Walcott vs Flower (better Test WK-batsman?)

[shortpitched713]

I actually think if his keeping was bad, it would generate enough faction among journalists and commentators and fans when he actually played. Akmal certainly did, almost every bad keeper does that. You have to remember Flower played at a time when keeping was considered a keeper's primary job, when all teams used to take specialists glovesman. Who would write about his keeping rather than Healy?? Another huge factor was the team he played for, Zimbabwe. He wasn't even considered for things like Cricinfo XI just for that. The notion regarding his keeping in that thread is anything but negative. Ofcourse Gilchrist was a superior glovesman and the batting advantage of Flower isn't close to enough there, but see that almost no one said he was a below par keeper. By everything, average seems to be the norm.

What you're missing is the fact that even playing Flower at keeper at all was a concerted "Moneyball" optimization effort. They were weighing his runs added to a "specialist keeper", allowing them to play another specialist bat, and banked on it adding more in a very rough and accounting sense than whatever runs lost by his keeping lapses compared to said specialist. That was not the norm in cricket decision making for the time, and the selectors/leadership of Zimbabwe should get credit for having the guts to be unconventional to realize a potential advantage for their generally overmatched team, just like Billy Beane does for the A's.

But if you watched the movie, the feature of moneyball isn't that playing fatasses in the outfield, or washed up catchers in the infield suddenly made them great fielders. The key is their extra value as batters was being overlooked allowing for optimization by doing something unconventional by the standards of the time. Now baseball outfield are full of slow, fat power merchants. Similarly, cricket has much better batting wicket-keepers because the conventional wisdom has shifted towards that being more valued in their role.

None of that makes these guys into good fielders, and it certainly doesn't spare baseball and cricket analysts from the work of figuring out how many runs are lost/gained in the field via these decisions.

So your thesis of "Flower wasn't that bad" behind the stumps doesn't save him from the fact that he likely was costing some number of runs. You have to make some kind of argument in terms of where he ranked in relation to other keepers of the time, i.e. in terms of catch rate/stumpings/passed balls/athleticism, etc.

 

[capt_Luffy]

What you're missing is the fact that even playing Flower at keeper at all was a concerted "Moneyball" optimization effort. They were weighing his runs added to a "specialist keeper", allowing them to play another specialist bat, and banked on it adding more in a very rough and accounting sense than whatever runs lost by his keeping lapses compared to said specialist. That was not the norm in cricket decision making for the time, and the selectors/leadership of Zimbabwe should get credit for having the guts to be unconventional to realize a potential advantage for their generally overmatched team, just like Billy Beane does for the A's.

But if you watched the movie, the feature of moneyball isn't that playing fatasses in the outfield, or washed up catchers in the infield suddenly made them great fielders. The key is their extra value as batters was being overlooked allowing for optimization by doing something unconventional by the standards of the time. Now baseball outfield are full of slow, fat power merchants. Similarly, cricket has much better batting wicket-keepers because the conventional wisdom has shifted towards that being more valued in their role.

None of that makes these guys into good fielders, and it certainly doesn't spare baseball and cricket analysts from the work of figuring out how many runs are lost/gained in the field via these decisions.

So your thesis of "Flower wasn't that bad" behind the stumps doesn't save him from the fact that he likely was costing some number of runs. You have to make some kind of argument in terms of where he ranked in relation to other keepers of the time, i.e. in terms of catch rate/stumpings/passed balls/athleticism, etc.

Never watched Moneyball.

Let's say he costed 5 runs per innings on average, much higher return than another specialist keeper.

 

[shortpitched713]

Never watched Moneyball.

Let's say he costed 5 runs per innings on average, much higher return than another specialist keeper.

I'm sorry, but you can't just pull that number. The average drop will cost much more than that anyway.

The reason I know that Akmal for instance was worse than any specialist keeper who could do his job, is because Akmal was easily worth an inexcusable drop a match on average. Hell, it was definitely more than a drop a match during his "peak period".

You can't make a run estimation without knowing how many chances could be missed per unit time for Flower, compared to the replacement keeper. Unfortunately that probably involves having watched him.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm sorry, but you can't just pull that number. The average drop will cost much more than that anyway.

The reason I know that Akmal for instance was worse than any specialist keeper who could do his job, is because Akmal was easily worth an inexcusable drop a match on average. Hell, it was definitely more than a drop a match during his "peak period".

You can't make a run estimation without knowing how many chances could be missed per unit time for Flower, compared to the replacement keeper. Unfortunately that probably involves having watched him.

Exactly

 

[shortpitched713]

Exactly

Have you watched him?

 

[sayon basak]

Have you watched him?

His father did.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Have you watched him?

Haven't watched Knott either

 

[Coronis]

Haven't watched Knott either

At least theres plenty of clips of his keeping

 

[capt_Luffy]

At least theres plenty of clips of his keeping

Have watched more of Flower than Oldfield

 

[Coronis]

Have watched more of Flower than Oldfield

Cool

 

[kyear2]

Well all I'll say is this.

To believe that you've somehow discovered something that no one else in the past 25 years have even hinted to, is a certain kind of hubris, but hey.

It also reflects a change in perspective among some as to how the game is played, and how teams are selected. And not to mention an emphasis on certain skills that's nor proven to be successful.