Just check their top scoring innings and the majority of the circumstances they scored those runs.
Ok, really should be working, but going to try to articulate this as it is in my head.
We're working with hypotheticals and the though process is that we want to have a stronger no.8 even at the expense of a (slightly or otherwise) superior bowler. And this is because a better batsman down the order can help to extend the innings from time to time, leading to an indeterminate number of runs. This could, again theoretically, either avert a collapse or capitalize on what the batsmen have done in the innings.
So let's optimistically say on average that adds an extra 20 to 40 runs per innings, is that worth potentially not having the best attack on the field? Who knows how much runs that could potentially cause.
And let's go even further, i'm one of possible 3 people in CW that thinks we should factor in slip fielding, but most don't. We're trying to determine how much a hypothetical bowling AR would add in runs, but how much runs does it cost when we drop the other teams Bradman at first slip? One of Bradman's hundreds vs the west indies was because we dropped him in the slips while in single digits, it happens. How much runs, or matches could that cost compared to not having a no. 8 that can bat. I find we selectively decide what skills are valuable or necessary with regards to wins and losses. We look at , oh he averaged more with the bat. As a Pakistani fan during the WWs era, which would have cost or led to more defeats, tail end collapses or dropped catches?
And I say again, yes from time to time we get rear guard resistance that lead to victories or even to teams hanging on to draws. But how many of those are from the ARs or just normal tailenders fighting back? Plus these level of attacks should blow through lower order batsmen with some regularity. But just my opinion.
Sorry for yet another ramble.