Is this a reasonable equivalence?

[Migara]

I think you've got this all backwards

Nope. This has to be regarded as pace attacks as spin attacks as units, and how wickets are distributed. Not as individual players.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nope. This has to be regarded as pace attacks as spin attacks as units, and how wickets are distributed. Not as individual players.

Brah, the whole point of this thread was comparing individuals. You're trying to change it into something completely different for some reason, and even then you're still not right

 

[Migara]

Brah, the whole point of this thread was comparing individuals. You're trying to change it into something completely different for some reason, and even then you're still not right

Nah, once again you got it wrong. To compare individuals you need to find the average batsman and average bowler. Then only you could map the variances in similar directions. For that you have to consider stats as a group and then average them. The number of balls bowled per match, wickets taken per match as well as probability of picking all the wickets when coming in to the attack all matters. The first two can be easity found out, but the last one would be difficult. But with certainity we could say probability of spin attack picking up all the wickets is less than that of pace attack because they come in as #3 or #4 bowler, and others have already picked up wickets.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Nah, once again you got it wrong. To compare individuals you need to find the average batsman and average bowler. Then only you could map the variances in similar directions. For that you have to consider stats as a group and then average them. The number of balls bowled per match, wickets taken per match as well as probability of picking all the wickets when coming in to the attack all matters. The first two can be easity found out, but the last one would be difficult. But with certainity we could say probability of spin attack picking up all the wickets is less than that of pace attack because they come in as #3 or #4 bowler, and others have already picked up wickets.

this is very very tortured logic

 

[Migara]

this is very very tortured logic

Unless common sense prevails

 

[CricAddict]

@Teuton has been running a fantasy draft for the past few years in cw where he equates 20 runs to a wicket. I had felt that it is slightly favoring batsmen but having it at 25 will favor the bowlers. So, I will say it is somewhere between the two. So, to me,

Every 22 runs = 1 wicket. And extrapolation to the figures you are putting up, it is,

1000 runs = 45 wickets

This has been proven well by the balance in which the top run scorers and wicket takers have ended up in every fantasy draft.

Also, this almost holds true across formats.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Doesn't work this way unfortunately.

Batting averages and bowling averages (stating from higher numbers - obviously omitting 0 average with bat and infinity average with ball) both observe an exponential distribution. But we cannot assume that both have similar shapes, so we could describe a nice linear relationship as above like Bat = 50 - 0.5 * bowl.

It's not suppose to work infinitively that's why I stopped at 60-20. Although it could probably stop at around 66-17.

Expanding outside of those parameters the differential would increase. A bowler averaging 10 with the ball would be akin to Bradmans batting average.

With a more precise version of those parameters, an average of 50.00 would be the same as an average of 25.50.

Shane Warne ended with an average of 25.4 and Viv Richard's ended with an average of 50.2. Both slightly breaking the gold standard.