I do think experience is of real value with limited overs cricket, particularly batting. But I'm going to stick to the context of proper cricket (Tests) here.
I'm so sick of people over-rating the importance of experience in Test cricket. Most good things that happen are attributed to experience and never anything negative. So this idea is created that experience is really important, it's not actually based on anything sensible or statistical evidence. From a common sense perspective it makes little sense. In Test cricket the vast majority of the time they're just doing the basics and playing their own game, the same things they've done 10,000s of hours in the nets, in first class cricket, junior cricket and whatever else just to a higher intensity. Now given that where does experience get to play a part? Only in particular situations and in those it can still work for OR AGAINST someone.
One of the most irritating myths is experience really helping to halt an ongoing collapse, to see a team through on a chase. The point is in Test cricket these days, with batting being particularly pitiful lately, that you have time to just bat or just bowl. If you just simply bat instead of being concerned about being 27-4 then that is nearly always going to be more effective than trying to adapt your game to the scoreboard. You adapt your game to the conditions, making other mental changes because of the scoreboard is what makes collapses so common. It is largely HUMAN elements - some from the bowlers but I would say it more about the batsmen - that make the same teams collapse regularly, being crap batsmen doesn't help either obviously. The mantra of playing your natural game crops up a lot, so why do you need experience to tell you that? Test cricket is a simple game, not a complex one.
Players that have experience of being involved in collapses seem to contribute towards them even more. Negative experiences generally lead to more negative performances. Positive experiences generally lead to more positive performances. These things obviously alter other human characteristics like confidence, confidence is usually good but not too much of it. Things like nerves are often confused with experience, although experience can help with nervousness it's more complicated than that and may in fact be a hindrance.
As technology and support staff comes in more and more a lot of the value of experience is reduced. The players know what's coming, they know their opponents, they know what they're supposed to do.
Why is experience so often treated as the holy grail in Test cricket? Pick your best players. Simple as that.