I've been wondering if we perhaps fail to recognise the value of a tailender that is able to cobble together some runs. I'm not referring to genuine allrounders here, but rather of a bowler who can put a few on the board. I'm particularly thinking of bowlers with a sub-20 batting average.
I'll approach this issue from a stats perspective as the argument is easier to illustrate. Disregarding stats, I see no reason to alter the argument.
It seems to me that most of us would virtually automatically disqualify a batman who averages 45 from ATG status while accepting the majority who average 50 easily. I know this is simplistic in this instance (the difference between a 49 and a 50 average could be argued to have the same effect), but what if we examined two batsmen who, in today's era, averaged 42 and 47 respectively? Discounting for the possibility of a difference in exceptional or extremely valuable innings, I would consider the first to be a passable player, and the second to be extremely valuable.
If 5 runs is the difference between passable and extremely valuable, how then to assess the difference in bowlers with a difference of 5 runs in their batting average? If we were to equate average with RPI, 5 runs is 5 runs, irrespective of who scores them, but would any of us factor this in when comparing bowlers? Take a bowler who averages 10 with the bat, and one who averages 15. Would any of us even notice the difference, let alone factor it in when assessing the players?
Let's take 11.5 runs, the difference between Marshall and Mcgrath. It's a convenient comparison- unquestionably 2 of the greatest bowlers ever, one of whom was utter dross with the bat, and the other who fell just short of the point (at which I'm assuming) most fans typically start factoring batting ability into assessing the overall value of a bowler. Does anybody factor this difference into their assessments of these two players though?
What if the 11.5 difference were applied to Tendulkar/ Lara? If either averaged 65, they would be to me without question the 2nd greatest batman ever, and if they averaged a shade over 40, would they even be remembered?
Batting average is a fairly simple metric. RPI and RPT play a major role. But are we willing to discount the potential value of bowlers in this regard just because they played in the lower order? While it is true they did not have the opportunity, it is also true that they did not add the value.
Value of runs is another aspect to consider, and in this regard, my 2 cents says tailenders win easily. Top/middle order runs do not seem to add the same level of value as tailender runs. If chasing 60 with 9 wickets in hand, or posting a mammoth total prior to declaration, someone else can always score these runs. If your tail is batting though, it is usually because you need the runs. It seems to me that only in the 4th innings in a hopeless cause are runs from the tail devalued.
There is also the question of runs scored (or the ability to hang around) affecting team score beyond the addition of those runs. A player who comes in, hits 2 sixes, and is out 3rd ball has contributed 12. What though of the value of 12(40) from a number 11? More than those runs will have been added while he is at the crease. You will sometimes have a good, set batsman batting with a no 11, and more often have said batsman get out going for quick runs or declining singles trying to avoid this situation. In a Moneyball type of analysis, wouldn't it be better to shore up the tail than to have a stronger top-order?
While an argument in favour of the selecting the best bowler irrespective of batting ability can reasonably be made, and that the value of a strong tail as a complete unit gets noticed, but is the value of the ability to bat a bit given sufficient credence when analysing the value of a particular bowler?
I'll approach this issue from a stats perspective as the argument is easier to illustrate. Disregarding stats, I see no reason to alter the argument.
It seems to me that most of us would virtually automatically disqualify a batman who averages 45 from ATG status while accepting the majority who average 50 easily. I know this is simplistic in this instance (the difference between a 49 and a 50 average could be argued to have the same effect), but what if we examined two batsmen who, in today's era, averaged 42 and 47 respectively? Discounting for the possibility of a difference in exceptional or extremely valuable innings, I would consider the first to be a passable player, and the second to be extremely valuable.
If 5 runs is the difference between passable and extremely valuable, how then to assess the difference in bowlers with a difference of 5 runs in their batting average? If we were to equate average with RPI, 5 runs is 5 runs, irrespective of who scores them, but would any of us factor this in when comparing bowlers? Take a bowler who averages 10 with the bat, and one who averages 15. Would any of us even notice the difference, let alone factor it in when assessing the players?
Let's take 11.5 runs, the difference between Marshall and Mcgrath. It's a convenient comparison- unquestionably 2 of the greatest bowlers ever, one of whom was utter dross with the bat, and the other who fell just short of the point (at which I'm assuming) most fans typically start factoring batting ability into assessing the overall value of a bowler. Does anybody factor this difference into their assessments of these two players though?
What if the 11.5 difference were applied to Tendulkar/ Lara? If either averaged 65, they would be to me without question the 2nd greatest batman ever, and if they averaged a shade over 40, would they even be remembered?
Batting average is a fairly simple metric. RPI and RPT play a major role. But are we willing to discount the potential value of bowlers in this regard just because they played in the lower order? While it is true they did not have the opportunity, it is also true that they did not add the value.
Value of runs is another aspect to consider, and in this regard, my 2 cents says tailenders win easily. Top/middle order runs do not seem to add the same level of value as tailender runs. If chasing 60 with 9 wickets in hand, or posting a mammoth total prior to declaration, someone else can always score these runs. If your tail is batting though, it is usually because you need the runs. It seems to me that only in the 4th innings in a hopeless cause are runs from the tail devalued.
There is also the question of runs scored (or the ability to hang around) affecting team score beyond the addition of those runs. A player who comes in, hits 2 sixes, and is out 3rd ball has contributed 12. What though of the value of 12(40) from a number 11? More than those runs will have been added while he is at the crease. You will sometimes have a good, set batsman batting with a no 11, and more often have said batsman get out going for quick runs or declining singles trying to avoid this situation. In a Moneyball type of analysis, wouldn't it be better to shore up the tail than to have a stronger top-order?
While an argument in favour of the selecting the best bowler irrespective of batting ability can reasonably be made, and that the value of a strong tail as a complete unit gets noticed, but is the value of the ability to bat a bit given sufficient credence when analysing the value of a particular bowler?
