T20I Averages- Joke or Not?

[srbhkshk]

Well I don't think there are any 110SR and AVG 50+ top order players.

So can't really fantasize a situation like this.

Obviously a player like Buttler is more favourable than a Babar Azam in T20I cricket. But a player who could consistently churn out 50s off 40 balls should not be neglected either.

It's just a random example, to make it more real - who will you have between 30@125 vs 40@120 - Probably the second guy, but there will definitely be matches where that will hurt you.

 

[weldone]

Still depends on SR, 30@110 opener might be better for the team compared to 55@110 opener.

This is a top post.

 

[weldone]

It depends on the team as well doesn't it. For a team like India someone who averages 25 at 150 is immensely valuable, but other lineups with weak top/middle orders might prefer a Misbah.

If a team has a weak batting lineup + Misbah, that team isn't going to do well in T20s TSTL.

I think a weak team needs an Andre Russell more than a Misbah - at least they win on days when Russell does something special.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Still depends on SR, 30@110 opener might be better for the team compared to 55@110 opener.

bit of a silly example, but I guess you're not wrong. Not so much "better" for the team as "less bad"

It's just a random example, to make it more real - who will you have between 30@125 vs 40@120 - Probably the second guy, but there will definitely be matches where that will hurt you.

That does make it more real, but also isn't really relevant to what you were initially responding to (ie. same SR, higher average not having additional benefit). Take a given strike rate (eg. 140), a player with a higher average at said strike rate will almost always be the more valuable player. I don't think anything you've said disputes this.

Of course a player with a high average and **** strike rate is a but of an outlier and doesn't really warrant inclusion in the discussion IMO

 

[srbhkshk]

That does make it more real, but also isn't really relevant to what you were initially responding to (ie. same SR, higher average not having additional benefit). Take a given strike rate (eg. 140), a player with a higher average at said strike rate will almost always be the more valuable player. I don't think anything you've said disputes this.

Of course a player with a high average and **** strike rate is a but of an outlier and doesn't really warrant inclusion in the discussion IMO

Thing is - I don't think that's the case for a batsman below say 130ish SR - there might be some benefit to having them bat in the top order - but after that the increase in average might just hurt the team.

 

[weldone]

Senior Bhakshak is right.

In the end, we go back to my (SR - Par SR)*Balls Faced formula. [from my ODI rankings thread]

Roughly if we say the Par SR is 130-ish (or maybe was 120-ish a few years back), then high averages are useful only when batsman strikes above that Par SR mark. High average is counter-productive otherwise.

 

[trundler]

Senior Bhakshak is right.

Ha. Always assumed it was Saurabh or something without the vowels.

 

[Daemon]

If a team has a weak batting lineup + Misbah, that team isn't going to do well in T20s TSTL.

I think a weak team needs an Andre Russell more than a Misbah - at least they win on days when Russell does something special.

For a team like Afghanistan, where the bowlers can get teams all out for 140 but have trouble chasing it, a Misbah would be great.

In any case, the examples are slightly irrelevant, my point was about how different teams would value different types of players.

 

[srbhkshk]

Ha. Always assumed it was Saurabh or something without the vowels.

It is that, but Senior Bhakshak has a charm of it's own.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Thing is - I don't think that's the case for a batsman below say 130ish SR - there might be some benefit to having them bat in the top order - but after that the increase in average might just hurt the team.

Yeah that's exactly what we were saying isn't it:

Of course a player with a high average and **** strike rate is a but of an outlier and doesn't really warrant inclusion in the discussion IMO

I feel like you didn't read my whole post

 

[srbhkshk]

Yeah that's exactly what we were saying isn't it:



I feel like you didn't read my whole post

Eh, <130 SR is not an outlier - there are many batsman which operate in that range.

 

[straw man]

In T20s the SR and average need to be given near equal weight imo. SR is a little more important but not a lot more. I don't like seeing batting stats completely omit the average - having a career SR of 150 is useless if you average 8.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah I hate it when they put a batsman's stats up and they give Strike rate but not average. If you had to pick one, average still gives you a much better idea of how good a player is.

 

[straw man]

Yeah I was going to call it the Tim Southee rule, but turns out his SR is only a middling 137 (while the average is 8) - there are probably better examples.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's funny because Southee was the exact player I had in mind as well

It's still a good example. That's about the same strike rate as David Miller, or Rohit Sharma. Just putting that on the screen as a stat implies that Southee is as productive a batsman as Rohit Sharma.

 

[cnerd123]

Strike Rate + Balls Per Dismissal are a more intuitive pair of stats for T20s IMO.