Is there more difference between ATG bats or bowlers?

[subshakerz]

Ignoring Bradman and also allowing for more bats than bowlers in general, is there generally more difference and difficulty separating ATG bats or bowlers?

 

[Chin Music]

In my opinion it is broadly similar. There is always going to be an issue over where a player plays most of their cricket and what the prevailing conditions entail, the general quality of the opposition and whom they perform best against.

 

[shortpitched713]

The bowlers are easier to separate, because subtle differences in average compound over a long time and can have a disproportionate effect.

All else equal, if a bowler averages 25, he could be twice as useful as a bowler averaging 30, and similarly a bolwer averaging 20 could be twice as useful still, for the highest leverage, matchwinning moments.

Batsmen being inherently a bit more inconsistent, a 50 average vs 55 can't be looked as as much more than a 10 runs to total over a given match. Then you have the subjectivity of when they made those runs, context, clutch, etc. It makes it much harder with similar average batsmen to separate.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Bowlers are lot more valuable. McGrath is ofc gonna win you lot more matches than someone like Hobbs despite being of similar quality.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Bowlers are lot more valuable. McGrath is ofc gonna win you lot more matches than someone like Hobbs despite being of similar quality.

What does that have to do with the thread?

 

[Starfighter]

The bowlers are easier to separate, because subtle differences in average compound over a long time and can have a disproportionate effect.

All else equal, if a bowler averages 25, he could be twice as useful as a bowler averaging 30, and similarly a bolwer averaging 20 could be twice as useful still, for the highest leverage, matchwinning moments.

Batsmen being inherently a bit more inconsistent, a 50 average vs 55 can't be looked as as much more than a 10 runs to total over a given match. Then you have the subjectivity of when they made those runs, context, clutch, etc. It makes it much harder with similar average batsmen to separate.

Your batting and bowling comparisons aren't equivalent. The overall batting/bowling average is in the region of 32-33, so your worse bowler is proportionally much worse than your worse batsman. This is partly because you're forgetting that the wickets that compose a bowlers' average consist of both good and bad batsmen. Comparing a 30 vs a 25 bowling average is closer to comparing, say, a 40 vs 48 batting average, - don't think there's a way to make genuine equivalencies, but it's better than your example.

You can spin your comparison around. If you caveat that both bowlers take four wickets a match, does the extra ten runs from a bowler averaging 25 matter vs one averaging 22.5?

So you state "a bolwer averaging 20 could be twice as useful still, for the highest leverage, matchwinning moments" but forget the same applies to batsman. After all, a batsman's average is composed of their good and bad scores. Tendulkar's most common score was zero (I just checked). But just as you find that better averaging bowlers tend to take more wickets and have "highest leverage, matchwinning moments", better averaging batsmen tend to score more big innings. That's what made Don Bradman so good - he could reel off big innings that could set up a match like no-one else.

 

[shortpitched713]

Your batting and bowling comparisons aren't equivalent. The overall batting/bowling average is in the region of 32-33, so your worse bowler is proportionally much worse than your worse batsman. This is partly because you're forgetting that the wickets that compose a bowlers' average consist of both good and bad batsmen. Comparing a 30 vs a 25 bowling average is closer to comparing, say, a 40 vs 48 batting average, - don't think there's a way to make genuine equivalencies, but it's better than your example.

You can spin your comparison around. If you caveat that both bowlers take four wickets a match, does the extra ten runs from a bowler averaging 25 matter vs one averaging 22.5?

So you state "a bolwer averaging 20 could be twice as useful still, for the highest leverage, matchwinning moments" but forget the same applies to batsman. After all, a batsman's average is composed of their good and bad scores. Tendulkar's most common score was zero (I just checked). But just as you find that better averaging bowlers tend to take more wickets and have "highest leverage, matchwinning moments", better averaging batsmen tend to score more big innings. That's what made Don Bradman so good - he could reel off big innings that could set up a match like no-one else.

The problem with the caveat is that why should we assume that two bowlers are taking the same amount of wickets? You'd want to use the very best bowlers as much as possible, while they are still very effective (and aren't being put in risk of injury). It is somewhat of an extreme example, but illustrative still that a bowler like Murali, could be both used the most frequently, and in the highest leverage moments.

You can't do that with batsmen, where everyone gets to bat twice per match maximum, and that's it. You might hazard an educated guess that the 3-5 positions are going to be highest leverage in a given match, but you never really know all that precisely.

 

[social]

Difficult question to answer because of the variables but generally speaking you pick the better bowler because you need to take 20 wickets to win

If it’s a choice between McGrath and Anderson then I am taking the former all day long while a choice between Viv and Steve Smith probably won’t matter all that much despite the difference in averages

 

[capt_Luffy]

Difficult question to answer because of the variables but generally speaking you pick the better bowler because you need to take 20 wickets to win

If it’s a choice between McGrath and Anderson then I am taking the former all day long while a choice between Viv and Steve Smith probably won’t matter all that much despite the difference in averages

I think it's a flawed example. Viv and Smith are much closer (so much so, it's tough to say who is better) than McGrath and Anderson are.

 

[social]

I think it's a flawed example. Viv and Smith are much closer (so much so, it's tough to say who is better) than McGrath and Anderson are.

People are relying upon stats and there’s a big difference between Smith and Viv

 

[Chin Music]

People are relying upon stats and there’s a big difference between Smith and Viv

Relying on stats alone is a huge issue. Tough to judge two very different players playing in two different eras. Smith does have the edge for me because he's scored tons against a wider range of opposition than Richards did, although Richards would never get to play South Africa, Bangladesh Zimbabwe or even Sri Lanka.

 

[social]

Relying on stats alone is a huge issue. Tough to judge two very different players playing in two different eras. Smith does have the edge for me because he's scored tons against a wider range of opposition than Richards did, although Richards would never get to play South Africa, Bangladesh Zimbabwe or even Sri Lanka.

I actually rate Viv above Smith but don’t really mind which of the two I get to pick