Best distribution of runs

[Bolo.]

A 3 or 400 is likely coming in easy circumstances and probably isn't having as positive an impact on results as 3 or 4 scores of 100 would.

Is this true at every level?

Are 2 50s likely to be better than 1 100 and a zero? Or 2 25s in relation to 50 and zero?

 

[CricAddict]

I will take 4 hundreds in 4 tests from my batsman instead of a 400 and then 3 ducks.

 

[Coronis]

A 3 or 400 is likely coming in easy circumstances and probably isn't having as positive an impact on results as 3 or 4 scores of 100 would.

Is this true at every level?

Are 2 50s likely to be better than 1 100 and a zero? Or 2 25s in relation to 50 and zero?

I’d say somewhere between 50-100 is where it’d be more valuable, depending on the wicket ofc.

Below 50 isn’t likely to be as big an impact as an individual higher score.

 

[TheJediBrah]

150 is the sweet spot for me, as a median ideal value.

Of course the value of quantity of runs for any single innings is entirely context dependent

 

[howitzer]

I'd like to add that the conditions can severely affect what is or isn't a good score. If there's some life in the pitch and aerial conditions are conducive to swing a 60-70 can be seen as invaluable whereas, on a flat wicket on a clear day the same score would undoubtedly be seen as a missed opportunity.

 

[Bolo.]

How high scoring the game is will be a factor. Less of a gap in the scoring margins.

I have a feeling that looking at lower scoring games gives a more accurate idea of influence- for a high team score, a draw may be on the cards regardless of whether a bat fails or goes big.