Murdoch companies make their fortunes by taking complex pieces of information and making them simple; it's worked across tabloid newspapers and television channels for forty years. They have a nose for what the punter likes, and a saucy strike rate is the sexiest new stat in cricket. It's easily understandable, and it's a comparatively big number.
T20 has produced an obvious demand for new ways of measuring player data. Batting average doesn't cut it for T20, it's too skewed. In Test cricket a benchmark of, say, 40 works across the top six. It's universal enough to apply to each of those batting positions. But in T20, the opportunity for numbers one, two and three batsmen to build higher averages than those coming in after over number 10 is far greater. Equally, a number six or seven in a decent side may get a very high proportion of not outs. Either way, the average loses meaning, and stats are all about meaning.
So strike rate measures the speed of scoring, which is meaningful. But it feels as though it needs a supplement, a stat that tells you over what period that speed has been sustained. Average would be the obvious measure, but again it doesn't feel accurate enough. The skewing mentioned above is one reason. Another is that high team scores in T20 generally come from using a variety of batsmen to optimum effect: blazing hitting is usually suited to shorter individual innings, and individual wickets hold less value than they do in longer games.
So what measure should sit alongside strike rate? Maybe it should be average duration of innings, or average number of balls faced. Something like: 's/r 150.33, av b/f 28.1'
Now like KP, maths is not my strongpoint. I guess that multiplying those two stats out would result in something very much like an average. But batting effectiveness might be more clearly stated via the method above.
Over to you, stattos.