1. Originally Posted by zorax
I was thinking about ways to quantitatively measure a player's involvement in a game.

When we speak about a player's involvement within a game, we tend to think about how many deliveries they bowled/batted/fielded. A player whose had a big game is one that has batted or bowled a huge amount. A high impact player is one who, within a relatively small amount of deliveries, has a big influence on the outcome of a game.

When it comes to batsmen and bowlers, a player who has faced or bowled more deliveries can be said to have had a greater degree of involvement within a game than the others. But how would you compare between a batsman and a bowler? Does one delivery bowled equal to one delivery batted? That sounds about right to me. But, in theory, there is a limit to how much a bowler can bowl - even if they don't have a quota, they can still only bowl from just one end. So they can only bowl between 20% (LO) to 50% (Multi Day) of the deliveries their team bowls. Batsmen could, in theory, face every single ball. So is this a fair comparison? Batsmen may never get a chance to bat, or can be dismissed after just one ball. A bowler gets atleast 6 (unless they get injured mid-over). So it seems that the range of a batsman's involvement in a game has large extremes (literally from 0 to 'the whole innings'), but a bowlers is within a smaller range. Do we still equate one ball faced to one ball bowled?

And how about a wicket-keeper's involvement in a game? A wicketkeeper clearly is more important than the fielder you park at fine leg. The question is - are they involved for every single delivery in a fielding innings? Or do you only count the balls they actually have to collect? Is a wicket-keepers involvement during any given delivery the same of that of a random fielder's (IE - they're only involved if the ball goes to them), or is their involvement higher because they're in such a critical position?

Speaking of which - not every fielder's involvement is the same either. We know that. At different stages of the game, the ball is more likely to travel to different areas of the ground, and you need your best fielders in those areas. That means that two fielders in the same team in the same game can have drastically different involvement in the game. But quantifying this could be next to impossible. Do you just measure the number of balls fielded? What about a fielder who is parked at slip but never has an edge come their way? They have to be a lot more focused and involved that some of the other fielders, but when quantifying it you'll end us just saying they had no involvement, which isn't true.

Thoughts?
Zorax I don't think anyone has an answer for this but if there is a stat globally that may give you a starting point or an indication it's WAR (Wins Above Replacement).... its exactly what it says it is....how much better is a particular player compared to his replacement in the minor leagues (In cricket, either the bench or the perceived replacement...for example for years Dhoni compared to DK). The formula for this is complicated and I know it's not apples to apples but this could be a good starting point. I know for a fact that, Stadium dimensions and game flows are also taken into account in WAR. I can perhaps help you find out more....just send me a message if interested. More stats in baseball that are of help could be FIP/xFIP ( expected Fielder Independent Percentage) for pitchers which indicates how good a pitcher is without the dependability or lack thereof his fielders...so strikeouts, HR etc... essentially anyplay that a pitcher has a direct impact on. Cricket is my lifelong love but baseball is my mistress. I am by no means an authority on advanced baseball metrics but I'd know way more than most cricket fans...I've followed baseball for 18 years and always wondered if there is a better way to apply these metrics to cricket.

2. Ian Chappell apparently having radiotherapy to treat some pretty serious skin cancer. He’s an ornery old bloke but is a cricket legend. Wishing him a speedy recovery.

3. Damn seems like everyone from that generation goes through skin cancer battles as they get older. Especially blokes who plyed their trade outdoors

Get well soon Chappeli, always liked ya

4. Not surprising that cricketers would be particularly high risk. No other sport makes you stand in the summer sun for 6+ hours a day

5. Originally Posted by mr_mister
Damn seems like everyone from that generation goes through skin cancer battles as they get older. Especially blokes who plyed their trade outdoors

Get well soon Chappeli, always liked ya
I don't even know if they had sunscreen around the time Chappell started playing.

FMD I remember in the mid-70s about the only sunscreen around was white zinc cream or this stuff called Blockout which smelt as though you were basically pouring kerosene on your skin. The fumes from that **** would KO you. It probably caused more cancer than it stopped tbh.

My grandfather, who was born in 1919 and died in 1995, used to have 30-40 skin cancers burned off him every six months or so (it's how they used to treat them then - that or dry ice). He was a country bloke originally who worked a lot outdoors and played a heap of sport, especially cricket when he was younger. Really fair skinned too. He always said he thought the skin cancer came from his time in the infantry in New Guinea and New Britain. They'd all get around with their shirts off when they weren't in the line, and sometimes when they were. He was up there on and off for four years, and his mates used to say the day he actually got a tan would be the day the war would end and they'd get to go home. The amount of sun spots he'd get removed was ****ing crazy. He used to look like a leprosy sufferer the way the skin would flake off. Mustn't have been a lot of fun.

6. Skin cancer, especially in Australia is a nasty, nasty thing. I lost two grandparents (well step-grandparents, my biological grandparents are all still somehow alive bar one who allegedly topped himself) to it. We've made massive improvements in the area of sun protection but I still get burnt quite a lot if I'm out in the sun for extended periods. Naturally I wish Chappelli a speedy recovery.

7. Just got my skin checked last month. Absolutely highly important in this country. I'm grateful we've got sunscreen and zinc cream these days.

8. Some non-intuitive results on sun and skin cancer and related issues:

https://roguehealthandfitness.com/mo...s-longer-life/

9. Originally Posted by harsh.ag
Some non-intuitive results on sun and skin cancer and related issues:

https://roguehealthandfitness.com/mo...s-longer-life/
I'd like to see that study repeated in Australia before drawing any firm conclusions.

10. classic case of correlation, not necessarily causation

11. Originally Posted by harsh.ag
Some non-intuitive results on sun and skin cancer and related issues:

https://roguehealthandfitness.com/mo...s-longer-life/
jfc...

12. Originally Posted by TheJediBrah
classic case of correlation, not necessarily causation
Its not even a correlation on a scientific level of any sort...

13. Originally Posted by StephenZA
Its not even a correlation on a scientific level of any sort...
I originally had typed out 'lol that "study" is trash' but decided to be less inflammatory, as I usually try to do

(also I didn't really do much more than skim a few sentences so I didn't really know what I was talking about in any case)

14. Originally Posted by wrongun
Zorax I don't think anyone has an answer for this but if there is a stat globally that may give you a starting point or an indication it's WAR (Wins Above Replacement).... its exactly what it says it is....how much better is a particular player compared to his replacement in the minor leagues (In cricket, either the bench or the perceived replacement...for example for years Dhoni compared to DK). The formula for this is complicated and I know it's not apples to apples but this could be a good starting point. I know for a fact that, Stadium dimensions and game flows are also taken into account in WAR. I can perhaps help you find out more....just send me a message if interested. More stats in baseball that are of help could be FIP/xFIP ( expected Fielder Independent Percentage) for pitchers which indicates how good a pitcher is without the dependability or lack thereof his fielders...so strikeouts, HR etc... essentially anyplay that a pitcher has a direct impact on. Cricket is my lifelong love but baseball is my mistress. I am by no means an authority on advanced baseball metrics but I'd know way more than most cricket fans...I've followed baseball for 18 years and always wondered if there is a better way to apply these metrics to cricket.
This is interesting, but I was thinking more along the lines of measuring participation levels in Junior cricket. These stats seem more directed toward evaluating the value of a player w/regards to winning games.

Problem with the simple '# of kids who played a game' metric is that too often kids are simply making up numbers and just standing around in the field. Lead to me wondering how we can measure the amount of a kids involvement in the game, regardless of actual performance

15. Originally Posted by zorax
This is interesting, but I was thinking more along the lines of measuring participation levels in Junior cricket. These stats seem more directed toward evaluating the value of a player w/regards to winning games.

Problem with the simple '# of kids who played a game' metric is that too often kids are simply making up numbers and just standing around in the field. Lead to me wondering how we can measure the amount of a kids involvement in the game, regardless of actual performance
Could you elaborate on 'Involvement' ? I'm sorry if i missed it in your previous post. If covered, I shall re read it.