Runs Batted In

[The Falcon Strike]

Was thinking about this today - it's especially relevant when chasing a smallish total and blokes are bunting the ball around.

We might often see a bloke get 40 off 70 balls - when in reality he's probably been on strike when another 10 or so runs have been added to the team total through leg byes, wides etc etc.

It can often be easy to look at a blokes strike rate and say it's too slow - but if in reality the team total is ticking over whilst he's at the crease - whether the runs are coming off the bat, or through sundries - it is irrelevant.

Now i am not putting this forward as a measure of a player's average, more a factor/measure in assessing their strike rate.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

If you are chasing a small total, nothing wrong with one player with a 60 sr as long as the runs are coming.

It's when setting targets that those srs get you into trouble. Look at Trott today. Wasn't even really trying to hit more runs. If he'd got 15 more, it would have been a different chase for the Aussies. When a batsman have been in for a long time, he's got to try and use his comfort to the teams advantage, not just his own.

 

[Damon_3388]

IMO, if you're facing 100+ balls in an ODI, you've got to end up with a strike rate of at least 85 to justify that length of time at the crease. I know different circumstances call for different styles of batting, but Trott was barely scoring at some points today. I think they mentioned at one point during the England innings that after he'd reached his 50, he scored about 15 runs in the next 13 overs of play.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

IMO, if you're facing 100+ balls in an ODI, you've got to end up with a strike rate of at least 85 to justify that length of time at the crease. I know different circumstances call for different styles of batting, but Trott was barely scoring at some points today. I think they mentioned at one point during the England innings that after he'd reached his 50, he scored about 15 runs in the next 13 overs of play.

Yep, selfish to a ludicrous degree, I'm not even sure he was aware that there were other batsmen playing with him. Even Michael Clarke would have scored faster than that and he would have at least tried to hit the gaps to find 2s!

 

[Damon_3388]

Yep, selfish to a ludicrous degree, I'm not even sure he was aware that there were other batsmen playing with him. Even Michael Clarke would have scored faster than that and he would have at least tried to hit the gaps to find 2s!

If you put Trott's strike rate from this innings (70.58) over the entire innings as a whole, the side would end up with 211 from 50 overs, which is similar to what England actually got (214). That's close to undefendable these days in ODIs. If Trott had have gone at a strike rate of 85, he'd have ended on 101 from his 119 balls. That extra 16 runs might not have meant an England win, but 230 is still a better score and gives the bowlers more to play with and more of a chance than 214 does, especially as it took Australia 46 overs to chase down the England total as it was. For a team, that 85 runs/100 balls strikerate works out to 255 off 50 overs, which while not being spectacular, is certainly a solid and defendable total.

 

[Wallaby]

I've never quite understood leg byes.

OK - we allow them (I've had that discussion - I reckon we shouldn't have them, but we do, so that's it). We have them, and the batsman should get credit - it was his action that caused the leg-bye.

Also, they should be credited against the bowler - the runs have been scored off their bowling - just the same as no balls or wides. And if you want to say 'But the bowler didn't do anything wrong, he shouldn't be penalised', well the bowler also gets misfields and overthrows credited against him. It would give a better indication of who is doing the better job in keeping overall runs down for his team.

I remember reading somewhere in baseball they have a measurement called Earned Run Average - if a run is scored through a fielding error, it is not credited against the pitcher. But an analysis by a journo in the 60s found that some pitchers just had more errors committed while they were pitching than others. Some had more 'expensive' errors. And he suggested that 'total runs' should be scored.

I would like to see some figures as suggested by the OP - maybe 'batted runs' and 'other runs scored' to separate them for the purists. But the concept is right. Some batsmen trigger more wides - slow bowlers rarely concede leg-byes. These should all be considered.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

IMO, if you're facing 100+ balls in an ODI, you've got to end up with a strike rate of at least 85 to justify that length of time at the crease.

I truly think it can depend on who you face.

Imaging facing a Shaun Tait over - you face 6 balls and manage to push a single - however at the end of the over you've sore 8 runs as he has bowled 5 wides, a wide and a no ball.

It just makes smart cricket to let him do the scoring for you as you protect your wicket.

Sure over 100 deliviries that is going to even out a litte - but if you are an opener and you've faced 30 deliveries from Tait - it needs to come into the equation

 

[Adam Selwood]

I've never quite understood leg byes.

OK - we allow them (I've had that discussion - I reckon we shouldn't have them, but we do, so that's it). We have them, and the batsman should get credit - it was his action that caused the leg-bye.

Also, they should be credited against the bowler - the runs have been scored off their bowling - just the same as no balls or wides. And if you want to say 'But the bowler didn't do anything wrong, he shouldn't be penalised', well the bowler also gets misfields and overthrows credited against him. It would give a better indication of who is doing the better job in keeping overall runs down for his team.

I remember reading somewhere in baseball they have a measurement called Earned Run Average - if a run is scored through a fielding error, it is not credited against the pitcher. But an analysis by a journo in the 60s found that some pitchers just had more errors committed while they were pitching than others. Some had more 'expensive' errors. And he suggested that 'total runs' should be scored.

I would like to see some figures as suggested by the OP - maybe 'batted runs' and 'other runs scored' to separate them for the purists. But the concept is right. Some batsmen trigger more wides - slow bowlers rarely concede leg-byes. These should all be considered.

Cricket statistics are so primitive

There is so much potential for more 'advanced' statistics - such as those that exist in baseball

A good starter would be tracking fielding - eg. who saves more runs/has a better % of saves of balls hit to them etc.

 

[Smoooothy]

in the 1996 World Cup, whoever did the score graphics had a stat called Runs Saved, which was a great indicator as to who has fielded well during the day, unfortuntely this stat never returned..

with all the advances in technology these days, especially with hawkeye, surely this is a stat that could be brought back?

 

[Adam Selwood]

in the 1996 World Cup, whoever did the score graphics had a stat called Runs Saved, which was a great indicator as to who has fielded well during the day, unfortuntely this stat never returned..

with all the advances in technology these days, especially with hawkeye, surely this is a stat that could be brought back?

Interesting...

Yet instead we get slow motion replays of teams celebrating a wicket and Johnny Walker Trivia

Would be perfect for T20

 

[Wallaby]

There are problems with runs saved.

There were 2 great Australian cover fieldsmen in the early 1970s - Paul Sheahan and Ross Edwards. Edwards was far more spectacular - throwing himself around the field and stopping everything. Sheahan was a better reader off the bat and a faster reactor and mover - he would get to the ball without diving. So how do you tell which of those have saved the most runs? Edwards certainly looked he did, but most old-timers (inc me) would prefer Sheahan.

It comes down to what you expect a quality player should do. can you quantify that?

 

[Rohan25]

Yep, selfish to a ludicrous degree, I'm not even sure he was aware that there were other batsmen playing with him. Even Michael Clarke would have scored faster than that and he would have at least tried to hit the gaps to find 2s!

A friend was talking about that very thing today and he said at one point early in the innings he actually let a free hit go without offering a shot. Is that right? I told him there must have been more to it, but he reckons he just ducked away from a slower ball bouncer. I was fascinated, can someone who witnessed it shed any more light on it for me?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

A friend was talking about that very thing today and he said at one point early in the innings he actually let a free hit go without offering a shot. Is that right? I told him there must have been more to it, but he reckons he just ducked away from a slower ball bouncer. I was fascinated, can someone who witnessed it shed any more light on it for me?

It looked bloody awful - but in truth i think he was just deceived by a slower ball bouncer.

He shaped to swing, realised it was coming slower than first thought - and then by the time he had re-calculated it was too late.