New/uncommon statistics you'd like to see brought into cricket

[doesitmatter]

1. Percentage of balls scored from

This would be a massive indication of how fluent the player is, and be able to differentiate between 'boundary hitters' and players who can regularly rotate the strike and never get bogged down.

It would be a useful tool, especially in limited overs cricket, for coaches and captains to have at their disposal when working out dynamic batting orders. If a player is flogging boundaries all over the ground, and he loses his partner, it's always better to bring in a player who can feed that boundary hitter the strike. You would have a rating system of your most fluent batsmen (players with a higher %) and promote if necessary. Obviously conversely you could choose to send in a boundary hitter if there's a 'rotator established'.

I think if you could create an offshoot of this stat, by combining the strike rate and % of balls faced, it would prove to be a very handy tool.

Bob Simpson used this during his stint with the Aussies..This helped him to identify the % of balls not being scored or dot balls and asked his players to score atleast a single which would result in Australia always scoring more than 250 (during the 80's was a Match Winning Score) ..Led to the WC 87 triumph ..basically his mantra was try to score a single off every ball will win you the match..This stat helped him..

What i would like to see is (may have been asked before)

1) How a batsman gets out (bowled, caught)? i know this stat is there.
2) Drill each of the instance further down for example if bowled how did he get bowled inducker,yorker,straight ball,moved too much inside and the ball knocks his legstump..
3) Where the ball was pitched?
4) What kind of shot led to the wicket? For eg if you getting caught out at point many times playing a cut shot then you are not keeping the ball down..
5) At what time of the match?

3,4,5 might help in understanding if the match a nail biter?, lack of concentration by the batsman at certain point

May be tough to answer as it could depend on pitches,match condition, rough or spots on the pitch where a ball could die or take off...but there it is my question

 

[SJS]

Off the cuff two come to mind.

1. Economy Rates:
I would like to have bowler's economy rates put as runs per hundred balls (instead of runs per over) in line with batsmen's strike rates. It makes for a clearer perspective and there is the added advantage of getting rid of the problems created by the comparison with periods with 4, 5 or 8 balls per over.

2. Fifties :
When we count a batsman's centuries we always include his double centuries and triples (if any) however when we count a batsman's fifties we never include his fifties. This is ridiculous. This makes for absolutely laughable, so-called. records. Here is an example.

There is a list of the top fifty scorers in Test history on howstat dot com which has 119 names (above 20 fifties). Ranatunga with 42 scores above fifty (four of which he converted to centuries) is 28th on that list whereas Azharuddin with one more at 43 is 117th !! Of course Azhar's fault is that he converted 22 of those 43 into hundreds. This is worse than ridiculous.

A fifty should mean every score above fifty irrespective of the eventual score just as a century, a double century and a triple century does. Just as a fifer is a fifer even if the final tally maybe 6,7,8,9 or 10 and a hat-trick is a hat-trick even if you take more than three wickets in a row !!

 

[Valer]

There is such a stat, actually have been for a few years now. Just go on cricinfo statguru, search the batsman (bowler), then select batting (bowling) format - bowler summary (batsmen dismissed)

You'd hope this is the case, but it isn't it only tells you when/ on what the bowler dissmed a player not how many runs were scored off each bowler to that point.


eg. If I get player a out for a duck and then next innings I get carted for 100 runs by him and then another bowler gets him out say first ball for 154.
I'll have a bowling average of 0 against player a and
The bowler who got him out will have an average of 154.

 

[NUFAN]

Off the cuff two come to mind.

1. Economy Rates:
I would like to have bowler's economy rates put as runs per hundred balls (instead of runs per over) in line with batsmen's strike rates. It makes for a clearer perspective and there is the added advantage of getting rid of the problems created by the comparison with periods with 4, 5 or 8 balls per over.

2. Fifties :
When we count a batsman's centuries we always include his double centuries and triples (if any) however when we count a batsman's fifties we never include his fifties. This is ridiculous. This makes for absolutely laughable, so-called. records. Here is an example.

There is a list of the top fifty scorers in Test history on howstat dot com which has 119 names (above 20 fifties). Ranatunga with 42 scores above fifty (four of which he converted to centuries) is 28th on that list whereas Azharuddin with one more at 43 is 117th !! Of course Azhar's fault is that he converted 22 of those 43 into hundreds. This is worse than ridiculous.

A fifty should mean every score above fifty irrespective of the eventual score just as a century, a double century and a triple century does. Just as a fifer is a fifer even if the final tally maybe 6,7,8,9 or 10 and a hat-trick is a hat-trick even if you take more than three wickets in a row !!

Disagree on both. In ODIs if anything I would like the batsman economy rate be runs per over. 100 is a random number for balls faced IMO, what's so important about 16.4 overs?

Also, while the 50s list is a little subjective, I like seeing the batsman like Azha/Bradman who were great at converting 50s to 100. and it reads easily seeing 13 50s & 29 100s.

Welcome back.

 

[Jager]

Agreed with Nuf on the 100-ball strike rate idea - no idea where it came from either, it's a little bit of an anomaly in regards to the other conventional cricket statistics in that it has no obvious relevance

 

[SJS]

Disagree on both. In ODIs if anything I would like the batsman economy rate be runs per over. 100 is a random number for balls faced IMO, what's so important about 16.4 overs?

Also, while the 50s list is a little subjective, I like seeing the batsman like Azha/Bradman who were great at converting 50s to 100. and it reads easily seeing 13 50s & 29 100s.

Welcome back.

Thanks for the welcome mate. Its a delight to be back :o)

I have no issues if they switched to strike rate for batsmen in runs per over for that would make both strike rates and economy rates comparable which is really the major aspect of it. The others are less important.

As regards fifties. I am not sure what is the problem with stating the records of Azhar and Ranatunga like this is . . .

	        [B]New Method		Old Method	
Player       	50 +	100 +		Fifties	Hundreds[/B]
					
Azhar        	43	22		21	22
					
Ranatunga	42	5		37	5

Bradman        42      29               13     29

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah, look I like the 'old' method, but wouldn't lose sleep if the move was made.

 

[Dan]

Playing Devil's Advocate, but the old method allows for a greater comparison of the batsman's conversion rate. You can immediately see how freakishly good Bradman's conversion was, without having to do any subtractions.

 

[marc71178]

Agreed with Nuf on the 100-ball strike rate idea - no idea where it came from either, it's a little bit of an anomaly in regards to the other conventional cricket statistics in that it has no obvious relevance

I guess it makes it a lot easier to compare numbers without going to large levels of decimal places.

 

[uvelocity]

all stats should be divided or multiplied by pi or expressed as a square root

 

[Pup Clarke]

The one which I think would be most beneficial is how batsman do against certain bowlers i.e how they have been dismissed or percentage of deliveries that were dot balls. For one, it could put an end to the mind-numbingly tedious commentary where a comm states that batsman should be 'manoevering the ball for ones' or 'hitting over the top' if they clearly can't execute those skills against that particular bowler.

 

[Dan]

all stats should be divided or multiplied by pi or expressed as a square root

Everything in either radian or x+iy form.

 

[straw man]

Everything in either radian or x+iy form.

allows us to bring out the "Sehwag's average is 63% imaginary" argument /frickinmathsjoke

 

[benchmark00]

Disagree on both. In ODIs if anything I would like the batsman economy rate be runs per over. 100 is a random number for balls faced IMO, what's so important about 16.4 overs?

Also, while the 50s list is a little subjective, I like seeing the batsman like Azha/Bradman who were great at converting 50s to 100. and it reads easily seeing 13 50s & 29 100s.

Welcome back.

Disagree re: current SR's.

What would be the point of a batsman having a per over statistic? Given they don't normally face all six balls in a row. Whereas per 100 balls, or 16.4 overs, is a more accurate representation of the 'normal' length of an innings.

Also the per 100 is useful because it's a percentage, so it's easy to scale down to smaller amounts.

I think the way they're represented for that method is fine at the moment. Though % of balls scored off is more valuable still imo.

 

[Garson007]

A Gaussian distribution, for batsmen, on the time spent fiddling with the pitch, imho.

 

[NUFAN]

Disagree re: current SR's.

What would be the point of a batsman having a per over statistic? Given they don't normally face all six balls in a row. Whereas per 100 balls, or 16.4 overs, is a more accurate representation of the 'normal' length of an innings.

Also the per 100 is useful because it's a percentage, so it's easy to scale down to smaller amounts.

I think the way they're represented for that method is fine at the moment. Though % of balls scored off is more valuable still imo.

I'm talking ODIs and T20 here. It would be useful so we could see that a batsman scores at 5.2 runs per over on average and the required rate is 5.6 for the rest of the innings. Its easier to follow compared to saying his strike rate is 82 but the run rate required is 5.6.

Honestly though I don't mind if the change doesn't take place.

 

[DJellett]

A couple of interesting insights on this topic in this article - relating to dot ball and boundary percentages for both batsmen and bowlers.

 

[Red]

I'm talking ODIs and T20 here. It would be useful so we could see that a batsman scores at 5.2 runs per over on average and the required rate is 5.6 for the rest of the innings. Its easier to follow compared to saying his strike rate is 82 but the run rate required is 5.6.

Honestly though I don't mind if the change doesn't take place.

Would work ok if in conjunction with the partnerships.

Eg-

Last Ten Overs- M. Hussey and D. Warner

M. Hussey- 2.6 rpo
D. Warner- 4.4 rpo

Partnership- 7.2 rpo

Required run rate- 6.2 rpo

 

[benchmark00]

I'm talking ODIs and T20 here. It would be useful so we could see that a batsman scores at 5.2 runs per over on average and the required rate is 5.6 for the rest of the innings. Its easier to follow compared to saying his strike rate is 82 but the run rate required is 5.6.

Honestly though I don't mind if the change doesn't take place.

Yeah I understand what you're saying, but SR's are a performance measure. Say a bloke comes in and hits a four off his first ball (which happens to be the last ball of the over) and then by chance he doesnt face a ball the next three overs, his RPO is 1, when really he hasn't been that bad and you can't really judge his value to the run chase/team off that figure.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah I understand what you're saying, but SR's are a performance measure. Say a bloke comes in and hits a four off his first ball (which happens to be the last ball of the over) and then by chance he doesnt face a ball the next three overs, his RPO is 1, when really he hasn't been that bad and you can't really judge his value to the run chase/team off that figure.

Nah, his personal RPO at that point is 24.

Just convert the balls faced, instead of runs per hundred balls, it's just runs per six balls.

EDIT: that's how I'd be using the stat, anyway.