Why don't fifties remain fifties?

[fredfertang]

I never was any good at maths.

Come on man you're a trained pedant - you can find a better riposte than that

 

[Red]

Brian Lara's top score should be recorded as follows:

8- 50s
4- 100s
2- 150s
2- 200s
1- 250
1- 300
1- 350
1- 400

 

[viriya]

There are more relevant statistical data-keeping oddities to ponder:

• Why are 4 wkt/inn and 5 wkt/inn both recorded in ODI bowling? 3 wkt/inn should replace 4 wkt/inn imo.
• Why are the same stats recorded for T20s as ODIs? 4 wkt/inn and 5 wkt/inn are much more unlikely - it would make much more sense to record 3 wkt/inn. For all-round records, 30 runs/2 wkts combo makes more sense too.
• Why are all-rounder lists made with 1000 run/100 wkt multiples? The average runs to wicket ratio is between 20 and 25, and if anything genuine all-rounders are in the 1000 run/50 wkt and 2000 run/100 wkt range.
• Why aren't drop catches recorded? Drop classified as anything you get your hands on without completing the catch (no matter how difficult). Would make for great fielder ratings - enabling quantifiable measures on what a great fielder brings to a team (as opposed to a poor one).
• Why am I talking about this? No one cares.

 

[GIMH]

• Why aren't drop catches recorded? Drop classified as anything you get your hands on without completing the catch (no matter how difficult). Would make for great fielder ratings - enabling quantifiable measures on what a great fielder brings to a team (as opposed to a poor one)

Im gonna let someone else explain the significance of what you've said here

 

[Furball]

He's got a point though. A well organised T20 franchise in particular could benefit from devising their own fielding stats.

 

[zaremba]

Fca?

 

[Howe_zat]

[*]Why aren't drop catches recorded? Drop classified as anything you get your hands on without completing the catch (no matter how difficult). Would make for great fielder ratings - enabling quantifiable measures on what a great fielder brings to a team (as opposed to a poor one).
[/LIST]

What sticks out as unfair here is that a better fielder is going to create chances and 'drop' catches that the Montys and Munafs of the game would get nowhere near.

 

[viriya]

The obvious criticism is that great fielders get their hands on more catches than a not-so-great fielder. But I would argue that this is rarer than a fielder dropping sitters, and it's likely to even out over the long-term (the number of difficult chance % a fielder receives).. Either way, atm there are no fielding stats, and if a drop catch stat is added to the scorecard (with the score of the batsman when it occurred), I'm sure it would have some value. Not just when rating fielders, but also to rate unlucky bowling performances (Pankaj Singh debut for example) higher and lucky batting performances lower.

One way of doing it now would be to scrape cricinfo's live commentary and look for keywords, but there still would be a significant manual component to compiling those numbers.. definitely would be an interesting exercise though.

Something similar could be done for misfields/great saves, but that would be more subjective.. dropped catches impact matches much more and can be defined objectively so probably the lowest hanging fielding stat fruit.

 

[GIMH]

The obvious criticism is that great fielders get their hands on more catches than a not-so-great fielder. But I would argue that this is rarer than a fielder dropping sitters, and it's likely to even out over the long-term (the number of difficult chance % a fielder receives).. Either way, atm there are no fielding stats, and if a drop catch stat is added to the scorecard (with the score of the batsman when it occurred), I'm sure it would have some value. Not just when rating fielders, but also to rate unlucky bowling performances (Pankaj Singh debut for example) higher and lucky batting performances lower.

One way of doing it now would be to scrape cricinfo's live commentary and look for keywords, but there still would be a significant manual component to compiling those numbers.. definitely would be an interesting exercise.

As long as you're doing it to rate fielders and not batsmen then I have no objections

 

[viriya]

Shouldn't chanceless innings be rated higher? I would think so.

 

[GIMH]

Shouldn't chanceless innings be rated higher? I would think so.

Haha it's not that I disagree with that principle mate. We had a poster here who took it a bit further though

Try this: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/21850-first-chance-average.html

 

[zaremba]

shouldn't chanceless innings be rated higher? I would think so.

fca.

 

[viriya]

You're never going to get a proper FCA because unless you plan to watch all match videos.. would have to rely on cricinfo live commentary otherwise which would be from 2005-. Either way, I would think batsmen tend to get the chances they give dropped at the same average rate in the long term, so the high average batsmen are likely to stay higher than the low ones, so not much point.

It would be more interesting as a minor factor when rating batting/bowling performances though imo. Good way to potentially neutralize the "bowler was affected by bad fielding" argument when comparing careers.

 

[zaremba]

The simple answer to the suggestion, though, viriya, is to spend 2 or 3 minutes looking through the thread that GIMH bumped. You will rapidly see not only the various arguments for and against it but also you will get a sense of how soul-destroying the debate about this becomes. And so a word of advice: Leave it. Before it destroys you.

 

[viriya]

I've already browsed it a bit, but that the information has value is pretty clear if used correctly. That it is not perfect, or doesn't account for all chances created, or is unfair on batsmen are arguments that sound similar to reasons why not to use DRS.. Anyway, the biggest issue is data capture, which really is what's stopping a good analysis from being done.

Anyway, I'm not in favor of FCA, just minor adjustments to batting and bowling performances if rated on some quantitative scale (as cricrate does).. the real added value would be with fielding stats which are nonexistent. From what's seen in baseball (where imo only ground fielding is better compared to cricket), having measurable stats makes players push themselves and improves performances all around.

 

[nightprowler10]

What sticks out as unfair here is that a better fielder is going to create chances and 'drop' catches that the Montys and Munafs of the game would get nowhere near.

You could have the scorer use their judgement the way baseball does in recording errors.

 

[viriya]

You could have the scorer use their judgement the way baseball does in recording errors.

That's possible but given that every other statistical measure has no subjectivity, it would be fairer if it was chance = touched hand.

 

[ankitj]

Why are all-rounder lists made with 1000 run/100 wkt multiples? The average runs to wicket ratio is between 20 and 25, and if anything genuine all-rounders are in the 1000 run/50 wkt and 2000 run/100 wkt range

So agree with this one. You end up with statements like Kapil Dev is the only cricketer with 4000+ runs and 400+ wickets. It doesn't make sense. Equivalent of 4000 runs is probably 200 wickets. If you use those cut offs, Sobers, Kallis and Botham also qualify. Some go to the other extreme and say Kallis is the only cricketer with 1000 runs and 100 wickets.

 

[BackFootPunch]

From what's seen in baseball (where imo only ground fielding is better compared to cricket), having measurable stats makes players push themselves and improves performances all around.

Baseball's basic fielding stats are far from perfect though. As someone mentioned earlier, a better fielder will get to a ball that others wouldn't even attempt. So something like fielding % in baseball doesn't really reflect how good you are, more how adept you are at successfully choosing what to attempt and what to leave.

Stuff like Range Factor and Ultimate Zone Rating seem like pretty useful stats, but it be would hard to make an equivalent in cricket when a lot of fielders don't necessarily field in one specific position.

 

[Red]

I don't find the dropped catches stat of much value. At elite level, guys hardly ever "drop" a catch. Apart from the complete nuffie fielders. And everyone already knows who they are. Anytime a "catch" goes to ground, it's usually an incredibly difficult chance involving diving and/or running backwards.