2024–25 NZ domestic season

[wellAlbidarned]

I honestly think it's not just that his numbers are eh but that he low key has always kinda sucked (omg wow look guys it's TH being negative). Ok that's harsh, but he was always this guy and was never our next great all-rounder. Like, he was a theoretically exciting combo of big hitting and pacey-ish bowling, but he's basically always been a pretty substandard bowler and an unreliable slogger (who has probably gotten worse and worse as a pure batsman the more he has focused his game on flat-footed T20 boshing).

But yeah...his brand of boshing lends itself to the occasional clutch knock if you bowl in his (admittedly wide) arc, and his licorice allsorts bowling is mostly quite bad but occasionally golden arm-y.

Sorry Jimmy.

If you're purely there to slog and bowl quite badly, doesn't this sort of mean you're not that good? Like, really you either want a proper bowler who is also a good finisher, or a dodgy bowler who's also a proper batsman.

Even in the increasingly sabermetric-ed world of post T20 ODI cricket, and with me squinting as hard as possible and clenching vigorously in an attempt to accept niche (get it) boshing roles, I'm still saying that Neesham has occupied the role of a...not that good cricket playing guy.

you've set me off, time to do a full scale analysis of this instead of finishing a work project I'm over budget on

The people didn't ask for it, and here it is. Apologies for the delay, caught a nasty norovirus which wiped me out for four days.

First call is comparing Jimmy's batting against those batting in the same position

So for batting 6 and 7, Neesham both averages and strikes above the average number 6 or 7 player.

Next we compare by game phase:

Once again... Jimmy is firmly above par. No, he's not Sachin. But compared to everyone else (and I haven't even accounted for all-rounders vs specialist batsmen) who's had to do the same job as him, he's done a pretty solid job. I've been sick so I might do his bowling later, but even if he's a bog standard replacement level death slop bowler (which is almost certainly true) this makes him an extremely useful player.

I've always been frustrated by the dialogue around middle-lower order players and non-atg allrounders because it seems like players are held to a standard which is almost impossible to achieve in the role. You have to compare against what others have done in the same context.

ps: I have a million box plots too which I think are cool but clutter things up a bit too much and don't add that much to the argument

 

[ataraxia]

The people didn't ask for it, and here it is. Apologies for the delay, caught a nasty norovirus which wiped me out for four days.

First call is comparing Jimmy's batting against those batting in the same position
View attachment 45805View attachment 45806
So for batting 6 and 7, Neesham both averages and strikes above the average number 6 or 7 player.

Next we compare by game phase:
View attachment 45807View attachment 45808
Once again... Jimmy is firmly above par. No, he's not Sachin. But compared to everyone else (and I haven't even accounted for all-rounders vs specialist batsmen) who's had to do the same job as him, he's done a pretty solid job. I've been sick so I might do his bowling later, but even if he's a bog standard replacement level death slop bowler (which is almost certainly true) this makes him an extremely useful player.

I've always been frustrated by the dialogue around middle-lower order players and non-atg allrounders because it seems like players are held to a standard which is almost impossible to achieve in the role. You have to compare against what others have done in the same context.

ps: I have a million box plots too which I think are cool but clutter things up a bit too much and don't add that much to the argument

Gun post this. I'd be interested to see the same thing done for Latham.

3rd and 4th plots are copies, BTW.

 

[thierry henry]

The people didn't ask for it, and here it is. Apologies for the delay, caught a nasty norovirus which wiped me out for four days.

First call is comparing Jimmy's batting against those batting in the same position
View attachment 45805View attachment 45806
So for batting 6 and 7, Neesham both averages and strikes above the average number 6 or 7 player.

Next we compare by game phase:
View attachment 45809View attachment 45808
Once again... Jimmy is firmly above par. No, he's not Sachin. But compared to everyone else (and I haven't even accounted for all-rounders vs specialist batsmen) who's had to do the same job as him, he's done a pretty solid job. I've been sick so I might do his bowling later, but even if he's a bog standard replacement level death slop bowler (which is almost certainly true) this makes him an extremely useful player.

I've always been frustrated by the dialogue around middle-lower order players and non-atg allrounders because it seems like players are held to a standard which is almost impossible to achieve in the role. You have to compare against what others have done in the same context.

ps: I have a million box plots too which I think are cool but clutter things up a bit too much and don't add that much to the argument

Biggest thing this highlights for me is he averages over 33 at 6/7 compared to 28 for his career, which is enough of a difference to cast his batting in a slightly different light.

Weirdly he has scored 37 runs for 8 dismissals at an average of 4.87 when batting 8 or lower. So basically when playing as primarily a bowler he has been so aggressively bad with the bat that it noticeably hurts his numbers.