Based on your opinion, how many runs...

[Debris]

Dwayne Leverock is an ATG slip fielder

He certainly covered more ground than the average slip fielder.

 

[Daemon]

Always made a huge impact on the field

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, he was fatastic.

 

[Daemon]

Has certainly set the scale really high for the others. The sheer weight of his performances will no doubt have others struggling to match his massive stature as a cricketer.

 

[Гурин]

I do agree a good slip catcher is more valuable then a cover/point stopper in test cricket.

Well, as I already told Rob... no.

Just take a look at the simple math I did for Mark Waugh: if we put the contribution of a standard slip at 70% of his, that would mean roughly a wicket less every 3 matches (which translates to 6-7 runs per innings); and Redbacks calculation was not far away (5 and something runs). As good and impressive as it is, if you have some off-side fielder who can stop already 2-3 balls per innings which would have been missed by your average fielder, that's more; also, you have to put runouts into the equation.

How many times the batsmen didn't take the single because the ball went to Ponting? Quite a few every test match, I believe, and those are runs saved. Put there the strong arm, and the twos became ones. Not to mention the fact that the Tasmanian was above average also in both runouts and catches; so, I'm prone to give him more that those 6 runs of Waugh's.




Ok then, as I've seen that the topic of this thread doesn't enjoy much interest, I'll push the emergency button (please God forgive me for what I'm going to write, but it's for the best);


I really believe Ponting is massively underrated as an ATG; the very fact that Tendulkar gets picked more often than him in the various XI is extremely unjust, because people are not taking FIELDING in the equations.

First of all, I want to make clear that Tendulkar is surely the best batsman of the last 25 years; his technique, his elegance and his astonishing numbers speaks for him. However, Ponting doesn't fall so much behind; avg is 53 to 56, and innings per 100 is 6,74 to 5,84.

Clearly Tendulkar has the edge, and I believe those 3 or 4 runs per innings of difference between the two to be a fair indicator.

BUT, and you saw this coming, I think that Ponting is massively screwed by the fact that there's no method to determine the runs one has saved in the field.

Sure, we know that the aussie boy has taken around 75 more catches in around 25 less matches, and if these were ODIs we'd have to take the Master Blaster's bowling into account (avg of 50 in tests doesn't help him), but the feeling is that the per-fielding-innings between the two is way higher than that 3-4 runs of difference in their batting average.

The problem being, we don't know how much it is. We don't know where Tendulkar ranks as a fielder. I admit to take this "can of worms" comparison just to shed some light on the problem, because, that's my feeling, great fielders are extremly mistreated whenever it comes down to players rankings, awards and even selections. So, is there any way to solve this problem? I would say that, while perfection is still above horizon, there's massive room for improvement, even only with new scorecards; just by beginning to record "stops" and "drops"; even better if, along with "catches", we divide them for fielding positions. For past games it would be tough, to sit through hundred of test matches to record new data, but it could be done. Of course this should be the boards' job, but I'm wondering if they're

1- Already doing it
2- Happy for things to stay as they are


That's why I made this poll, and I found it amazing that very few people dared to take a punt in the number of runs a player's fielding means to his team (and those who did, were all on absolutely different positions). If nobody knows, can you blame them to avoid using it as a valid metre for measurement? Of course not.


Last thing, I'll give you one example from baseball (I can't stand to watch a game of that one-shot sport, but they know how to do their stats): Derek Jeter was considered, thanks to his diving catches and stops, to be the best fielder in MLB, winning five time the Golden Glove. Then, when they began to track stats, they discovered that he was, in fact, the WORST fielder in the whole league, costing his team quite a few runs every year. Eyes and highlights can be deceptive.

 

[Neil Pickup]

This is heading to Sabermetrics, isn't it?

Would be interesting to do a full analysis at some stage of missed/saved runs over a test series - and see how much impact fielders do have, numerically. Although, even just writing this, what's the difference between good fielding and poor running? Or good running versus poor fielding?

I'm a bit of a greenhorn on baseball stats, but I am assuming much of it is just the error count... am I over-simplifying?

 

[Гурин]

This is heading to Sabermetrics, isn't it?

Well, not exactly. Don't forget that, compared to them, we have a much stronger currency to value a player's performance, which is runs. But I wouldn't go now to a comparison between the meaning of a run in the two games. Meanwhile, has the movie of "Moneyball" been released yet? I'm 100% sure that lot of people, and that includes those who made that movie, will misinterpret Bill James a lot (that already happened for the book, which by the way in many aspects was mediocre at best).

Would be interesting to do a full analysis at some stage of missed/saved runs over a test series - and see how much impact fielders do have, numerically. Although, even just writing this, what's the difference between good fielding and poor running? Or good running versus poor fielding?

Againg, it's all mainly about percentage plays against average; and you can measure them only on a fair enough lenghty sample size. Let's say that you take a single after a fast shot to short cover; if you run, that leads to a runout, say, 40% of time. So, even if you made it or not, that IS bad running: you've might have just been lucky. But let's say now that the guy at short cover is slow and has a weak arm, so his success rate is 5%: that means that he's a bad fielder (and probably shouldn't play there). And so on, for every shot and every position. I hope you understood the big picture here.

I'm a bit of a greenhorn on baseball stats, but I am assuming much of it is just the error count... am I over-simplifying?

Sorry, but yes you are.

Errors mean nearly nothing; I'll just give you an example, ther ar two guys fielding at deep square leg; 5 balls comes toward them. One of them reaches all of them 5, but mishandles 2; that's 2 errors. The other one reaches only 2, but catches them both.

So your first guy catches 3, and by dropping the other 2 probably saves some runs; the second catches 2, doesn't make any error, but allows three boundaries. We could have put stops instead of catches, I think you got what I mean: range is often more important than catching, moreso in deep fielding positions (less for close-in catching and slips). A problem for us is that fields et captaincy comes into the picture, but I don't think that's anything unsolvable.

 

[akilana]

I really believe Ponting is massively underrated as an ATG; the very fact that Tendulkar gets picked more often than him in the various XI is extremely unjust, because people are not taking FIELDING in the equations.

ok

 

[Stefano]

Errors mean nearly nothing; I'll just give you an example, ther ar two guys fielding at deep square leg; 5 balls comes toward them. One of them reaches all of them 5, but mishandles 2; that's 2 errors. The other one reaches only 2, but catches them both.

So your first guy catches 3, and by dropping the other 2 probably saves some runs; the second catches 2, doesn't make any error, but allows three boundaries. We could have put stops instead of catches, I think you got what I mean: range is often more important than catching, moreso in deep fielding positions (less for close-in catching and slips). A problem for us is that fields et captaincy comes into the picture, but I don't think that's anything unsolvable.

This point is fundamental in judging fielding / defense in baseball. For many years, fielding average (putouts and assists / total chances) was considered the best measure to judge defensive players and their skills on the field. However, there is one fundamental element which fielding average does not consider: RANGE. And this is what Гурин wants to underline. Let's consider this (ok, we are talking about baseball).

Player #1: 100 balls are batted into his area.
a) 90 putouts
b) 5 errors
c) 5 base hits.

Player #2: 100 balls are batted into his area.
a) 80 putouts
b) 2 errors
c) 18 base hits

Player #3: 100 balls are batted into his ara.
a) 50 putouts
b) no error
c) 50 base hits.

If we consider the FA, Player #3 is by far the best one (1.000). Player # is ok (.975). Player #3 is the worst of them all (.947). Is it true that Player #3 is the best defender? Not really. He has basically no range, since 50 balls have gone past him, allowing the batsman to reach 1st base. Player #1, instead, has made 5 errors, but he has registered 90 putouts. An error, of course, is annoying but there are two elements to consider:

1) You can't make an error if you don't reach the ball.
2) A passed ball could have never been an out. An error could have been an out.

So, making an error is better than letting the ball to pass you. Player #1 has the best range: 90 balls out of 100 have been transformed into an out! And that's the task of a defender: take the ball and prevent the batsman to reach 1st base. Altogether he had 95 chances; Player #2 had 82 chances; Player #3 only 50.

In addition: a great defender is not the one who makes spectacular catches or amazing throws out of balance. Actually, this is a perfect description of a defender with no range. A good defender reaches the ball without diving and he always throws with both feet on the ground. Гурин has mentioned Jeter. I can mention Adam Everett: he has never won a Gold Glove, his plays are seldom shown on "Plays of the Week". But his range is amazing: in his prime he was able to reach balls all over the field and most of the time he didn't need to jump or dive! And everytime he had to throw the ball, he had both his feet on the ground. Very often, he wasn't very spectacular at all!

Is it possible to shift this kind of analysis to cricket? I think it is more problematic.

1) Range. In baseball, defensive positions are extremely fixed. Every defensive player has his own zone, which is clearly (or almost) delimited. In cricket, the field is much bigger, while defensive positions are not fixed.

We might try to calculate the "distance run by each outfielder" to reach the ball. For example, a fielder at deep is able to reach the ball which has been batted far away from his position. And even though he will drop the catch, but he will definitely save a boundary. A similar procedure can be used for infielders. Think about a fielder at gully who is able to reach a ball which is far from the position where he initially stood; maybe he won't make a catch, but the ball will not leave the infield and no runs will be scored. Even though it is extremely complicated, calculating the range of each fielder would be a terrific addition to statistics.

2) Preventing runs. Гурин underlines another point. If you have a good arm, batsmen will not score an extra run. Sometimes, they won't even try to run. So, two interesting pieces of statistics could be considered:

a) Runs scored / balls batted towards a specific fielder.

100 balls are batted towards fielder #1 and 200 runs are scored out of them. 100 balls are batted towards fielder #2 and 150 runs are scored out of them. I can assume that fielder #2 is better at preventing runs.

b) Tries to score runs / balls batted towards a specific fielder.

100 balls are batted towards fielder #1: the two batsmen attempt to score runs 60 times.
100 balls are batted towards fielder #2: the two batsmen attempt to score runs 50 times.

I can assume that fielder #2 is more feared than fielder #1.

However, cricket games are extremely long! How many balls are batted in one test match? More than 2,500! Much more than baseball. So, preparing accurate statistics definitely requires lots of time.

In addition, I would suggest tha these kinds of calculation might not be that useful for TM or FCC : preventing runs is important, but the main focus is taking wickets. But for LOI and especially T20, these kinds of statistics would give a tremendous help and teams should start considering them.

 

[cnerd123]

Good post

2 problems with that.

Firstly, more runs may be scored off one fielder compared to another because the fielder may be set deeper in the field. A man at long-on is likely to have a lot more runs scored off balls batted to him compared to a man at short cover.

Secondly, how many times a batsman attempts to score runs off a fielder will also depend on where the fielders are placed, as well as the match situation and the batsmen in question. Yuvraj and MSD chasing 8 RPO will react differently to Amla and Kallis needing 4 RPO to a ball batted to the same fielder.

But overall, it's on the right track, and would be excellent for T20 and possibly LO cricket.

 

[Stefano]

You have just underlined the problem of cricket. In baseball it is relatively easy to prepare accurate statistics for each fielder:

- The field is smaller
- Each fielder has his own zone to defend, which is well defined and has its own boundaries.
- There can be defensive shifts which can move fielders from their original positions, but these are not "extreme". The manager can ask his fielders to play closer or further from the plate, more to the left or more to the right, depending on the batsman they have to face. However, the zone covered by the shortstop will always be the same. And the same goes for each other fielder.
- Limited number of batted balls. How many balls are hit in fair territory per game? I don't think more than 50. Even less, if we exclude HRs.

In cricket, this is much more complicated
- The field is bigger.
- If the captain wants an attacking field, he will ask his fielder to be in a specific position, which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from a defensive field. There are so many options for a captain and can be easily noticed even by non-experts. Sometimes defensive shifts in baseball can only be noticed by experts.
- Greater amount of batted balls.

It will take much more time (even in baseball, fielding statistics are far from being perfect), but I think it is possible to find a good method to evaluate fielding in cricket.