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

[NUFAN]

There's a difference between a sample size argument and a longevity argument. Lots of people don't really value longevity at all; I on the other hand do.

I value longevity but not to the extent that your records do. In my opinion once you get to a certain amount of Tests or been playing the game for X amount of years, surely that's enough.

I understand it's your rankings though and you can and will continue do as you please.

 

[Prince EWS]

I value longevity but not to the extent that your records do. In my opinion once you get to a certain amount of Tests or been playing the game for X amount of years, surely that's enough.

That's not valuing longevity; that's having a minimum sample size requirement. Playing for longer makes you more valuable.

 

[NUFAN]

That's not valuing longevity; that's having a minimum sample size requirement. Playing for longer makes you more valuable.

So is your longevity factoring in the timing of the players retirement and looking at the performances of the incoming players to work out how detrimental the decision to retire a few Tests too early actually was?

BTW it is valuing longevity, just in a more minimal way to you. It's like the ICC rankings, where they don't give out a full ranking until a player has played in X amount of matches.

 

[Prince EWS]

So is your longevity factoring in the timing of the players retirement and looking at the performances of the incoming players to work out how detrimental the decision to retire a few Tests too early actually was?

BTW it is valuing longevity, just in a more minimal way to you. It's like the ICC rankings, where they don't give out a full ranking until a player has played in X amount of matches.

That's not valuing longevity at all IMO; it's an entirely different philosophy. To value longevity means you believe that you believe you're more valuable and therefore better the longer you play - you don't really believe that; you just think that sample sizes are unreliable to a certain point. The ICC rankings don't value longevity either.

 

[smash84]

so is longevity a measure of the overall time span of your career or the number of matches?

 

[NUFAN]

That's not valuing longevity at all IMO; it's an entirely different philosophy. To value longevity means you believe that you believe you're more valuable and therefore better the longer you play - you don't really believe that; you just think that sample sizes are unreliable to a certain point. The ICC rankings don't value longevity either.

Nah, Your face is (Cevno'd).


I don't really have anything to add as we disagree

 

[Flem274*]

With PEWS on this one. Walsh played almost a third longer than McGrath, and that should be to his credit.

I'd still take McGrath's actual results over Walsh, but there is a good argument for Walsh being the more valuable bowler. Slightly less awesome results, but four more years of them.

 

[NUFAN]

With PEWS on this one. Walsh played almost a third longer than McGrath, and that should be to his credit.

I'd still take McGrath's actual results over Walsh, but there is a good argument for Walsh being the more valuable bowler. Slightly less awesome results, but four more years of them.

It's easier for a fast bowler to play for a longer period of time when he has less matches to play.

Walsh played 8 Tests more than McGrath, both players in my opinion have shown longevity in their careers.

If you would rather McGrath's actual results over Walsh, there is a good argument that McGrath was the more valuable bowler, not Walsh.

 

[Burgey]

Which of the two would you want in your team then? If you had to choose one of them to bowl for a side which you were choosing, and can only have one, who would it be?

 

[weldone]

It's easier for a fast bowler to play for a longer period of time when he has less matches to play.

That is not a very good point against Walsh, considering the innumerable deliveries he bowled in both test cricket and non-test FC cricket.

 

[weldone]

Which of the two would you want in your team then? If you had to choose one of them to bowl for a side which you were choosing, and can only have one, who would it be?

PEWS sees it in this way - If he is the manager of a team for 15 years starting from today and he is given 2 options:

1. Play Walsh for next 15 years
2. Play McGrath for next 11 years,

he'll choose option 1 (considering McGrath's place will be taken by an average bowler for the 4 years after he retires).

 

[Flem274*]

Which of the two would you want in your team then? If you had to choose one of them to bowl for a side which you were choosing, and can only have one, who would it be?

How long are they in our team?

Either way I would probably go with McGrath, because he was an all time great on some of the flattest pitches of all time against some of the most successful batsmen of all time.

But if you offered me an all time great opening bowler who would last me 15-16 years, as opposed to the norm of 10-12, I'd be pretty keen.

 

[Prince EWS]

PEWS sees it in this way - If he is the manager of a team for 15 years starting from today and he is given 2 options:

1. Play Walsh for next 15 years
2. Play McGrath for next 11 years,

he'll choose option 1 (considering McGrath's place will be taken by an average bowler for the 4 years after he retires).

Yep exactly.

 

[NUFAN]

That is not a very good point against Walsh, considering the innumerable deliveries he bowled in both test cricket and non-test FC cricket.

In your opinion it's not, but it's a perfectly reasonable point on the whole idea of longevity when two players have played a substantial (what exactly is substantial is probably a fair question) amount of Cricket, my argument is not solely on McGrath vs. Walsh - I don't have an agenda for McGrath to be higher, it could well be an argument of Inzamam vs. Mark Waugh or any other example.

The amount of deliveries that Walsh bowled in non-Tests mean exactly 0 on the grand scheme of these Tests rankings.

How does someone like Hayden go longevity wise? Of course everyone knows that he made his debut early, had a huge absence then played many Tests in not an absolute long period without missing many games.

 

[Prince EWS]

In your opinion it's not, but it's a perfectly reasonable point on the whole idea of longevity when two players have played a substantial (what exactly is substantial is probably a fair question) amount of Cricket, my argument is not solely on McGrath vs. Walsh - I don't have an agenda for McGrath to be higher, it could well be an argument of Inzamam vs. Mark Waugh or any other example.

The amount of deliveries that Walsh bowled in non-Tests mean exactly 0 on the grand scheme of these Tests rankings.

How does someone like Hayden go longevity wise? Of course everyone knows that he made his debut early, had a huge absence then played many Tests in not an absolute long period without missing many games.

Hayden's longevity is rated at 9.05.

 

[NUFAN]

PEWS sees it in this way - If he is the manager of a team for 15 years starting from today and he is given 2 options:

1. Play Walsh for next 15 years
2. Play McGrath for next 11 years,

he'll choose option 1 (considering McGrath's place will be taken by an average bowler for the 4 years after he retires).

So this is all a hindsight thing? A manager doesn't get to watch a players entire career before deciding who to pick. #captainobvious

 

[NUFAN]

Hayden's longevity is rated at 9.05.

Cool. I have no idea where that number actually rates him though.

 

[Flem274*]

So this is all a hindsight thing? A manager doesn't get to watch a players entire career before deciding who to pick. #captainobvious

Then we might as well stop picking all time elevens.

 

[smash84]

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?

 

[Prince EWS]

Cool. I have no idea where that number actually rates him though.

It means he 'effectively' played nine years worth of cricket.