The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Zinzan]

It's called ODI CricSim, and it runs in Flash ActionScript 3.0. It uses averages, strike rates and fours and sixes per thousand balls for the batsmen, and strike rates and economy rates for the bowlers. It runs ball by ball Monte Carlo simulations at around 15 matches per second.

Cheers mate, just had my first crack.

NZ vs Aust.

NZ
Guptill 37 (43)
Astle 44 (41)
KW 102 (93)
M D Crowe 32 (38)
Taylor 5 (6)
BMac+ 61 (54)
C Cairns 11 (6)
Hadlee 13 (7)
Vettori 22 (10)
Mills 2 (2)

NZ Total 344/8

Australia managed 278/7 in the reply.

NZ win by 66 runs.

If only that was the WC final, although to be fair that's an ATG NZ side.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Cheers mate, just had my first crack.

NZ vs Aust.

NZ
Guptill 37 (43)
Astle 44 (41)
KW 102 (93)
M D Crowe 32 (38)
Taylor 5 (6)
BMac+ 61 (54)
C Cairns 11 (6)
Hadlee 13 (7)
Vettori 22 (10)
Mills 2 (2)

NZ Total 344/8

Australia managed 278/7 in the reply.

NZ win by 66 runs.

If only that was the WC final, although to be fair that's an ATG NZ side without Bond.

People normally run the simulator through a 100 or 200 matches.

 

[Zinzan]

People normally run the simulator through a 100 or 200 matches.

Not me & btw Bond was the number eleven not required to bat at 8 down.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Not me

You should. Run it on Turbo, its simpler and quicker. A one match simulation has little or next to none at all statistical value. You need the simulator to run a sample size for any meaning to be given to the simulator's results - else all you have could be an outlier.

& btw Bond was the number eleven not required to bat at 8 down.

Zing.

Still - does Mills really make an TGT team? Much debate could be had there. But zing.

But now I criticize the your lack of batting and over supply of bowling options. Hadlee batting at 9 normally produces a much stronger ATG team.

 

[Zinzan]

You should. Run it on Turbo, its simpler and quicker. A one match simulation has little or next to none at all statistical value. You need the simulator to run a sample size for any meaning to be given to the simulator's results - else all you have could be an outlier.

Jeez mate, I'm not taking it that seriously, thought I'd do it once for the novelty factor. Besides, KV81 provides those meaty analysis.

I have Mills marginally ahead of Pringle, Chatfield & Boult atm. Has a damn fine record for the era he played in, but unless injury plays a part, I expect Boult to nick his spot very soon.

 

[Gob]

Even Ricky Ponting's mum knows that Williamson is a better ODI bat than Ponting.

Look I know decent batsmen dont come along all that often for New Zealand so it must be very hard to not to get excited when one comes along but seriously **** off with Williamson.

 

[Red]

There is no reason to think Williamson is better than Ponting as an ODI batsman.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Dan and I just ran a 50,000,000 ball simulation to find the best of the ODI teams offered in recent pages. This is what we found:

Final Results

Champion: West Indies (14,000 wins from 22,633 matches, 61.9%)
2: South Africa (13,441 wins from 23,460 matches, 57.3%)
3: New Zealand (13,168 wins from 23,019 matches, 57.2%)
4. Australia (12,738 wins from 23,294 matches, 54.7%)
5. Pakistan (11,871 wins from 24,737 matches, 48.0%)
6. India (11,919 wins from 25,129 matches, 47.4%)
7. England (11,276 wins from 24,635 matches, 45.8%)
8. Sri Lanka (7,644 wins from 21,644 matches, 35.3%)

Australia could probably move up a bit if it was balanced better. I suspect Bevan is the ATG No. 5 but wouldn't be No. 5 in an ATG team, because his SR is too low. Probably Aussie would do better with Maxwell there.

All the teams used, player stats used and head to head results are in my sig link "Finding an ODI ATG XI" that Dan put together.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Careful Kiwivik, the natives can get restless if you challenge the slow SR of beloved batsmen.

Was Hussey in the team?

 

[Prince EWS]

Whenever you say Dan I immediately think of CW member Dan and get confused. You should call him something else IMO. I suggest Steve.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

There is no reason to think Williamson is better than Ponting as an ODI batsman.

Well sure, if you ignore SR, average and innings per 100 and more reasons, then there is no reason.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The only current young ODI batsman who probably deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Ponting is Virat Kohli. Williamson has a long way to go to even catch up with Kohli, let alone Ponting.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

The only current young ODI batsman who probably deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Ponting is Virat Kohli. Williamson has a long way to go to even catch up with Kohli, let alone Ponting.

Is this like a career sum of runs and centuries scored?

The ol' Tendulkar is better than Bradman argument?

Yeah, no thanks.

85 matches is a fair sample with which to start making comparisons.

Sure Kohli and Williamson could tank their careers from this point in time. But they may not. We can compare what they have achieved at this point in time against retired players. They've played enough games for it not to be an entirely futile exercise.

The reality is, if Williamson maintains his current SR and average and inngings per century ratio, all of which are better than Ponting's, he can more than be mentioned in the same breadth as Punter.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Careful Kiwivik, the natives can get restless if you challenge the slow SR of beloved batsmen.

Was Hussey in the team?

Hussey was 5. Bevan 6. Couldn't justify having Bevan ahead of Hussey because their averages are similar but Hussey strikes at 87 and Bevan at 74, so Hussey really had to go ahead.

I suspect this is how NZ beat Aussie. Bevan would have faced Hadlee a lot with Hadlee's ER of 3.3. This would have meant Aussie strangled itself at a point in the innings when NZ have Anderson, McCullum and Lance Cairns.

I'll do a Bevan vs Maxwell head to head sim to test it out, with both players at 6 after Hussey.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Whenever you say Dan I immediately think of CW member Dan and get confused. You should call him something else IMO. I suggest Steve.

Yeah the first few times I mentioned him I added "not the CW Dan" but got sick of it haha.

 

[Red]

Have a feeling this sort of stuff needs an adjusted era average and especially SR thing happening

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Hussey was 5. Bevan 6. Couldn't justify having Bevan ahead of Hussey because their averages are similar but Hussey strikes at 87 and Bevan at 74, so Hussey really had to go ahead.

I suspect this is how NZ beat Aussie. Bevan would have faced Hadlee a lot with Hadlee's ER of 3.3. This would have meant Aussie strangled itself at a point in the innings when NZ have Anderson, McCullum and Lance Cairns.

I'll do a Bevan vs Maxwell head to head sim to test it out, with both players at 6 after Hussey.

I think Maxwell may win that contest. His 33 runs average at the fantastic SR of 126 is incredibly valuable. Those are real runs scored too, not an inflated not out average (6 no in 52 matches).

I think Watson may be more valuable than Bevan as well with 40 at 90SR.

Back to actual runs scored average. Maxwell averages 27 runs per match scored at a SR of 126. Bevan averages 29 actual runs scored per match at a SR of 74. I'd take Maxwell with Hussey and Punter batting ahead of him.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Is this like a career sum of runs and centuries scored?

The ol' Tendulkar is better than Bradman argument?

Yeah, no thanks.

85 matches is a fair sample with which to start making comparisons.

Sure Kohli and Williamson could tank their careers from this point in time. But they may not. We can compare what they have achieved at this point in time against retired players. They've played enough games for it not to be an entirely futile exercise.

The reality is, if Williamson maintains his current SR and average and inngings per century ratio, all of which are better than Ponting's, he can more than be mentioned in the same breadth as Punter.

Love how Williamson became analogous to Bradman in your post. 10/10.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Have a feeling this sort of stuff needs an adjusted era average and especially SR thing happening

The AI adjusts it all on the fly. Batsmen like Bevan will naturally last until the end of the innings and raise their strike rate near the end. The thing is that I just don't think Bevan was that good, once you accept that strike rate is equal or near to as important as average for an ODI batsman. In other teams there are guys like de Villiers, Anderson, Buttler. Razzaq, Maxwell et al. already hitting out at 6 while Bevan is ticking things over at 74.

I think the problem is the ATG scenario. I expect that if you ran a sim with two teams of spuds and added Bevan to one of them it would make a bigger difference than if you added almost any other player. But when you're comparing him exclusively to de Villiers, Root, Dhoni, Taylor et al (i.e. the best of the best) his SR is a liability.

The real unresolved question with the whole ATG discussion is this. Are we selecting ATG *players*, or ATG *teams*? The two things overlap to a large, but far from exclusive, degree.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

The AI adjusts it all on the fly. Batsmen like Bevan will naturally last until the end of the innings and raise their strike rate near the end. The thing is that I just don't think Bevan was that good, once you accept that strike rate is equal or near to as important as average for an ODI batsman. In other teams there are guys like de Villiers, Anderson, Buttler. Razzaq, Maxwell et al. already hitting out at 6 while Bevan is ticking things over at 74.

I think the problem is the ATG scenario. I expect that if you ran a sim with two teams of spuds and added Bevan to one of them it would make a bigger difference than if you added almost any other player. But when you're comparing him exclusively to de Villiers, Root, Dhoni, Taylor et al (i.e. the best of the best) his SR is a liability.

The real unresolved question with the whole ATG discussion is this. Are we selecting ATG *players*, or ATG *teams*? The two things overlap to a large, but far from exclusive, degree.

The low SR of Bevan also coincides with a high average and a lower position in the batting order meaning many not outs. His actual runs per match average is 29 slow runs. Maxwell is a much faster 27 runs per match, when another lower order batsman can then face more balls, and more runs are scored.

Bevan is better after a top order collapse, but Punter, Hayden, Hussey et al mean there will not be too many of those. I think Maxwell is more valuable at 6- more so if Watson is at 7 or 8.