsmen tend to have higher strike rates in recent years, that implies that Tendulkar became a worse batsman over time because his strike rate went down relative to the others. I don't agree with this.

 

[Athlai]

If Bevan's SR of 72 can be adjusted upwards because batsmen tend to have higher strike rates in recent years, that implies that Tendulkar became a worse batsman over time because his strike rate went down relative to the others. I don't agree with this.

Na you're completely missing the point. Bevan isn't similar to Tendulkar in anyway shape or form. Tendulkar when he first came onto the scene was as brash and brilliant as they came, and over the years he actively turned himself into an anchor (albeit still an effective striker). Tendulkar was quite simply one of the most brilliant youngsters to ever play the game, his natural talent arguably diminished with age but a reason he is so revered is he was able to recreate himself into an equally powerful force. That said, he was never going to strike at quite the same right even if you take into account that rules and conditions made this increasingly easier to accomplish as time went on.

I don't see Bevan as someone who would have had a very high SR in todays game but it would be higher than 72. And even at 72, with his average. He'd still be capable of making any team in the world. If I were to guess, if Bevan had played 5-10 years later his strike rate would be around the low 80s mark.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

If I were to guess, if Bevan had played 5-10 years later his strike rate would be around the low 80s mark.

Well, I'd definitely pick a player who averaged 53 and struck in the low 80s.

I still wouldn't pick a middle order batsman striking in the low 70s, even if he averaged 100.

 

[Athlai]

Well, I'd definitely pick a player who averaged 53 and struck in the low 80s.

Because that would make him one of the greatest ODI batsman of all time? Which is what he already was.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Because that would make him one of the greatest ODI batsman of all time? Which is what he already was.

Probably the single greatest ODI batsman of his time. Which still wouldn't mean he'd necessarily fit the balance of an ATG team. Which is how this entire discussion started.

 

[Athlai]

Probably the single greatest ODI batsman of his time. Which still wouldn't mean he'd necessarily fit the balance of an ATG team. Which is how this entire discussion started.

No, it was how he'd fit in the balance of the current NZ side and where he would fit in to our middle-lower order.

The answer to that would be anywhere you want, please sir, please.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

No, it was how he'd fit in the balance of the current NZ side and where he would fit in to our middle-lower order.

The answer to that would be anywhere you want, please sir, please.

No, that was where the discussion transitioned to. It started when I said I'd pick Maxwell over Bevan at 6 for an Aussie ATG ODI side.

The real answer would be "Can you strike at over 80 runs per hundred balls? If not, you're a liability to us because we're confident we can bat 50 overs and therefore strike rate is more important than average."

 

[Athlai]

You'd pick Maxwell over Bevan?

You are a crazy person.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Look at it like this.

If your team is likely to get bowled out, then it's better to have a player averaging 40 and striking at 70 than it is to have a player averaging 39 and striking at 110.
If your team is not likely to get bowled out, then it's better to have a player averaging 20 and striking at 80 than it is to have a player averaging 100 and striking at 70.

To deny this is to deny mathematics.

This is how I see it. The more likely the team is to get bowled out the more likely I am to pick Bevan. With a weak top order or facing Wasim and Waqar, I'd pick Bevan.
The less likely a team is to get bowled out the more likely I am to pick Maxwell (or even Elliott, or frankly anyone who can hit at better than 72).

Average team in the 90s? Bevan.

ATG side? Maxwell. Both choices are easy.

New Zealand in the 90s? Bevan any day.

New Zealand in 2015? Harder choice, but with Guptill, Williamson and Taylor in the side I'd be inclined to think I'd last the 50. Therefore. Maxwell.

 

[OverratedSanity]

To deny this is to deny mathematics.

This might be up there with 'Those who hate him hate ablities'

 

[Athlai]

"I think my argument is so powerful that it's not necessary to talk about it."

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

The people you pick are directly correlated to how likely it is you get bowled out. Maxwell lasts on average less than 30 balls, so according to mathematics he's a liability. It's why teams don't stack their entire lineup with big hitters.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Also love how kiwiviktor somehow manages to classify Australia as an "average team in the 90s". The hell?

 

[Prince EWS]

Look at it like this.

If your team is likely to get bowled out, then it's better to have a player averaging 40 and striking at 70 than it is to have a player averaging 39 and striking at 110.
If your team is not likely to get bowled out, then it's better to have a player averaging 20 and striking at 80 than it is to have a player averaging 100 and striking at 70.

People don't really disagree with this. However, players' career statistics are as much a function of how often they find themselves in each of these situations as they are a function of their natural scoring rate. That Player A has a career strike rate of X and Player B has a career strike rate of X+5 doesn't necessarily mean Player B would score quicker than Player A in a given situation; it could just be that Player A faced many more situations throughout his career where a lower strike rate made sense and it impacted on his career statistics.

Let me put it this way - at four down with 15 overs to go, I'd rather have someone come in and slap a really quick 35 than average 50 and strike at 72 or whatever, but where people think you're being silly is the assumption that if a player comes in four down with 15 overs to go and he has a career strike rate of 72, he's going to actually strike at around that rate. Your fault is in seeing every player as two big flashing numbers - average and strike rate - instead of realising these numbers relate to each other, are fluid depending on the match situation and actually caused by the match situations each player has encountered in the past.

And that's before we even revisit the fact that you're absolutist scum when it comes to changing era standards.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

The people you pick are directly correlated to how likely it is you get bowled out. Maxwell lasts on average less than 30 balls, so according to mathematics he's a liability. It's why teams don't stack their entire lineup with big hitters.

Partially correct. Teams find a balance between cake and icing; this has always been true.

The better the team, the more cake you have at the top. Once you have a certain amount of cake (i.e. enough to last 50 overs), more cake is not useful. Then you want icing.

In an ATG environment when you have Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting, Jones and Hussey as the top 5 having even more cake at 6 is frankly stupid.

Maxwell is a liability if the team is likely to get bowled out. Then even Elliott would be better, as he has a higher average.