• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I can't believe I'm making a thread on stats, surely this will go down as my second biggest regret on CW (first starting the CW pentathlon).

There's a reason I hate stats. Mainly it's because I feel can judge a cricketers ability better by pure eye than reading a spreadsheet. However, adding to that, I find most mainstream stats to be weak, especially without context. Generally I don't care for stats at all. Every situation is unique, and there's nothing more dire than someone quoting a person's average in a player x vs player y debate.

However, if we had a set of stats that delved a bit deeper, perhaps they could be a better foundation upon rating the value of a cricketer #moneyball

I know there have been a few threads on this, but I feel this is more of an overall discussion of every theory, compared to just specific ideas.

For the purposes of this discussion, assume there is basically unlimited money in the game and people are willing to sit down and work these things out.

For mine:

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.


2. Percentage of the teams total score made by an individual batsman

Could be a bit hit and miss, but I'd be willing to experiment with the stat and see where it takes us. Would definitely show the value of the player to the batting line up in the longer term. Short term would be problematic and too reliant on 'form'.


3. Median average

Pretty obvious, would replace normal average. Would then take out the not outs and people saying 'oh but if you take away his 592 he made against...'

A better indicator of consistency. Would be most useful for a team undergoing a transitional phase.


4. Fielder +/-

They have this statistic in ice hockey where you get a + if you're on the ice and you score an even handed/short handed goal... and a - if you're on the ice when an even handed/power play goal against you.

Somewhat similar with fielding. Except it's weighted. You 'save' a run, you get a +1. You save 2, +2. You drop a catch you get - whatever how many runs that guy goes on to make.. you misfield, you get - how many it cost your team.

Would be subjective, but if there are guidelines it could be somewhat useful for ring fielders, especially when rating them. Could have a benchmark figure for certain positions. For example, point may have an average of +25 for the position. It would give the fielder something to aim at. You get over +25 he's 'won' his position.



5. Bowler dot ball/boundary conceded percentage


Very useful in limited overs cricket again. Would show which bowlers would be most useful in what situation.
 
Last edited:

ganeshran

International Debutant
I guess more fielding stats would be a good idea. Drops, assists in Run outs, runs conceded off misfields
 

shankar

International Debutant
Star sports or ESPN (can't remember who) used to do the fielder rating thing back in '96. I think they did it during the Titan cup Ind vs SA vs Aus. It was very revealing. Don't know why they stopped doing it.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
wouldn't the mode be a better indicator of what the player consistently scores?
 

ganeshran

International Debutant
Would be subjective, but if there are guidelines it could be somewhat useful for ring fielders, especially when rating them. Could have a benchmark figure for certain positions. For example, point may have an average of +25 for the position. It would give the fielder something to aim at. You get over +25 he's 'won' his position.
Self Promotion :ph34r:

On a serious note, fielders sometimes field at different positions during the game so comparing against an arbitrary number would be difficult. Recording absolute number of runs saved or conceded would be easier
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Self Promotion :ph34r:

On a serious note, fielders sometimes field at different positions during the game so comparing against an arbitrary number would be difficult. Recording absolute number of runs saved or conceded would be easier
No, I mean having a benchmark score for certain positions, not fielders.

So point has an average of +25.

Then you can say 'David Warner has an average of +32 when he fields at point', but then perhaps weight it depending on overs spent there.
 
Last edited:

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
wouldn't the mode be a better indicator of what the player consistently scores?
How though? Say a batsmen gets 12 four times in his career, and then the rest of his scores are 40+ but never any score as many times as four.

Would be terribly misleading.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
FTR, percentage of balls scored off is a massive statistic.
I know, hence why I included 'uncommon', as in uncommon for it to talked about in the media.

John Buchanan was massive on it when he was coach of Australia. I'm sure he's brought it into NZ cricket too.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
I know, hence why I included 'uncommon', as in uncommon for it to talked about in the media.

John Buchanan was massive on it when he was coach of Australia. I'm sure he's brought it into NZ cricket too.
Oh yeah, not saying that it was "common", just stressing how important it is.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Oh yeah, not saying that it was "common", just stressing how important it is.
There's no reason why broadcasters couldn't use thed stat, that's what annoys me. Why would they use this moneyball rating **** without first using a stat like % of balls scored off.
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
i mean, cricinfo has been doing wagon wheels for like 10 years now. why the **** can't the players who have been playing since that time have like, a career wagon wheel on their player page. ARE YOU READING THIS S RAJESH?!?


PEWS make it happen
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
and yeah how the media reports stats really pisses me off. they do like the bare basic. i mean take cameron white. the media ain't mentioning the kick arse 'hasn't scored a 50 in any form since Jan 2011' stat. it's just 'suffered a horror bigbash' DIG DEEPER DAMNIT
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
i mean, cricinfo has been doing wagon wheels for like 10 years now. why the **** can't the players who have been playing since that time have like, a career wagon wheel on their player page. ARE YOU READING THIS S RAJESH?!?


PEWS make it happen
Break into cricinfo, get me their databases and I will make it happen for you.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
How though? Say a batsmen gets 12 four times in his career, and then the rest of his scores are 40+ but never any score as many times as four.

Would be terribly misleading.
Should've specified earlier - include a range, maybe of 10 runs or so?
 

Top