How much more valuable is a top bowler over a top bat?

[Shady Slim]

if you say my team can be shane warne and ten guys who are otherwise competent or steve smith and an otherwise competent ten guys i’m taking warne

 

[shortpitched713]

For bowlers, I am thinking average length of full careers now is coming to 100 tests or so. For bats, over 150 tests.

I can think of a number of bowlers who played 80 odd Tests, who I'd take for overall career value, probably over even Tendulkar/Kallis.

 

[subshakerz]

I can think of a number of bowlers who played 80 odd Tests, who I'd take for overall career value, probably over even Tendulkar/Kallis.

80 off is still a fairly long career for a bowler you're right.

 

[shortpitched713]

80 off is still a fairly long career for a bowler you're right.

Tendulkar adds ~ 15 runs per innings as a bat over the replacement level bat.

Marshall to me is reducing the opponent total by ~ 40 per innings compared to the replacement bowler. Not to mention adding another ~ 5-10 depending on the batting level of that replacement as well.

Not hard to see why ATG bowlers (particularly bowling allrounders with ace level workloads), could really dwarf the value of bats in general comparisons.

Which is why I really hate those kind of compare bowler/batsmen threads,and think they're invalid in premise.

 

[ma1978]

Tendulkar adds ~ 15 runs per innings as a bat over the replacement level bat.

Marshall to me is reducing the opponent total by ~ 40 per innings compared to the replacement bowler. Not to mention adding another ~ 5-10 depending on the batting level of that replacement as well.

Not hard to see why ATG bowlers (particularly bowling allrounders with ace level workloads), could really dwarf the value of bats in general comparisons.

Which is why I really hate those kind of compare bowler/batsmen threads,and think they're invalid in premise.

How do you derive the 40? Are you saying the replacement averages 60. Doesn’t make sense

Also, I disagree with the premise completely.

If you’re the current West Indies team or the current South Africa or Sri Lanka team even, you would rather have Tendulkar than Marshall.

Exceptjonal batting can take a mediocre team and makes them average / above average (see the history of Indian cricket). Exceptional bowling can take an above average team and make the great but has less impact in a team with no baseline batting which is foundational.

 

[ma1978]

Said differently, a team of exceptional bats and mediocre bowling can draw tests and occasionally win (see 2000s India)

A team of exceptional bowling and mediocre bats will more often that not simply lose (see present South Africa). Even if they have prime Dale Steyn they would still lose everything abroad because of the bats

 

[shortpitched713]

How do you derive the 40? Are you saying the replacement averages 60. Doesn’t make sense

Lol, you're funny. I went with something like 36 (or 35.94). 4 bowlers, 10 wickets total equals 2.5. Multiply that by the difference in average with Marshall of 16 equals ~40.

Even if you go with slightly different numbers, it still favors the bowler.

TL;DR : It's basically impossible for a batsman to match value of a top tier bowler, unless they massively are beating them in longevity. Or I guess you could hold 5 screamers a match in the field, like some want to tell me Sobers did (JK guys, I know he was a great fielder, don't want to get into that here).

 

[subshakerz]

Said differently, a team of exceptional bats and mediocre bowling can draw tests and occasionally win (see 2000s India)

A team of exceptional bowling and mediocre bats will more often that not simply lose (see present South Africa). Even if they have prime Dale Steyn they would still lose everything abroad because of the bats

Except you have NZ in the 80s, a mediocre team that was unbeaten at home and won/drew several away series thanks to Hadlee.

 

[ma1978]

Except you have NZ in the 80s, a mediocre team that was unbeaten at home and won/drew several away series thanks to Hadlee.

That’s a myth. Batting was actually quite good

 

[ma1978]

Lol, you're funny. I went with something like 36 (or 35.94). 4 bowlers, 10 wickets total equals 2.5. Multiply that by the difference in average with Marshall of 16 equals ~40.

Even if you go with slightly different numbers, it still favors the bowler.

TL;DR : It's basically impossible for a batsman to match value of a top tier bowler, unless they massively are beating them in longevity. Or I guess you could hold 5 screamers a match in the field, like some want to tell me Sobers did (JK guys, I know he was a great fielder, don't want to get into that here).

I see your math (and mine was obviously wrong - too early in the morning), but it just doesn’t make intuitive sense. A team of Marshalls averaging 21 should put their opposition out for 210. A team of average bowlers should put their opposition out for 340. That’s 130 runs divided by five so 26.

 

[shortpitched713]

I see your math (and mine was obviously wrong - too early in the morning), but it just doesn’t make intuitive sense. A team of Marshalls averaging 21 should put their opposition out for 210. A team of average bowlers should put their opposition out for 340. That’s 130 runs divided by five so 26.

I'm assuming 4 bowlers instead of 5, and the "replacement bowlers" getting them out for 360.

360-210 = 150 / 4 = 37.5

It's still more than Tendulkar is likely to manage, with an average of 53.78 .

If you subtract from a replacement level bat it could be something like 53.78 - 37.5 = 16.28 , which is less than half of the runs saved by Marshall above.

Obviously, it's all back of the napkin stuff, and even if you say I'm making the hypothetical a bit too charitable to bowlers vs batsmen, it still doesn't change the fundamental problem with the math for batsmen. Which is there are less bowlers than batsmen, thus they make more of an impact individually than the batsmen can.

 

[ma1978]

I'm assuming 4 bowlers instead of 5, and the "replacement bowlers" getting them out for 360.

360-210 = 150 / 4 = 37.5

It's still more than Tendulkar is likely to manage, with an average of 53.78 .

If you subtract from a replacement level bat it could be something like 53.78 - 37.5 = 16.28 , which is less than half of the runs saved by Marshall above.

I suppose if you skew the assumptions that way, you can draw whatever conclusion you want to.

No way a replacement level batter is 37.5, more like 30 and at a minimum it’s 4.5 bowlers and I’m not sure 360 is the right number.

I’m not even sure replacement level is a thing in cricket the way it is in baseball given such a low percentage of FC cricketers play international test cricket

 

[shortpitched713]

I don't agree with 30 being a replacement level bat, as I think he should certainly average more than a replacement level bowler does with the ball. But even with that how it looks like with your numbers:

340-210 = 130 / 5 = 26

53.78 - 30 = 23.78

Marshall in particular is adding another 5 runs with the bat over a typical tailender, so you can imagine that a Hadlee or even Imran would add even more.

Any way you slice it, even an exceptional bat like Tendulkar isn't able to add as much as a bowler, particularly one of the great all time bowling all-rounders, imo. Because as I added on in my above post: You can't change the fundamental problem with the math for batsmen. Which is there are less bowlers than batsmen, thus they make more of an impact individually than the batsmen can.

Although, I will say, it does matter how you slice it if you're looking at an overall career value with a number of Tests discrepancy as big as between Tendulkar with 200 Tests, and Marshall with "only" 81, and your calculation would certainly lend itself to favoring for Tendulkar's value in that case. I would think that likelihood is something in between our estimates, which would still make it rough for the vast majority of great batsmen in Test cricket history in a straight comparison with the great Test bowlers.

 

[ma1978]

I don't agree with 30 being a replacement level bat, as I think he should certainly average more than a replacement level bowler does with the ball. But even with that how it looks like with your numbers:

340-210 = 130 / 5 = 26

53.78 - 30 = 23.78

Marshall in particular is adding another 5 runs with the bat over a typical tailender, so you can imagine that a Hadlee or even Imran would add even more.

Any way you slice it, even an exceptional bat like Tendulkar isn't able to add as much as a bowler, particularly one of the great all time bowling all-rounders, imo. Because as I added on in my above post: You can't change the fundamental problem with the math for batsmen. Which is there are less bowlers than batsmen, thus they make more of an impact individually than the batsmen can.

Although, I will say, it does matter how you slice it if you're looking at an overall career value with a number of Tests discrepancy as big as between Tendulkar with 200 Tests, and Marshall with "only" 81, and your calculation would certainly lend itself to favoring for Tendulkar's value in that case. I would think that likelihood is something in between our estimates, which would still make it rough for the vast majority of great batsmen in Test cricket history in a straight comparison with the great Test bowlers.

All fair points, and you’re probably right. Would be very interesting to see this analysis done in a properly rigorous way like baseball by someone fare more analytically rigorous than me.

 

[shortpitched713]

All fair points, and you’re probably right. Would be very interesting to see this analysis done in a properly rigorous way like baseball by someone fare more analytically rigorous than me.

I don't know if there were jobs in cricket for guys like there are for baseball like Sabermetrics. If there were, I'd hop on it in a heartbeat.

 

[ma1978]

I don't know if there were jobs in cricket for guys like there are for baseball like Sabermetrics. If there were, I'd hop on it in a heartbeat.

The IPL is starting to hire statistical analysts and I suspect the t20 leagues all will (because it’s easier in t20) but eventually every major cricket team will. Statistical analysis in cricket is primitive relative to other major sports

 

[kyear2]

As the WI team is showing the last I can't even say how long, you can have the best bowlers, but if you have the level of batting that we have, you can't win.

Bowlers, slightly more important,but you need both.

I don't know why this is so difficult.

 

[shortpitched713]

Lol, West Indies hasn't had anywhere close to the best bowlers since 2001.

 

[Xix2565]

On the other hand, India's recent shaky batting has been covered by the bowling strength they possess. Same for the recent SA at times.

 

[Himannv]

Top bowler every single time.