Moneyball for Cricket

[CTreleven]

Ed Cowan wrote an interesting piece on how conventional stats don't reflect a player's worth: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/543061.html


Does anyone have any ideas for new stats to reflect the ways that a player can contribute to the team?

I've thought of (without necessarily thinking through) a few:

Wickets Bowled In (similar to RBI).
This would expand on strike rate by taking into account wickets taken at the other end (and maybe even runouts). The stat would mean that on average, for every x balls bowled by the player, a wicket will fall. Hopefully, it will in the long-term give an indication of the pressure that the bowler creates, with the presumption that the pressure directly or indirectly causes the loss of a wicket.

Balls bowled per boundary
This would supplement econ rate. Presumably, the looser the bowler, the more boundary balls they bowl. This stat would be one measure of the bowler's ability to build pressure.

Batting strike rate for first 20 balls faced
This stat would measure the comparative ability of batsmen to settle in and counterattack after the fall of a wicket. The choice of 20 balls is somewhat arbitrary. Alternatively, it could be framed as the strike rate for the first 20 runs scored. I mention this because I recall guys like Bevan and Martyn often seemed to start slowly and then finish the innings with a bang. They'd finish with a s/r of 80%+ although they might have been 20 of 33 at some point.

 

[red+black]

Should be a stat for a batsman or bowler's average relative to the mean of the era. eg. A Test average of 50 these days is not equivalent to a Test average of 50 in 1940.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

More in depth fielding statistics. Catches dropped rated as well as catches taken. Poor fielding counted like errors are counted in baseball. You could work out a players proper value to the team in terms of runs 'let in'.

Commentators estimate it but you just know that they are exaggerating the skill of players all the time.

Especially after lunch.

 

[The Passenger]

interesting. was only thinking in the shower off different ways to analyse cricket.

given how much statistical analysis is on offer in aussie rules, a game which essentially a free flowing game with very little breakdown of play... cricket should be able to be analysed with such great detail because every ball can be broken down into one little piece of play which is reasonably arbitrary from the ball before... yes there are things to take into account such as bowling plans and bowling plans, but each ball can be taken in isolation...

unlike football where you can say player x spilled 7 marks today, but everyone of those kicks could've been mongrel punts coming in and difficult chances... but how difficult?? that is a very subjective question and very open to interpretation. the difficult of chances taken and dropped also comes into the question regarding fielding in cricket.

i like that wickets bowled in stat. that could work very well. over a short period of time it may get a little eskewed for instnace when mcgrath comes onto bowl his first over of a spell, replacing gillespie who has just bowled 9 overs, then the over after mcgrath, warne takes a wicket so mcgrath gets the WBI instead of gillespie... but i think over the longer run you'll find that it evens out.

i was also thinking of a full breakdown of a bowlers performance according to ball per over - ball 1, ball 2, ball 3, ball 4, ball 5, ball 6. and even more crucially overs of a spell... how good are they at closing off maiden overs when they have four dot balls. at what point does their performance start dropping off in their spell??

how well does someone bowl to a new batsmen, a set batsmen, a guy on 100+ etc,.

there are a lot of possibility to a game which on the statistical front, hasn't really changed much over the last 15-20 years.

 

[Star]

More in depth fielding statistics. Catches dropped rated as well as catches taken. Poor fielding counted like errors are counted in baseball. You could work out a players proper value to the team in terms of runs 'let in'..

I agree with this.

I've often been left non-plussed at fielding 'records' by the likes of Mark Taylor or Mark Waugh or even 'keepers. I mean if you are there long enough, you are going to get the record right? I appreciate they 'make' some wickets that others would not take but the vast majority are regulation and expected to be taken. Drops would be a good stat then fielders could too have a strike rate of catches (versus drops)

 

[Furn]

For bowlers there should be a stat of the average of the averages of the batsman they get out.

If 2 bowlers are averaging thirty but one is getting top order players averaging 50 all the time while the other is getting tailenders the 1st guy is more valuable.

Also an average of what score a batsman is on when he is out to a bowler, as getting a guy out on 70 is harder than on 0.

For batsman they should have a percentage of total score stat, so if your playing on roads where 600 is the norm and averaging 45 it does not look so good. whereas if you bat on bowler friendly pitches where 200 is the norm but average 40 you are actually doing very well.

I believe England have a mathematition on their books that came up with a bunch of new stats based on the what the Oakland A's did.

A play and miss per ball stats would be good too for batting and bowling.

 

[CTreleven]

Another stat that might be useful is balls faced per dismissal (of either batsman). That is, it measures how many balls on average a batman faces before either he or his partner is dismissed.

It might highlight plodders who seem to be anchoring the innings, but are in fact foisting their partners with the risk of scoring.

For example, let's say Geoff Boycott makes 40 not out off 150 balls. If in that time, three of his partners are dismissed, then Boycott's balls faced per dismissal is 50.

It's a rough measure, since the stat in some part makes a batsman accountable for the actions of his partner, but, it may help quantify the pressure that a batsman creates by being too selfish or defensive.

 

[Phone]

well there's stuff that already gets recorded but I'd to see be in bigger use. I'm talking stuff like Wagon Wheels and Pitch Maps. you know, career wagon wheels. Fielding is of course the big one that needs improvement and that was talked about in the argus review.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

I agree with this.

I've often been left non-plussed at fielding 'records' by the likes of Mark Taylor or Mark Waugh or even 'keepers. I mean if you are there long enough, you are going to get the record right? I appreciate they 'make' some wickets that others would not take but the vast majority are regulation and expected to be taken. Drops would be a good stat then fielders could too have a strike rate of catches (versus drops)

Catches dropped should be more important than it is as certain positions in the field need VERY safe hands as more chances come their way.

 

[Yoda_]

For bowlers there should be a stat of the average of the averages of the batsman they get out.

If 2 bowlers are averaging thirty but one is getting top order players averaging 50 all the time while the other is getting tailenders the 1st guy is more valuable.

Also an average of what score a batsman is on when he is out to a bowler, as getting a guy out on 70 is harder than on 0.

For batsman they should have a percentage of total score stat, so if your playing on roads where 600 is the norm and averaging 45 it does not look so good. whereas if you bat on bowler friendly pitches where 200 is the norm but average 40 you are actually doing very well.

I believe England have a mathematition on their books that came up with a bunch of new stats based on the what the Oakland A's did.

A play and miss per ball stats would be good too for batting and bowling.

Where does Pat Cummins fit in then? (4 out of his 6 wickets were tailenders). God Forbid anyone to talk down of him..

 

[XFactor1979]

Of course not!

Case in point

The NBA

A team of Lebron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh couldnt get it done

 

[BarneyBent]

Where does Pat Cummins fit in then? (4 out of his 6 wickets were tailenders). God Forbid anyone to talk down of him..

3 of his 6 were tailenders, not 4. And those wickets were Philander, Steyn and Morkel, who are probably the strongest 8, 9, 10 combination in world cricket.

His wicket in the first innings was a top-order player as well. In fact, the batsmen Cummins has dismissed read: Amla, Rudolph, Kallis, De Villiers, Philander (FC average of 27, with 2 centuries, btw), Steyn and Morkel. Not a bad swag for a single Test.

 

[Yoda_]

3 of his 6 were tailenders, not 4. And those wickets were Philander, Steyn and Morkel, who are probably the strongest 8, 9, 10 combination in world cricket.

His wicket in the first innings was a top-order player as well. In fact, the batsmen Cummins has dismissed read: Amla, Rudolph, Kallis, De Villiers, Philander (FC average of 27, with 2 centuries, btw), Steyn and Morkel. Not a bad swag for a single Test.

OK, moving on

 

[The_Reaper]

It would be really great if they released the algorithms they used to calculate player rankings.

 

[TheLad!]

Sorry for the random bump,
but does anyone else believe the use of these statistics would improve our team, i know that the english coach has used these statistics, but it just doesn't seem to be "the Australian way"

are these stats/algorithms being used by the australians?

 

[TassieEagle]

Some on this board had started using this model in regards to the Haddin v Wade v Errbody else. Is getting a few extra runs worth a dropped catch? Is some sort of catches taken % warranted, especially for keepers?

Or how about just a general fielding % or runs saved? All these stats would be hand to see if you ask me yet alone getting into the myriad of other things you could measure. Baseball is the 2nd cousin of cricket and look at the amount of stats they keep.

I don't believe adding numerous new stats would help our team overnight but it would be a measurable way to see who is doing what in what areas and might identify weaknesses, or at least highlight them. Plus as a bit of a numbers nerd I would like it

 

[Belnakor]

Pretty sure we do keep extra stats, like above, the "play and miss" type statistics that you don't see on TV, if you read the captain's diary or stuff like gilly's book they talk about a couple of extra stats that you don't see on TV that often.

 

[TheLad!]

yeah, i googled it after seeing an interview with billy beane and he directly mentions the english cricket coach, after further research i found some stats like when mike hussey is bowled yorkers he gets 17 runs for every out and when it is short and wide he scores 120 runs for every out,
now this is probably telling us things we already know, but it is just one example of a stat being in support,

these stats could be very useful when it came to picking batsmen, so what if unman has perfect technique, but if player x is more likely to score a single off of a ball, or less likely to get out it should be them that is picked

 

[Harmichael]

FMD must we Americanise the shit out of absolutely ****ing everything. ****ing moneyball - more like moneybollocks.

 

[TheLad!]

FMD must we Americanise the shit out of absolutely ******* everything. ******* moneyball - more like moneybollocks.

yeah man, **** a potential way to gain an advantage by having a more in-depth knowledge of the sport rather than go off how a player looks

 

[Harmichael]

yeah man, **** a potential way to gain an advantage by having a more in-depth knowledge of the sport rather than go off how a player looks

Gee wizz they look at stats and shit to judge things, well **** me, that's new! John Buchanan must've driven a ****in' Delorean all those years ago and brought back a ****in' DVD! Those seppos are like so cutting edge and shit dude! How could we ever manage without them showing us the way!

 

[TheLad!]

Gee wizz they look at stats and shit to judge things, well **** me, that's new! John Buchanan must've driven a ****in' Delorean all those years ago and brought back a ****in' DVD! Those seppos are like so cutting edge and shit dude! How could we ever manage without them showing us the way!

Such an antiquated point of view, if you know of a ricky pointing, gilchrist or steve waugh in shield ranks then by all means speak up, Australia is on the decline and the use of advanced stats allows coaches/selectors to see things that they wouldn't normally pick up,

the world is changing, and Australia aren't world beaters anymore, its time we embrace the change and take up a few advantages