benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I can't believe I'm making a thread on stats, surely this will go down as my second biggest regret on CW (first starting the CW pentathlon).
There's a reason I hate stats. Mainly it's because I feel can judge a cricketers ability better by pure eye than reading a spreadsheet. However, adding to that, I find most mainstream stats to be weak, especially without context. Generally I don't care for stats at all. Every situation is unique, and there's nothing more dire than someone quoting a person's average in a player x vs player y debate.
However, if we had a set of stats that delved a bit deeper, perhaps they could be a better foundation upon rating the value of a cricketer #moneyball
I know there have been a few threads on this, but I feel this is more of an overall discussion of every theory, compared to just specific ideas.
For the purposes of this discussion, assume there is basically unlimited money in the game and people are willing to sit down and work these things out.
For mine:
1. Percentage of balls scored from
This would be a massive indication of how fluent the player is, and be able to differentiate between 'boundary hitters' and players who can regularly rotate the strike and never get bogged down.
It would be a useful tool, especially in limited overs cricket, for coaches and captains to have at their disposal when working out dynamic batting orders. If a player is flogging boundaries all over the ground, and he loses his partner, it's always better to bring in a player who can feed that boundary hitter the strike. You would have a rating system of your most fluent batsmen (players with a higher %) and promote if necessary. Obviously conversely you could choose to send in a boundary hitter if there's a 'rotator established'.
I think if you could create an offshoot of this stat, by combining the strike rate and % of balls faced, it would prove to be a very handy tool.
2. Percentage of the teams total score made by an individual batsman
Could be a bit hit and miss, but I'd be willing to experiment with the stat and see where it takes us. Would definitely show the value of the player to the batting line up in the longer term. Short term would be problematic and too reliant on 'form'.
3. Median average
Pretty obvious, would replace normal average. Would then take out the not outs and people saying 'oh but if you take away his 592 he made against...'
A better indicator of consistency. Would be most useful for a team undergoing a transitional phase.
4. Fielder +/-
They have this statistic in ice hockey where you get a + if you're on the ice and you score an even handed/short handed goal... and a - if you're on the ice when an even handed/power play goal against you.
Somewhat similar with fielding. Except it's weighted. You 'save' a run, you get a +1. You save 2, +2. You drop a catch you get - whatever how many runs that guy goes on to make.. you misfield, you get - how many it cost your team.
Would be subjective, but if there are guidelines it could be somewhat useful for ring fielders, especially when rating them. Could have a benchmark figure for certain positions. For example, point may have an average of +25 for the position. It would give the fielder something to aim at. You get over +25 he's 'won' his position.
5. Bowler dot ball/boundary conceded percentage
Very useful in limited overs cricket again. Would show which bowlers would be most useful in what situation.
There's a reason I hate stats. Mainly it's because I feel can judge a cricketers ability better by pure eye than reading a spreadsheet. However, adding to that, I find most mainstream stats to be weak, especially without context. Generally I don't care for stats at all. Every situation is unique, and there's nothing more dire than someone quoting a person's average in a player x vs player y debate.
However, if we had a set of stats that delved a bit deeper, perhaps they could be a better foundation upon rating the value of a cricketer #moneyball
I know there have been a few threads on this, but I feel this is more of an overall discussion of every theory, compared to just specific ideas.
For the purposes of this discussion, assume there is basically unlimited money in the game and people are willing to sit down and work these things out.
For mine:
1. Percentage of balls scored from
This would be a massive indication of how fluent the player is, and be able to differentiate between 'boundary hitters' and players who can regularly rotate the strike and never get bogged down.
It would be a useful tool, especially in limited overs cricket, for coaches and captains to have at their disposal when working out dynamic batting orders. If a player is flogging boundaries all over the ground, and he loses his partner, it's always better to bring in a player who can feed that boundary hitter the strike. You would have a rating system of your most fluent batsmen (players with a higher %) and promote if necessary. Obviously conversely you could choose to send in a boundary hitter if there's a 'rotator established'.
I think if you could create an offshoot of this stat, by combining the strike rate and % of balls faced, it would prove to be a very handy tool.
2. Percentage of the teams total score made by an individual batsman
Could be a bit hit and miss, but I'd be willing to experiment with the stat and see where it takes us. Would definitely show the value of the player to the batting line up in the longer term. Short term would be problematic and too reliant on 'form'.
3. Median average
Pretty obvious, would replace normal average. Would then take out the not outs and people saying 'oh but if you take away his 592 he made against...'
A better indicator of consistency. Would be most useful for a team undergoing a transitional phase.
4. Fielder +/-
They have this statistic in ice hockey where you get a + if you're on the ice and you score an even handed/short handed goal... and a - if you're on the ice when an even handed/power play goal against you.
Somewhat similar with fielding. Except it's weighted. You 'save' a run, you get a +1. You save 2, +2. You drop a catch you get - whatever how many runs that guy goes on to make.. you misfield, you get - how many it cost your team.
Would be subjective, but if there are guidelines it could be somewhat useful for ring fielders, especially when rating them. Could have a benchmark figure for certain positions. For example, point may have an average of +25 for the position. It would give the fielder something to aim at. You get over +25 he's 'won' his position.
5. Bowler dot ball/boundary conceded percentage
Very useful in limited overs cricket again. Would show which bowlers would be most useful in what situation.
Last edited:
