Batting and bowling strikerates: how much do they matter?

[BazBall21]

I would never rate a batsman higher than another purely on the basis of SR. Means very little in Tests imo. And with bowlers while I can understand preferring a low SR type bowler to a low economy bowler, there are benefits of both destructive and economical bowlers.

 

[thakzz]

Strikerates are often overlooked as a statistical measure of assessment compared to averages. Is this fair?

For batsmen, a higher strikerate would seem to indicate a more aggressive player, but with all other factors equal, does it matter if one has a SR of 55 versus one of 45? Is there an ideal SR for a top level ATG? Does it become a liability at any point?

For bowlers, having an exceptionally low SR almost always comes with a higher ER, like the case for Waqar, Steyn and Rabada. But if the MO of the ATG bowler is to take a wicket over the course of a spell by setting up a batsman, does a higher SR matter at that point?

Great question my answer is:

The batting strike rate matters when discussing the limited overs format of the game. Imagine a batsmen, batting at 5 or 6 who averages 22, it's a pretty rubbish stat, however, add to that a strike rate of let's say, of 150, then he becomes an integral part of a T20 set up.

When discussing bowlers, it becomes a bit more tricky. Of course, the lower the strike rate, the better the bowler and many great pace bowlers (usually sub 25 test average), they roughly have a strike rate that is equal to each other...but in reality it would only be used as a stat to differentiate the cream.

 

[Bijed]

I would never rate a batsman higher than another purely on the basis of SR. Means very little in Tests imo. And with bowlers while I can understand preferring a low SR type bowler to a low economy bowler, there are benefits of both destructive and economical bowlers.

Yeah, this. Lots of individual innings are great because they involve fast scoring but over a career, a higher SR doesn't make up for scoring significantly fewer runs imo (assuming equal levels of minnow-bashing, HTBness etc)

 

[Blenkinsop]

Here's an idea. What if for batters the more important statistic is not strike rate but variability of strike rate (ie. standard deviation from their own mean strike rate). That might provide some measure of their adaptability to different situations.

Sometimes batters are called upon to stay in at all costs in order to salvage a draw, and runs are irrelevant. At other times the important thing is to score as fast as possible in order to chase a target or set up a chase. The very best batters are capable of doing both. We certainly shouldn't mark down batters because some Atherton-esque blockathons have brought their overall strike rate down.

 

[TheJediBrah]

but over a career, a higher SR doesn't make up for scoring significantly fewer runs imo (assuming equal levels of minnow-bashing, HTBness etc)

The assumption is the same amount of runs though. A few people seem to be missing this. Of course making significantly fewer runs is worse

 

[Bijed]

The assumption is the same amount of runs though. A few people seem to be missing this. Of course making significantly fewer runs is worse

Some people do just talk as if a higher SR just makes a batsman better, though

@Blenkinsop has made a better point, though, The ability to shift gears is the important thing, and career SR doesn't really convey that a lot of the time. And sort-of related, there are times where the SR of an innings just doesn't really matter. Warner, for example, presumably has a fair number of innings where he's scored quickly from the start, got out for a low to middling (or even decent) score, so the quick scoring hasn't really mattered (unless you want to argue that quick scoring always means more runs overall because of pressure on the opposition) and across a career, a having a number of these innings will push your career SR up a bit compared to someone like Cook, who may have made a similar number of somewhat inconsequential scores, but at a much slower pace.

If I remember to, I will try to articulate my argument better in the morning

 

[TheJediBrah]

Some people do just talk as if a higher SR just makes a batsman better, though

@Blenkinsop has made a better point, though, The ability to shift gears is the important thing, and career SR doesn't really convey that a lot of the time. And sort-of related, there are times where the SR of an innings just doesn't really matter. Warner, for example, presumably has a fair number of innings where he's scored quickly from the start, got out for a low to middling (or even decent) score, so the quick scoring hasn't really mattered (unless you want to argue that quick scoring always means more runs overall because of pressure on the opposition) and across a career, a having a number of these innings will push your career SR up a bit compared to someone like Cook, who may have made a similar number of somewhat inconsequential scores, but at a much slower pace.

If I remember to, I will try to articulate my argument better in the morning

It's the morning now stupid

 

[subshakerz]

I would never rate a batsman higher than another purely on the basis of SR. Means very little in Tests imo. And with bowlers while I can understand preferring a low SR type bowler to a low economy bowler, there are benefits of both destructive and economical bowlers.

Nah, I disagree. All other factors equal, I think a significantly higher SR does indicate a more aggressive batsman. One of the reasons I think Sanga and Ponting for me would be ahead of Dravid and Kallis, the former can score at well over 3 an over though their overall stats otherwise are in the same ballpark.

If anything, bowling SR means less than batting SR.

 

[Blenkinsop]

At risk of sounding like a broken record, though, surely what's important is the batter's ability to adapt to the situation, not their strike rate as an absolute figure. Geoffrey Boycott gets rightly criticised because he was not capable of scoring fast and Kallis for being one-paced. By contrast Graham Thorpe and Shiv Chanderpaul were capable of scoring fast, but nevertheless both have career strike rates around 45, which is almost identical to Kallis. I'd argue this isn't a negative for them -- it simply reflects the fact that both were often placed in situations where scoring runs was secondary to staying in.

 

[subshakerz]

At risk of sounding like a broken record, though, surely what's important is the batter's ability to adapt to the situation, not their strike rate as an absolute figure. Geoffrey Boycott gets rightly criticised because he was not capable of scoring fast and Kallis for being one-paced. By contrast Graham Thorpe and Shiv Chanderpaul were capable of scoring fast, but nevertheless both have career strike rates around 45, which is almost identical to Kallis. I'd argue this isn't a negative for them -- it simply reflects the fact that both were often placed in situations where scoring runs was secondary to staying in.

Yeah but there is still a normative style of playing and it evens out over a long career. Abdevilliers could defend and block like the best of them but ended up with a healthy SR of 54 because he naturally was a fast scorer. Natural batting style/rate of scoring should be aggressive and on the higher side, all other factors equal.

 

[trundler]

I'm intrigued by this variability of SR idea. Get on it, forum nerds!

 

[subshakerz]

Here's an idea. What if for batters the more important statistic is not strike rate but variability of strike rate (ie. standard deviation from their own mean strike rate). That might provide some measure of their adaptability to different situations.

Sometimes batters are called upon to stay in at all costs in order to salvage a draw, and runs are irrelevant. At other times the important thing is to score as fast as possible in order to chase a target or set up a chase. The very best batters are capable of doing both. We certainly shouldn't mark down batters because some Atherton-esque blockathons have brought their overall strike rate down.

Yeah but aside from the batting for a draw on day 4/5, how many times are you expected to shift to defensive mode? The vast majority of times, batting at a fairly healthy rate of 3 plus an over is simply better in setting or chasing scores.

And there are innings such as Pontings 156 in Old Trafford when he scored at his normal rate but was instrumental in securing a draw. If he had tried to bat in a shell it may have backfired.

 

[Bijed]

Being able to slow down on demand is definitely less useful than being able to accelerate on demand (and as you note, for some players it might not actually enhance their survivability). But as I was alluding to in my Cook/Warner post (lets not focus on that specifically as I don't think I made my point very well haha) there are plenty of situations where the speed of scoring really doesn't matter (assuming it's not low to the point where runs are clearly being left out there). Basically I don't think players should be marked down compared to others with higher strike rates if they were capable of accelerating when actually needed.

When we compare players on here, our first step is to rightfully look deeper than their career average, and that should really apply to career SR as well

 

[subshakerz]

Being able to slow down on demand is definitely less useful than being able to accelerate on demand (and as you note, for some players it might not actually enhance their survivability). But as I was alluding to in my Cook/Warner post (lets not focus on that specifically as I don't think I made my point very well haha) there are plenty of situations where the speed of scoring really doesn't matter (assuming it's not low to the point where runs are clearly being left out there). Basically I don't think players should be marked down compared to others with higher strike rates if they were capable of accelerating when actually needed.

When we compare players on here, our first step is to rightfully look deeper than their career average, and that should really apply to career SR as well

Yeah but my point is that in most normal situations of building or chasing a score, it is simply better to naturally bat at a faster clip, because of pressure on the opposition and saving time in the game.

It shouldnt have to wait until you are chasing at 4/over or looking for quick runs to set a target for you to switch to aggressive mode.

The only situation I can think of where its better to have a slower bat is like Dravid or Waugh, where the rest of the lineup is already full of strokemakers and that gives you the luxury to take the time to build. But test cricket favors aggression and those are the bats who are usually better.

 

[shortpitched713]

@subshakerz

Attacking, run-making batting comes down to one part batsman skill, but another important part shot selection. Are you trying to imply that a batsman by eliminating or vastly curtailing the filter of shot selection could see an improvement to his run scoring, rather than it being detrimental to it?
Or that a player like Shahid Afridi with a Test average of 36.51, but an extremely aggressive SR of 86.97 would be an actually useful addition as a batsman to a strong Test side?

I want to know how far your implication of aggression = better batting, actually goes in your mind.

Edit: Actually, **** it how did Afridi actually average over 36 with the bat over 48 Test innings?! That could have been useful for Pakistan back then in the lower-middle order as an all-rounder, why didn't we use him more?!

 

[thakzz]

@subshakerz

Attacking, run-making batting comes down to one part batsman skill, but another important part shot selection. Are you trying to imply that a batsman by eliminating or vastly curtailing the filter of shot selection could see an improvement to his run scoring, rather than it being detrimental to it?
Or that a player like Shahid Afridi with a Test average of 36.51, but an extremely aggressive SR of 86.97 would be an actually useful addition as a batsman to a strong Test side?

I want to know how far your implication of aggression = better batting, actually goes in your mind.

Edit: Actually, **** it how did Afridi actually average over 36 with the bat over 48 Test innings?! That could have been useful for Pakistan back then in the lower-middle order as an all-rounder, why didn't we use him more?!

Pakistan team selection at the time was corrupt.

 

[honestbharani]

@subshakerz

Attacking, run-making batting comes down to one part batsman skill, but another important part shot selection. Are you trying to imply that a batsman by eliminating or vastly curtailing the filter of shot selection could see an improvement to his run scoring, rather than it being detrimental to it?
Or that a player like Shahid Afridi with a Test average of 36.51, but an extremely aggressive SR of 86.97 would be an actually useful addition as a batsman to a strong Test side?

I want to know how far your implication of aggression = better batting, actually goes in your mind.

Edit: Actually, **** it how did Afridi actually average over 36 with the bat over 48 Test innings?! That could have been useful for Pakistan back then in the lower-middle order as an all-rounder, why didn't we use him more?!

Its another case where the absolute figures do not show anything resembling the reality. He was very rocks and diamonds and especially away from home, he was a bit of a walking wicket which they could ill afford. Plus, when you had Razzaq and Mahmood, the utility of Afridi was very minimal.

 

[shortpitched713]

Pakistan team selection at the time was corrupt.

 

[shortpitched713]

Plus, when you had Razzaq and Mahmood, the utility of Afridi was very minimal.

I'd give him a go on a spinning subcontinent wicket, over either of those two, although I will grant Pakistan/India matches were always on/off so that reduces some of the utility.

 

[subshakerz]

@subshakerz

Attacking, run-making batting comes down to one part batsman skill, but another important part shot selection. Are you trying to imply that a batsman by eliminating or vastly curtailing the filter of shot selection could see an improvement to his run scoring, rather than it being detrimental to it?
Or that a player like Shahid Afridi with a Test average of 36.51, but an extremely aggressive SR of 86.97 would be an actually useful addition as a batsman to a strong Test side?

I want to know how far your implication of aggression = better batting, actually goes in your mind.

Edit: Actually, **** it how did Afridi actually average over 36 with the bat over 48 Test innings?! That could have been useful for Pakistan back then in the lower-middle order as an all-rounder, why didn't we use him more?!

No, I don't think that. I think that it comes down to intent. Ponting is more aggressive generally than Kallis. He tries more proactively to score runs in the beginning, even look for singles to rotate the strike, and not allow the bowler to get in rhythm. In top form, he will even hit good balls to the boundary if necessary. His intent is clear though, depending on the quality of the bowlers he will try to score as much as possible.

Kallis plays balls on merit but would also take his time to set himself and is pretty comfortable allowing a bowler to bowl a maiden while waiting for the poor ball for four or stray ball for a single.

I think what sets the top tier like Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting from the rest is that ability to hit good balls for runs and change the bowl rhythm.