Pakistan vs Australia (in the UAE)

(Log in to remove this ad.)

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dez!

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Posts
30,174
Likes
20,666
Location
Melbourne, Victoria
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Chicago Bulls

Damon_3388

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Posts
30,756
Likes
23,475
Location
Headed for Kirribilli House
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
How is average not important?
Because looking at a bowler's economy rate and strike rate gives a more accurate picture of their effectiveness, or where they might be going wrong. Average is lazy and can be misleading.

For example, someone like Mitchell Starc has an average-looking bowling average (34.09), but has actually taken wickets (one every 61.1 balls) with just as much regularity as Peter Siddle (one every 61.2 balls) so far in their respective Test careers. Not trying to claim that Starc is a better bowler than Siddle (he's not), but economy rate and strike rate just provide a fuller picture. When looking at career stats for bowlers, I always look at those two figures before anything else (with economy rate of 3.00 or less and strike rate of 60.0 or less in mind as "good" for First Class cricket, 5.00/45.00 as "good" for List A cricket, and 7.25/18.0 as "good" for T20 cricket) .
 
Last edited:

ObieWan

All Australian
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Posts
608
Likes
454
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Siddle is a better bowler than Starc. So their averages are important in figuring out who is the better bowler.

You could also just watch Starc to see he's gash. Lyon sucks. Average of 19 million, strike rate of once a year, economy of 1,254.
 

Damon_3388

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Posts
30,756
Likes
23,475
Location
Headed for Kirribilli House
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
Siddle is a better bowler than Starc. So their averages are important in figuring out who is the better bowler.
Yeah, but the average doesn't tell you why Siddle is better. Having a look at their economy rates and strike rates shows us that they take wickets at the same rate, however Siddle is more economical. As I said, average is lazy and not as informative.
 

Carbine Chaos

Jubilant Masto
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Posts
47,004
Likes
53,421
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Everton, Delhi, Perth
Because looking at a bowler's economy rate and strike rate gives a more accurate picture of their effectiveness, or where they might be going wrong. Average is lazy and can be misleading.

For example, someone like Mitchell Starc has an average-looking bowling average (34.09), but has actually taken wickets (one every 61.1 balls) with just as much regularity as Peter Siddle (one every 61.2 balls) so far in their respective Test careers. Not trying to claim that Starc is a better bowler than Siddle (he's not), but economy rate and strike rate just provide a fuller picture. When looking at career stats for bowlers, I always look at those two figures before anything else (with economy rate of 3.00 or less and strike rate of 60.0 or less in mind as "good" for First Class cricket, 5.00/45.00 as "good" for List A cricket, and 7.25/18.0 as "good" for T20 cricket) .
Nah. At the end of the day, Tests are decided by how many wickets are taken for how many runs; not on economy, or how regularly those wickets fall.

Sure, they serve a purpose; but bowling averages are seen as the most important measure of a bowler for a reason.
 

Illinois Nazi

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Posts
15,102
Likes
19,833
Location
Why? You stalking me?
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Whoever's winning
Nah. At the end of the day, Tests are decided by how many wickets are taken for how many runs; not on economy, or how regularly those wickets fall.

Sure, they serve a purpose; but bowling averages are seen as the most important measure of a bowler for a reason.
Average is seen as the #1 measure (for both batting and bowling) mainly because it was around a long time before anyone ever dreamed up things called "strike rate" and "economy". But they can all tell you something.
 

Underdog

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Posts
23,504
Likes
10,390
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Swan Districts
Nah. At the end of the day, Tests are decided by how many wickets are taken for how many runs; not on economy, or how regularly those wickets fall.

Sure, they serve a purpose; but bowling averages are seen as the most important measure of a bowler for a reason.
I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging a set of statistical criteria that further enhance the assessment of a player.

Games of football are won by goals, but if you have similar forwards where player A is averaging 3 from being the target 12 times compared to player B kicking 2 from being a target 5 times, you have a more detailed picture to assess their worth and potential to improve.
 

Damon_3388

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Posts
30,756
Likes
23,475
Location
Headed for Kirribilli House
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
Nah. At the end of the day, Tests are decided by how many wickets are taken for how many runs; not on economy, or how regularly those wickets fall.
Well, the more economical you are and the more often you take wickets, the better bowler you're going to be.

Sure, they serve a purpose; but bowling averages are seen as the most important measure of a bowler for a reason.
It's lazy and sometimes misleading.

I mean, for example, (yes, small sample size I know) most would say Mitch Marsh bowled decently in the first innings without much luck, but if he takes a wicket now, his average for the match makes it look like he bowled poorly and possibly got belted, when in fact he's been quite economical.

It's a traditionalist vs. "moneyball" concept in a way. Personally, I've never understood the point of statistics that are vague and misleading like simple average in cricket. I want to have as much detail as possible, and if you can determine the reason for things through the numbers in a static game like cricket or baseball, why not I say.

I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging a set of statistical criteria that further enhance the assessment of a player.

Games of football are won by goals, but if you have similar forwards where player A is averaging 3 from being the target 12 times compared to player B kicking 2 from being a target 5 times, you have a more detailed picture to assess their worth and potential to improve.
Exactly.
 

Millky95

Starchild > You
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Posts
25,914
Likes
24,754
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Renegades
Each is important but personally depends on the game and circumstances.
Average: tests. You want a bowler who can get less runs per wicket
ODI: strike rate. Need to take wickets really fast with such a limited time
T20: economy. Dont want to be chasing a lot

With batting though averages sometimes can be misleading. At one point Johnson had a career average better than Bradman and had nearly reached the minimum innings requires. Why? He had only gone out once. Scored i think it was 140~ before he went out a second time. Was Johnson a better batter than Bradman?
 

Carbine Chaos

Jubilant Masto
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Posts
47,004
Likes
53,421
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Everton, Delhi, Perth
It's lazy and sometimes misleading.

I mean, for example, (yes, small sample size I know) most would say Mitch Marsh bowled decently in the first innings without much luck, but if he takes a wicket now, his average for the match makes it look like he bowled poorly and possibly got belted, when in fact he's been quite economical.
If he got a wicket now, his SR would be balls as well as his average.

Economy is good but if it isn't supplemented by wickets then it's not going to cut it.

They are certainly all useful in their own ways, and really, if a bowler excels in both SR and economy his average will be excellent anyway.
 
Top Bottom