Peak vs Longevity - Best Way to Judge Players?

[subshakerz]

Assuming we have two players with similar overall worldclass records across teams and conditions and career length of around 100 tests and 12 years.

Player A's record though is disproportionately due to a peak period representing 30/40 percent of his career during which he was the undisputed best player in the world, achieving historically superlative averages well beyond worldclass standards, and the rest of his career he was very good but below worldclass standards.

Player B though, after a typically soft career start, had one long extended stretch of typically worldclass form leading to his retirement representing 60 to 80 percent of his career.

Which player would you tend to rate higher?

 

[Majestic]

Depends on player A achievements when he was at peak. Did he helped his team win something incredible at peak of his powers?

If No, then answer is obviously player B.

 

[subshakerz]

Depends on player A achievements when he was at peak. Did he helped his team win something incredible at peak of his powers?

If No, then answer is obviously player B.

Assume the team win ratios as overall the same in their careers, but with A concentrated more during his peak and B during his long extended run of quality form.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

A mix of both imo with slightly higher weightage towards peak performances.

 

[Qlder]

I read on this forum it's obviously longevity as James Anderson is the greatest pacer of all time because has the most wickets, while Bradman is only the 57th best ever batsman

 

[Coronis]

Just to add some context to this with actual numbers.

for a 50 averaging batsman:

Player A:

first ~30 tests averaging 65 (3 and a half years)
remaining ~70 tests averaging 45 (8 and a half years)

Player B:
first ~30 tests averaging 40 (3 and a half years)
remaining ~70 tests averaging 54 (8 and a half years)

 

[Victor Ian]

Just to add some context to this with actual numbers.

for a 50 averaging batsman:

Player A:

first ~30 tests averaging 65 (3 and a half years)
remaining ~70 tests averaging 45 (8 and a half years)

Player B:
first ~30 tests averaging 40 (3 and a half years)
remaining ~70 tests averaging 54 (8 and a half years)

Your context is irrelevant. I voted before I got to this post.

 

[Coronis]

Your context is irrelevant. I voted before I got to this post.

Cool story bro, you should make a movie out of it.

 

[subshakerz]

Just to add some context to this with actual numbers.

for a 50 averaging batsman:

Player A:

first ~30 tests averaging 65 (3 and a half years)
remaining ~70 tests averaging 45 (8 and a half years)

Player B:
first ~30 tests averaging 40 (3 and a half years)
remaining ~70 tests averaging 54 (8 and a half years)

Thanks. The basic idea of the post is to know how posters value peak vs long term consistency in their equations and my sense is that the majority prefer the latter.

 

[kyear2]

As with everything with cricket, it's nuanced, and a fine balance.

How do we rate players.... Dominance of era, hight of peak, consistency, level of competition, eye test / contemporary recollections, record vs the best of the era, pitch / era conditions, raw and contextualized stats.

So after all of that, both, with a slight weighting towards peak.

 

[subshakerz]

As with everything with cricket, it's nuanced, and a fine balance.

How do we rate players.... Dominance of era, hight of peak, consistency, level of competition, eye test / contemporary recollections, record vs the best of the era, pitch / era conditions, raw and contextualized stats.

So after all of that, both, with a slight weighting towards peak.

It's an interesting equation, isn't it?

Which is better, reaching heights of skill that others cannot but not being able to sustain it long vs being merely excellent but for a long time? Seems hard to say. You could argue that teams may benefit more from the latter type of player in building their side but the former must be given extra credit in terms of cricket spectacle/skill.

 

[Slifer]

Assuming we have two players with similar overall worldclass records across teams and conditions and career length of around 100 tests and 12 years.

Player A's record though is disproportionately due to a peak period representing 30/40 percent of his career during which he was the undisputed best player in the world, achieving historically superlative averages well beyond worldclass standards, and the rest of his career he was very good but below worldclass standards.

Player B though, after a typically soft career start, had one long extended stretch of typically worldclass form leading to his retirement representing 60 to 80 percent of his career.

Which player would you tend to rate higher?

I'd like two real life examples.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd definitely rather have a cricketer who helped me win more series across his career than one who achieved some kind of mystical level of skill for a few months. Talking about the latter can be fun but it has basically no bearing in my mind as to who was actually 'better'.

 

[subshakerz]

I'd like two real life examples.

Chris Cairns and Flintoff though they didn't play 100 tests.

 

[subshakerz]

I'd definitely rather have a cricketer who helped me win more series across his career than one who achieved some kind of mystical level of skill for a few months. Talking about the latter can be fun but it has basically no bearing in my mind as to who was actually 'better'.

On this there is no doubt. Mohd Yousuf doesnt usually get rated higher based on runscoring in 2006.

But we are talking about cricketers who built worldclass stats based largely on a peak that lasted a few years but represented less than 50 percent of their career. Think Viv Richards and Imran Khan.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

5 years as the world's best player you would take pretty much every time.

 

[subshakerz]

5 years as the world's best player you would take pretty much every time.

That usually gets Botham over Kapil though they ended with closely similar averages.

 

[Prince EWS]

On this there is no doubt. Mohd Yousuf doesnt usually get rated higher based on runscoring in 2006.

But we are talking about cricketers who built worldclass stats based largely on a peak that lasted a few years but represented less than 50 percent of their career. Think Viv Richards and Imran Khan.

Yeah I agree with this but I think unless we actually set down the ground rule that we're talking about what would actually help a team win more series then I think we're just talking at cross purposes.

If you make it years instead of months you're basically still just worshipping skill level instead of winning series.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah I agree with this but I think unless we actually set down the ground rule that we're talking about what would actually help a team win more series then I think we're just talking at cross purposes.

If you make it years instead of months you're basically still just worshipping skill level instead of winning series.

Wouldn't winning series privilege McGrath over Hadlee and Warne over Murali by default?

 

[Himannv]

I buy into the idea of rating players higher based on their peaks. Ponting, for instance, was phenomenal for most of his career, but had a bad ending to it that impacted his stats. At his best he was churning out 100 after 100 consistently, but if you group in his performances past his peak, it takes away from someone who was truly an exceptional player.

Mitch Johnson is another who I think was top tier at his peak, but due to his inconsistencies, he isn't rated as highly as he should be.

I see the benefits of rating based on a peak because of football. Take the likes of Ronaldinho or Kaka - at their peak, they were the best in the world, but it only lasted a few seasons. If you consider their career as a whole, they'd be failures for most part, when they clearly are not. There's also the idea that players change over time - Lothar Matthaus started off as a box-to-box midfielder, played extremely well as an AM (or number 10 type), and eventually ended his career as a Sweeper playing in defence. I see cricket similarly where players become better or worse depending on the timeframe you consider for a variety of reasons.