Peak vs Longevity - Best Way to Judge Players?

[Prince EWS]

Wouldn't winning series privilege McGrath over Hadlee and Warne over Murali by default?

Nah, teams actually winning series is never just down to who played on the winning team. I think Sam Curran has one the best Test winning percentages ever.

How much they contributed, or could have theoretically contributed to other teams if they were playing for them, is what we should be judging.

If we're must judging skill then I not only think that Wasim > McGrath but I think Anderson > Steyn too. But McGrath and Steyn were better because if I wanted to win lots of series over a long period I'd take them instead.

 

[subshakerz]

If we're must judging skill then I not only think that Wasim > McGrath but I think Anderson > Steyn too. But McGrath and Steyn were better because if I wanted to win lots of series over a long period I'd take them instead.

Then matches won makes more sense than series won in evaluating bowler performance.

I agree effectiveness is the most important criteria but it has to be contextualized. I care more about matches where the bowlers contributed to victory, but when you stretch it to series victories then so many variables of other team member performances come into equation. One bowler becomes less of a defining factor.

 

[Ali TT]

Depends on how the question is asked I think. If you're asking me to pick an hypothetical ATG XI and I could be guaranteed my selections will be playing at their best, then I'd be selecting based upon peak no matter how ephemeral it might have been. Longevity becomes a significant (but far from only) factor if you're asking me who I think is the greatest player of all time.

Example: of players I've seen, I'd have KP in my XI based upon the first criterion even though he'd not be in my top 5-6 batters under the second.

 

[subshakerz]

Depends on how the question is asked I think. If you're asking me to pick an hypothetical ATG XI and I could be guaranteed my selections will be playing at their best, then I'd be selecting based upon peak no matter how ephemeral it might have been. Longevity becomes a significant (but far from only) factor if you're asking me who I think is the greatest player of all time.

Example: of players I've seen, I'd have KP in my XI based upon the first criterion even though he'd not be in my top 5-6 batters under the second.

What if you are told that the ATG XI players will produce output based on their overall record.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

I'd definitely rather have a cricketer who helped me win more series across his career than one who achieved some kind of mystical level of skill for a few months. Talking about the latter can be fun but it has basically no bearing in my mind as to who was actually 'better'.

Then I suppose you don't rate Kallis at all.

 

[Ali TT]

What if you are told that the ATG XI players will produce output based on their overall record.

But then I think that just simplifies to the second criterion and what's the point of having a dream ATG XI if you can't get those players at their best?

 

[cnerd123]

What I don't like seeing is when players get penalised for longevity. When people say that a couple of poor years at either end of a player's career 'hurts' their legacy.

Longevity has to matter more, otherwise it favours those who were lucky to play only while at their peak above players who were a first choice selection for much longer - which ultimately penalises players from weaker teams.

 

[subshakerz]

What I don't like seeing is when players get penalised for longevity. When people say that a couple of poor years at either end of a player's career 'hurts' their legacy.

Longevity has to matter more, otherwise it favours those who were lucky to play only while at their peak above players who were a first choice selection for much longer - which ultimately penalises players from weaker teams.

So if a player does well in longevity, give him more credit, if he doesn't do well, give him a pass? Seems inconsistent.

 

[subshakerz]

But then I think that just simplifies to the second criterion and what's the point of having a dream ATG XI if you can't get those players at their best?

Because if you are just going to get players playing at the peak we should just include many non-ATGs who enjoyed a great few years.

 

[cnerd123]

So if a player does well in longevity, give him more credit, if he doesn't do well, give him a pass? Seems inconsistent.

if you use the same method for all players then it is consistent by defintion.

 

[Ali TT]

Because if you are just going to get players playing at the peak we should just include many non-ATGs who enjoyed a great few years.

Depends how good those few years were and the reasons why they didn't last for longer. But we also have players who didn't necessarily have a clearly discernible peak period, more that they produced elite level peak performances across their career. For England, KP and Broad would fit into that camp, Bell and Cook as having obvious purple patches and Anderson the sustained performance over a long timeframe.

 

[subshakerz]

Depends how good those few years were and the reasons why they didn't last for longer. But we also have players who didn't necessarily have a clearly discernible peak period, more that they produced elite level peak performances across their career. For England, KP and Broad would fit into that camp, Bell and Cook as having obvious purple patches and Anderson the sustained performance over a long timeframe.

What about Ian Bishop or Botham? Do you rate them based on their peaks alone?

 

[subshakerz]

if you use the same method for all players then it is consistent by defintion.

Yes but it is a contradictory standard to apply.

 

[cnerd123]

Yes but it is a contradictory standard to apply.

What standard?

 

[honestbharani]

What standard?

Any facts which go against subzi s biased takes.

 

[subshakerz]

What standard?

Simultaneously crediting players for good post-peak performance while ignoring bad post-peak performance. It is wrong. Those late runs and wickets either matter or they don't.

The most consistent standard is to judge them based on the entirety of their record, while allowing some limited lenience in judging the overall numbers based on certain periods in which the circumstances are well outside the norm of international cricketers.

So for example, Wasim's overall record would probably put him in the range of below ATG, except we can admit he debuted extraordinarily early by international cricket standards and his early career numbers were impacted by that, hence we can understand his overall record should perhaps be a bit better.

Greg Chappell is another who played less tests in his career by modern ATG international cricketer standards yet this can be accounted for with him playing WSC years and succeeding during that.

However, we shouldn't exclude records of impacted through injuries or playing past your sell-by date since this situation happens to perhaps the majority of international cricketers and there is no reason to give exceptions based on this.

Let me know if you understand the point.

 

[subshakerz]

Any facts which go against subzi s biased takes.

I don't mind the insults but can you occasionally post something of substance too, resembling an argument?

 

[cnerd123]

Simultaneously crediting players for good post-peak performance while ignoring bad post-peak performance.

This is something you've invented, I never said this.

 

[Victor Ian]

Simultaneously crediting players for good post-peak performance while ignoring bad post-peak performance. It is wrong. Those late runs and wickets either matter or they don't.

The most consistent standard is to judge them based on the entirety of their record, while allowing some limited lenience in judging the overall numbers based on certain periods in which the circumstances are well outside the norm of international cricketers.

So for example, Wasim's overall record would probably put him in the range of below ATG, except we can admit he debuted extraordinarily early by international cricket standards and his early career numbers were impacted by that, hence we can understand his overall record should perhaps be a bit better.

However, we shouldn't exclude records of impacted through injuries or playing past your sell-by date since this situation happens to perhaps the majority of international cricketers and there is no reason to give exceptions based on this.

Let me know if you understand the point.

Nah - you can't play much past your use by date when there is a good team coming through. You get axed before you hurt your average. Reduced figures are the fault of the selectors, rather than yourself, because they should have just offed you. I'm not sure where the limit is, but if you play at an exceptional level for that limit - you are rated on that, and not all the other stuff. Longevity should ONLY be a bonus, and never a negative.

 

[shortpitched713]

That usually gets Botham over Kapil though they ended with closely similar averages.

I think this is right. Botham was capable of better performance with either bat or ball, although I have a very small margin for him for both.

The way I look at it, is for in an all-time greati match if you were to take a random version of a player throughout their career, what is the expected value of that aggregate (given he had an, admittedly subjectively determined, adequately voluminous Test career). That would seem to favor longevity, but for me there is extra impact in this match provided by a player if at any of those slices in time you have access to a truly transcendent force with either ball or bat. It's not worth the same as a simple "average" of all those slices, if that makes sense.