The value of a specialist keeper vs a wicketkeeper batsman

[TheJediBrah]

I have a suspicion there is some data on it but it isn't privy to the public. Opta Sports have people recording fielding actions.
Given that the English have been continually picking WK batters despite some criticisms there must be some reasoning behind it.
That's why Gilchrist is such a gem, for most other keepers there is a trade off between keeping skill & batting. Les Ames may have been another.

I think it was just misguided selection. For a period there Bairstow was missing chances that cost a lot runs nearly every game. Like potentially 50-100 runs in the worse cases. There's no way Foakes, for example, wouldn't have made a positive difference (probably make a similar amount of runs with the bat in any case).

IMO a lot of people largely overlook keeping ability and just want to go with whoever the best batsman is that just happens to be able to keep to a reasonable level

 

[Shady Slim]

The starting point for me is that whoever is picked as the keeper (whether they are nominally a specialist or otherwise) needs to average at least 35 odd. If they can't manage that they just aren't worth the candle for me personally, whatever other benefits they provide. There is some nuance to this (I mean obviously you can't pick someone who is objectively shithouse at keeping), but I'd have a fairly decent bat who is a somewhat mediocre/questionable keeper (e.g., Bairstow) over a specialist keeper who can't bat to save their life (e.g., Chris Read) any day.

ngl kind of the opposite, much rather a bloke averaging 30 who is a stunner keeper than someone averaging 40 who's got a howler drop in their arsenal
but there's always scales to it right like, nobody's going to say no to a kamran akmal skillset keeper if he can average 65 and nobody is going to say yes to a super skilled keeper who can only pull 15

 

[TheJediBrah]

Tbf I could see fair reasoning behind it when Bairstow was having that purple patch a couple years back and making run-a-ball tons for fun (can't actually recall if he was even keeping then though . . .) But most of his career he hasn't been in that form. He's been a mediocre bat and poor keeper they were picking over others who were mediocre bats and great keepers

 

[Cipher]

Tbf I could see fair reasoning behind it when Bairstow was having that purple patch a couple years back and making run-a-ball tons for fun (can't actually recall if he was even keeping then though . . .) But most of his career he hasn't been in that form. He's been a mediocre bat and poor keeper they were picking over others who were mediocre bats and great keepers

That's fair enough to pick Foakes over Bairstow if he was missing costly chances nearly every game & looking at his stats he had 2 brilliant years with his batting: 2016 & 2022. In 2016 he was keeping, in 2022 he wasn't. So in this case the selectors may have given him too many chances in those bad years. Keepers do seem to hold their place a bit longer than other players if they aren't performing.

I guess it boils down to how many chances is your keeper spurning vs what his competition does. If they're dropping one good chance every 2nd game & only average 10 more runs than the good keeper, their place in the side can be questioned.
But Bairstow's D/I rate is 2.076 while Foakes is 1.680. So how often was that keeping quality difference actually occuring?

 

[shortpitched713]

nobody's going to say no to a kamran akmal skillset keeper if he can average 65 and nobody is going to say yes to a super skilled keeper who can only pull 15

You're describing the second greatest batsman of all time. You could just maybe, I dunno, play him and not have him keep?

 

[JBMAC]

The starting point for me is that whoever is picked as the keeper (whether they are nominally a specialist or otherwise) needs to average at least 35 odd. If they can't manage that they just aren't worth the candle for me personally, whatever other benefits they provide. There is some nuance to this (I mean obviously you can't pick someone who is objectively shithouse at keeping), but I'd have a fairly decent bat who is a somewhat mediocre/questionable keeper (e.g., Bairstow) over a specialist keeper who can't bat to save their life (e.g., Chris Read) any day.

There speaks a youngster who has not played the game or is just a "Newbie' ie; Less than 50 games at a reasonable level

 

[sledger]

There speaks a condescending gatekeeping geriatric.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're describing the second greatest batsman of all time. You could just maybe, I dunno, play him and not have him keep?

Stop it. Too much logic ruins these comparisons.

Pretend he demands to keep or he won't play

Or you can't play both Flower and Healy because one of them ****ed the other's wife and they can't be within a mile of each other

 

[TheJediBrah]

There speaks a condescending gatekeeping geriatric.

I'm reasonably confident you're talking to a professional wicket-keeper, about wicket keeping. He's right, and even if he wasn't, he's still right.

IMO the starting point should always be competent keeping first and foremost. Even if these days the decisive factor often tends to be batting ability

 

[Cipher]

I'm reasonably confident you're talking to a professional wicket-keeper, about wicket keeping. He's right, and even if he wasn't, he's still right.

IMO the starting point should always be competent keeping first and foremost. Even if these days the decisive factor often tends to be batting ability

Maybe it's Darren Berry or Ian Healy's burner account.
We know what stopped them from being selected/dropped for Australia.

 

[Coronis]

Maybe it's Darren Berry or Ian Healy's burner account.
We know what stopped them from being selected/dropped for Australia.

Kindly shut the **** up.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The starting point for me is that whoever is picked as the keeper (whether they are nominally a specialist or otherwise) needs to average at least 35 odd. If they can't manage that they just aren't worth the candle for me personally, whatever other benefits they provide. There is some nuance to this (I mean obviously you can't pick someone who is objectively shithouse at keeping), but I'd have a fairly decent bat who is a somewhat mediocre/questionable keeper (e.g., Bairstow) over a specialist keeper who can't bat to save their life (e.g., Chris Read) any day.

Well Bairstow over Foakes worked well in the ashes.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Maybe it's Darren Berry or Ian Healy's burner account.
We know what stopped them from being selected/dropped for Australia.

Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about on multiple levels

 

[Bijed]

ngl kind of the opposite, much rather a bloke averaging 30 who is a stunner keeper than someone averaging 40 who's got a howler drop in their arsenal
but there's always scales to it right like, nobody's going to say no to a kamran akmal skillset keeper if he can average 65 and nobody is going to say yes to a super skilled keeper who can only pull 15

In most realistic cases, as long as the weaker-batting keeper isn't 'tail starts at 7' level (although it's more than just averages, ability to actually bat well with the tail matters), I'd lean towards them over the opposite. Forget averaging 65, these days, any potential keeper-batsman averaging 40+ is probably worth considering as a pure batsman anyway. And if the rest of the batting is good enough so that they wouldn't displace one of the others, you could argue that the theoretical strength of the top 6 means the other candidate's weaker batting is less of a problem anyway.

 

[capt_Luffy]

In most realistic cases, as long as the weaker-batting keeper isn't 'tail starts at 7' level (although it's more than just averages, ability to actually bat well with the tail matters), I'd lean towards them over the opposite. Forget averaging 65, these days, any potential keeper-batsman averaging 40+ is probably worth considering as a pure batsman anyway. And if the rest of the batting is good enough so that they wouldn't displace one of the others, you could argue that the theoretical strength of the top 6 means the other candidate's weaker batting is less of a problem anyway.

But what if the batting is ****?? Pant is arguably our 2nd best batsman right now. He will play. But will you pick Saha (30 avg bat, Great keeper) in the team? India aren't picking Jurel (40 avg bat, Good keeper) when Pant plays...... And he most likely will play in England as just a batsman.

 

[Bijed]

But what if the batting is ****?? Pant is arguably our 2nd best batsman right now. He will play. But will you pick Saha (30 avg bat, Great keeper) in the team? India aren't picking Jurel (40 avg bat, Good keeper) when Pant plays...... And he most likely will play in England as just a batsman.

I'm assuming you don't mean would I literally pick Saha right now, given that he's 40 and IIRC wasn't doing much at all for his last few tests. But in the general sense of a team with overall poor batting with those three in the mix (and more or less in their prime), yeah, I'd still pick Saha to keep. If Jurel is truly a 40+ averaging batsman and capable of being test-standard in the middle order (I'm not saying he isn't, I know very little about him), then I'd look to play him as a specialist and would do the same for Pant.

If Saha averaged more like low 20s, I'd be thinking differently

 

[Cipher]

Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about on multiple levels

Disrespectfully you don’t either. You haven’t backed anything up you’ve said with any kind of data to prove why a specialist keeper who can’t bat is more useful than a competent wicketkeeper who can bat. Outside of talking about Bairstows poor form with bat & gloves which I agreed meant he should have been dropped.

If I did a poll between Pant & Foakes. Pant would win despite Foakes being a much better glove man. I showed you how better keepers didn’t out perform average keepers by significant margins with their dismissal rate or missed chance rates & that only recently keepers take on average ~2 dismissals an innings.

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

In most realistic cases, as long as the weaker-batting keeper isn't 'tail starts at 7' level (although it's more than just averages, ability to actually bat well with the tail matters), I'd lean towards them over the opposite. Forget averaging 65, these days, any potential keeper-batsman averaging 40+ is probably worth considering as a pure batsman anyway. And if the rest of the batting is good enough so that they wouldn't displace one of the others, you could argue that the theoretical strength of the top 6 means the other candidate's weaker batting is less of a problem anyway.

Foakes’ average with the bat certainly isn’t bad, but watching him bat with the tail in India was painful, Macaulay Culkin waltzes all over him in that regard

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

I think it was just misguided selection. For a period there Bairstow was missing chances that cost a lot runs nearly every game. Like potentially 50-100 runs in the worse cases. There's no way Foakes, for example, wouldn't have made a positive difference (probably make a similar amount of runs with the bat in any case).

IMO a lot of people largely overlook keeping ability and just want to go with whoever the best batsman is that just happens to be able to keep to a reasonable level

How can you legislate for that though? You could drop Brian Lara then theoretically get him next ball, or he could go on to make 400, surely you have to judge the mistake there and then, not by what happened after it

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

Came across this interesting piece loosely based on this thread

https://www.theroar.com.au/2022/02/22/of-sabermetrics-and-sacred-cows-the-future-of-cricket-statistics/