Cribbage's Standardised Test Averages (UPDATED November 2018 - posts 753-755)

[Burgey]

How do you know he'll be replaced by an average bowler though?

I don't understand this I confess. Is your argument that you'll take a bloke who you admit isn't as good as the other bloke, because in 12 years' time he'll be still playing whereas the other bloke who's better will have just retired?

 

[Prince EWS]

so PEWS is longevity based on number of matches or time span?

Well, both. To use a simplistic example, If your career spans 20 years but you only play half the matches your team plays in that period, your longevity is 10, because you've effectively played ten years worth of Test cricket. It's a little more complicated than that especially when teams play zero matches in a calender year for whatever reason but that's the basic theory.

 

[NUFAN]

Then we might as well stop picking all time elevens.

Have you ever picked an all time XI where you have to manage a team for 15 years?

Sustained excellence is awesome, but it's beyond my belief that someone could say X was better than Y, but since Y did it for longer (by 6% more) Y is better.

 

[Prince EWS]

How do you know he'll be replaced by an average bowler though?

I don't understand this I confess. Is your argument that you'll take a bloke who you admit isn't as good as the other bloke, because in 12 years' time he'll be still playing whereas the other bloke who's better will have just retired?

Yeah, pretty much. There's more to it though. I think more teams across history would benefit more from 15 years of Walsh than 11 years of McGrath.

It's also worth noting, of course, that keeping up the numbers both of them put up is a fair bit harder to do over 15 years than it is over 11. It's not just a matter of whether or not you can be arsed - usually if you play 15 years you won't have the average you had at your peak, even though you're still contributing to your side. That's the sort of thing longevity accounts for.

It works for players you actually like, too, like Ponting. Since Ponting's peak ended he's gone up on my list because, even though his average has gone down, he's still been positively contributing to his side in a way his replacement probably would've have, especially this summer for example.

 

[Prince EWS]

Have you ever picked an all time XI where you have to manage a team for 15 years?

Sustained excellence is awesome, but it's beyond my belief that someone could say X was better than Y, but since Y did it for longer (by 6% more) Y is better.

I say stuff like that all the time. Learn to deal.

 

[smash84]

 

[Burgey]

Have you ever picked an all time XI where you have to manage a team for 15 years?

Sustained excellence is awesome, but it's beyond my belief that someone could say X was better than Y, but since Y did it for longer (by 6% more) Y is better.

I suppose it depends, as you say, on the weight attributed to longevity.

Cribbeh, do you attempt to factor in when someone comes into a side? For example Gilly comes in at what are generally the best years for a player and plays 96 or whatever straight tests, whereas a fella like Hayden comes in as a kid, gets left out, plays more tests but gets better?

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, pretty much. There's more to it though. I think more teams across history would benefit more from 15 years of Walsh than 11 years of McGrath.

It's also worth noting, of course, that keeping up the numbers both of them put up is a fair bit harder to do over 15 years than it is over 11.

But, what if that team plays against another for 11 of those years against a team containing McGrath?

 

[Prince EWS]

I suppose it depends, as you say, on the weight attributed to longevity.

Cribbeh, do you attempt to factor in when someone comes into a side? For example Gilly comes in at what are generally the best years for a player and plays 96 or whatever straight tests, whereas a fella like Hayden comes in as a kid, gets left out, plays more tests but gets better?

Well that's another plus point for incorporating longevity, really. Hussey has an awesome average partly because he didn't have that tricky period at the start of his career to drag it down - he was doing it in Shield cricket. Same goes for someone like Trott. But the longevity of such players is going to be poor, so they'll rank lower than Hayden who might end up with a lower average/standardised achieve but achieved greater feats and was more valuable by playing a longer period.

It attempts to make sure you never benefit from not being good enough to make a team, and never suffer for playing on beyond your peak to help your team rather than your career average, or for being picked a little too early.

 

[weldone]

so PEWS is longevity based on number of matches or time span?

So would you prefer Wasim over Walsh since he too played for 19 years and also took wickets at a lower average?

Wasim has 13.39 longevity points compared to Walsh' 15.33. Walsh has a better adjusted average too (24.99 versus Wasim's 25.88).

So, PEWS' method would have rated Walsh ahead even if they had the same longevity.

 

[Prince EWS]

Wasim has 13.39 longevity points compared to Walsh' 15.33. Walsh has a better adjusted average too (24.99 versus Wasim's 25.88).

So, PEWS' method would have rated Walsh ahead even if they had the same longevity.

Wasim could bat though. Yeah lets start that up again.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah, pretty much. There's more to it though. I think more teams across history would benefit more from 15 years of Walsh than 11 years of McGrath.

Would you prefer the Wests Magpies to be the best team possible for 11 years straight winning say 8 titles and then finishing 5th, 9th, 7th, 4th or would you prefer the Magpies to be slightly less good each year and finish second for 15 years in a row.

It's a bull**** statement (I'm sure we'll all agree on that) but I hope it gets across the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Prince EWS]

Would you prefer the Wests Magpies to be the best team possible for 11 years straight winning say 8 titles and then finishing 5th, 9th, 7th, 4th or would you prefer the Magpies to be slightly less good each year and finish second for 15 years in a row.

It's a bull**** statement (I'm sure we'll all agree on that) but I hope it gets across the point I'm trying to make.

Cevnoing. It's not even remotely like that.

I'd rather the Magpies have the second best halfback in the comp by a pretty insignificant margin for 15 years than have the best one for 11 and then ? for the next four.

 

[weldone]

Would you prefer the Wests Magpies to be the best team possible for 11 years straight winning say 8 titles and then finishing 5th, 9th, 7th, 4th or would you prefer the Magpies to be slightly less good each year and finish second for 15 years in a row.

He would probably prefer '8 titles in 15 years' over '7 titles in 11 years and then none in next 4'.

 

[benchmark00]

lol rugby league.

 

[The Sean]

It's funny, this scenario almost seems the polar opposite of the criticism of players retiring to "protect their average" as it were. If Cribb's measure was officially in use by the ICC, I could see players being judged for playing on and on way beyond their best purely to go down on the official records as more valuable than far better cricketers who had had enough and decided to retire a few years earlier.

 

[benchmark00]

Can't we all just agree that Cribb is a crackpot and move on?

 

[NUFAN]

Cevnoing. It's not even remotely like that.

I'd rather the Magpies have the second best halfback in the comp by a pretty insignificant margin for 15 years than have the best one for 11 and then ? for the next four.

So you would rather have the second best halfback have a career spanning 268 games instead of the best halfback playing 248 games? (I've doubled the Tests to make it a realistic NRL number) So you would consider the second best halfback the better player?

He would probably prefer '8 titles in 15 years' over '7 titles in 11 years and then none in next 4'.

Yeah, but he's not going to win the titles when he doesn't have the best available players.

#nocevno.

 

[Eds]

So you would rather have the second best halfback have a career spanning 268 games instead of the best halfback playing 248 games? (I've doubled the Tests to make it a realistic NRL number) So you would consider the second best halfback the better player?

The longevity here isn't solely based on number of matches though.

 

[Prince EWS]

So you would rather have the second best halfback have a career spanning 268 games instead of the best halfback playing 248 games? (I've doubled the Tests to make it a realistic NRL number) So you would consider the second best halfback the better player?




Yeah, but he's not going to win the titles when he doesn't have the best available players.

#nocevno.

This is definitely a Cevno now; we're no longer actually debating the issue - we're just debating whether or not something else you've dreamed up is actually the same as this or not.

Ultimately, longevity is listed separately to standardised averages on my charts. If you think I place too much importance on it then ignore it and just look at the standardised averages. It's there because it's what I value, and I've explained why. I'm not trying to change your mind here.