Debate thread for 2024 ranking of bowlers poll

[TheJediBrah]

Test cricket is about taking wickets quick enough to get your team a result. The idea that SR matters less for bowlers goes against something very fundamental to the game.

Correct, but also the team that makes the most runs wins. So ER is also important.

This is why average (taken in context) is the best metric by a distance for bowlers

 

[shortpitched713]

Correct, but also the team that makes the most runs wins. So ER is also important.

This is why average (taken in context) is the best metric by a distance for bowlers

Do you want your best bowler to have a lower, or higher strike rate, given that his average is the same in either case?

In a way, the question I'm asking is affirming your way of thinking, that average is generally the best metric, but please do answer as to which you'd prefer.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Do you want your best bowler to have a lower, or higher strike rate, given that his average is the same in either case?

depends entirely on context. Game plans, opposition, the rest of the side etc.

 

[ma1978]

We’re all shooting in the dark here. Average is an easy concept as it equally weights strike rate and economy rate. The reality is they are unlikely to be equally important in winning matches. I’m guessing strike rate is more important anda real value calculation would weight that more but that’s just a hypothesis and who knows how much even if that’s the case.

 

[shortpitched713]

We’re all shooting in the dark here. Average is an easy concept as it equally weights strike rate and economy rate. The reality is they are unlikely to be equally important in winning matches. I’m guessing strike rate is more important anda real value calculation would weight that more but that’s just a hypothesis and who knows how much even if that’s the case.

For your best bowler, or all bowlers in the attack?

 

[Line and Length]

@Line and Length - could you add a column to the table you post at the end of each day showing positions gained or lost since the last time you ran the thing?

I mention changes in relative positions in the two previous polls for bowlers and intend to do an overall summary at the end.

 

[Line and Length]

While I am a little reticent to vote for current players as their careers are incomplete, I have no problems with Rabada and Bumrah being voted into the rankings after the latest round of votes. Their stats more than stand up when compared to a number of players selected before them.
I do, however, see one anomaly in the voting. Since WWI there have been 13 bowlers who have held the title of having the most Test wickets. The two who played between the wars, Barnes and Grimmett have secured their places (9 and 27). Six players who have held that crown since WWII occupy fairly high rankings (3, 4, 5, 12, 14 and 22). Of the remaining five players, two have garnered a few votes but 3 have failed to crack a mention. Interesting.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Correct, but also the team that makes the most runs wins. So ER is also important.

That doesn't really have anything to do with ER for the purpose of this discussion. Our assumption here is that runs conceded are the same. We're talking SR vs ER not SR vs Bowling Average.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That doesn't really have anything to do with ER for the purpose of this discussion. Our assumption here is that runs conceded are the same. We're talking SR vs ER not SR vs Bowling Average.

It does though. Keeping runs down can be important for a lot of reasons. It's the reverse of the "high strike rate batting has intrinsic value".

A player like Sehwag is more valuable than his average alone suggests because of the affect it has on the game. Field placings, bowlers, his batting partner, morale etc. A low ER bowler has intrinsic value for the opposite reason. You can keep tighter fields, gives you more freedom from the other end, pressure on the batsmen. The list goes on.

"High SR is better because you need to take wickets" is overly simplified

 

[Bolo.]

depends entirely on context. Game plans, opposition, the rest of the side etc.

There are exceptions to every rule in cricket. Even something as basic as 'getting out bad' has exceptions, like the the odd instance of declaration batting.

Exceptions to the SR rule (coming mainlyat times your team is getting spanked) don't change the general math. A low SR by a bowler with a good average mean fewer overs being bowled by bowlers with worse averages, which will result in bowling the other team out cheaper.

 

[Line and Length]

That doesn't really have anything to do with ER for the purpose of this discussion. Our assumption here is that runs conceded are the same. We're talking SR vs ER not SR vs Bowling Average.

But surely the 3 are inter-related. A low SR and high ER can result in a similar average to a player with a high strike rate and lower economy rate.
An example can be found when looking at two bowlers with similar bowling averages. Rabada's SR is low (39.23 balls/wicket) but is ER relatively high (3.37 rpo). O'Reilly was far more economical (ER 1.95) but his SR was 69.61 bpw. Both had bowling averages around the 22 mark but their ER and SR were in stark contrast. A lot depends on the style of bowling and the role in the team. Rabada is your typical strike bowler when early wickets are needed. O'Reilly was more intent on keeping the runs down and working the batsmen out.

 

[ankitj]

We're talking SR vs ER not SR vs Bowling Average.

They are the same thing

 

[TheJediBrah]

Exceptions to the SR rule (coming mainlyat times your team is getting spanked) don't change the general math. A low SR by a bowler with a good average mean fewer overs being bowled by bowlers with worse averages, which will result in bowling the other team out cheaper.

again, this is an oversimplification. There are times when a lower SR bowler is clearly more valuable, like if you've got a day to bowl out a side and 500 on the board and runs don't matter. But in the vast majority of cases, in an actual game of cricket involving 22 individuals, not on a spreadsheet, SR and ER tend to more or less balance out in value.

And I feel like I have to say this even though everyone knows: it's entirely dependent on circumstances such as the rest of your side, conditions, opposition, game scenario etc to the extent that looking for an objective answer between SR and ER when comparing the careers of 2 bowlers is a fool's errand

 

[CricAddict]

But surely the 3 are inter-related. A low SR and high ER can result in a similar average to a player with a high strike rate and lower economy rate.
An example can be found when looking at two bowlers with similar bowling averages. Rabada's SR is low (39.23 balls/wicket) but is ER relatively high (3.37 rpo). O'Reilly was far more economical (ER 1.95) but his SR was 69.61 bpw. Both had bowling averages around the 22 mark but their ER and SR were in stark contrast. A lot depends on the style of bowling and the role in the team. Rabada is your typical strike bowler when early wickets are needed. O'Reilly was more intent on keeping the runs down and working the batsmen out.

Good post. The higher/lower sr/er depends on the role and style of the bowler. Spin bowlers in general work the batsmen out and will typically have low er and high sr while some pacers bowl in short spells at full throttle resulting in the reverse.

 

[Bolo.]

again, this is an oversimplification. There are times when a lower SR bowler is clearly more valuable, like if you've got a day to bowl out a side and 500 on the board and runs don't matter. But in the vast majority of cases, in an actual game of cricket involving 22 individuals, not on a spreadsheet, SR and ER tend to more or less balance out in value.

And I feel like I have to say this even though everyone knows: it's entirely dependent on circumstances such as the rest of your side, conditions, opposition, game scenario etc to the extent that looking for an objective answer between SR and ER when comparing the careers of 2 bowlers is a fool's errand

Basic maths is not a fools errand. Having your bowlers with the lowest averages take a greater proportion of wickets is going to result in lower scores. Higher SRs will result in a greater proportion of wickets.

Exceptions don't change basic principles. And aside from (some) times when the other team is properly on top, there will be very few exceptions when ER of your best bowler is more important than SR (assuming a notable difference between the best bowler and the rest of the attack).

 

[OverratedSanity]

They are the same thing

No they're not. Under the assumption that bowling average remains constant, we're debating whether ER or SR is preferable to be lower/higher.

I know how math works bc, everyone with a brain knows the three are inter related.

 

[Coronis]

No they're not. Under the assumption that bowling average remains constant, we're debating whether ER or SR is preferable to be lower/higher.

I know how math works bc, everyone with a brain knows the three are inter related.

maths*

 

[TheJediBrah]

Basic maths is not a fools errand. Having your bowlers with the lowest averages take a greater proportion of wickets is going to result in lower scores. Higher SRs will result in a greater proportion of wickets.

Exceptions don't change basic principles. And aside from (some) times when the other team is properly on top, there will be very few exceptions when ER of your best bowler is more important than SR (assuming a notable difference between the best bowler and the rest of the attack).

Cricket isn't 1 bowler bowling in isolation. Runs being leaked or alternatively restricted from the other end makes a big difference when bowling in tandem. There will be effects on the game situation and players on both sides that aren't represented in the bowling figures or statistics of the 1 bowler under analysis. Rest assured I understood your logic, but you're still overly simplifying

 

[Bolo.]

Cricket isn't 1 bowler bowling in isolation. Runs being leaked or alternatively restricted from the other end makes a big difference when bowling in tandem. There will be effects on the game situation and players on both sides that aren't represented in the bowling figures or statistics of the 1 bowler under analysis. Rest assured I understood your logic, but you're still overly simplifying

Simplification can be a good thing.

If I say 'a low bowling average is good', you aren't gonna turn around and say 'actually, there are times in declaration batting when only economy counts'.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Simplification can be a good thing.

If I say 'a low bowling average is good', you aren't gonna turn around and say 'actually, there are times in declaration batting when only economy counts'.

That's virtually universally true though. Saying having a lower SR is better than a lower ER is not. They're both simple, but they're not both accurate