It's very frustrating trying to do sabermetric-style analysis for cricket. Basically, there is much more effort involved in trying to assemble statistics in a form suitable for doing a study than there is in baseball. CricInfo's Statsguru is a major step forward compared to the situation that confronted me during 2003-4 at the old site, but still I had a very instructive experience recently.
I wanted to do some projections for the 1968 American League season. It was quite easy to go to the Baseball Prospectus web site and download some stats to help me find the players I wanted to project, a simple cut-and-paste job into a .csv file. Then the Lahman Database makes it a simple matter to gather together stat lines for individual players. By contrast, a cricket study involves a Statsguru query followed by the laborious task of copying and pasting scorecards, then editing the data into a form suitable for doing the research. I can gradually build up a database with the information arranged in a way suited to me, but it really is a tedious prospect.
Just an excuse, really, for my long silence. But when are we going to get a cricket version of Retrosheet? If someone with some money would come forward, I could make a start. Until that happens, performance analysis in cricket is going to remain in the Dark Ages, relative to baseball.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Gone Too Long
I've been away for Easter, so here's a holding post reporting that I'm back and working on some analysis.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Nightwatchmen Discussion
Here is a post about using nightwatchmen by a real sabermetrician, Phil Birnbaum.
I haven't read it properly yet myself, but I link to it in case you've missed it.
I haven't read it properly yet myself, but I link to it in case you've missed it.
Sunday, 29 March 2009
No Loss
After four days, the Second Test between New Zealand and India is headed for a draw. Using Runs/Wicket State data, the odds of either side losing are nil.
The fascination, for me, of cricket matches is the question of balance. There is balance between batsmen and bowlers both within the sides and as matched against the opponents. There are also points at which the match itself balances between winning and losing. In this specific case, the question that should haunt us all is whether New Zealand left it too late to declare. I think they did. When they were 415/5 they had nearly a 60 per cent chance of winning the match. They did, however, have a small chance of losing. When the Black Caps reached 605/7, that chance of losing had vanished. I'm not sure why they hung on for two more wickets after that, but those two fell so quickly I don't think they made much difference to the outcome.
But, think of it this way—India is one of the Test sides that is best equipped for batting itself back into a match. The New Zealand attack is nothing special. The balance there suggests that if you're playing the Test 'by the book', your first mission is to bat yourself into a position where you can't lose. The gamble you take is that your bowlers can draw on that reserve of will sometimes needed to shatter the opposition. The Black Caps came close, but I think having to bowl twice in a row took too much out of their attack.
So maybe the point of balance in this match came after India's first innings. A tired New Zealand attack was sent out against a top batting side to get ten more wickets. How realistic was that? Should the follow-on have been enforced? There's something for you to argue about.
The fascination, for me, of cricket matches is the question of balance. There is balance between batsmen and bowlers both within the sides and as matched against the opponents. There are also points at which the match itself balances between winning and losing. In this specific case, the question that should haunt us all is whether New Zealand left it too late to declare. I think they did. When they were 415/5 they had nearly a 60 per cent chance of winning the match. They did, however, have a small chance of losing. When the Black Caps reached 605/7, that chance of losing had vanished. I'm not sure why they hung on for two more wickets after that, but those two fell so quickly I don't think they made much difference to the outcome.
But, think of it this way—India is one of the Test sides that is best equipped for batting itself back into a match. The New Zealand attack is nothing special. The balance there suggests that if you're playing the Test 'by the book', your first mission is to bat yourself into a position where you can't lose. The gamble you take is that your bowlers can draw on that reserve of will sometimes needed to shatter the opposition. The Black Caps came close, but I think having to bowl twice in a row took too much out of their attack.
So maybe the point of balance in this match came after India's first innings. A tired New Zealand attack was sent out against a top batting side to get ten more wickets. How realistic was that? Should the follow-on have been enforced? There's something for you to argue about.
Saturday, 28 March 2009
West Indies vs England Test Batting
In between posts on the Napier test I offer some of my Series Score data for the batsmen during recent Tests between England and the West Indies.
England
Seeing Bell at -6 and Shah at -14 tells you that England need to think again, as that Scottish song puts it. And one really wants a better performance that that from Pietersen. Frankly, I fear the worst for this England team this summer. They'll probably be able to exploit home advantage enough against the West Indies that they'll get revenge in the first series, but at the moment I see them getting massacred by Australia.
West Indies
It was Sarwan that won it on the batting front. Ramdin also deserves some credit for taking the pressure off Gayle and Chanderpaul. One might consider Nash disappointing, but a -1 is still moderately useful
Thinking strategically, West Indies really need another batsman, and probably two. Chanderpaul will not be around forever, and who is going to take his place? I suspect his career will end abruptly. One series he'll stink, then he'll stink again, but not having an alternative they'll be tempted to keep putting him in so he'll stink some more, putting an ugly punctuation mark on a wonderful career.
England
Strauss 21
Collingwood 18
Pietersen 10
Prior 8
Bopara 8
Ambrose 4
Cook 2
Sidebottom -6
Bell -6
Swan -6
Anderson -7
Panesar -10
Flintoff -12
Harmison -13
Shah -14
Broad -24
Seeing Bell at -6 and Shah at -14 tells you that England need to think again, as that Scottish song puts it. And one really wants a better performance that that from Pietersen. Frankly, I fear the worst for this England team this summer. They'll probably be able to exploit home advantage enough against the West Indies that they'll get revenge in the first series, but at the moment I see them getting massacred by Australia.
West Indies
Sarwan 47
Chanderpaul 7
Gaye 6
Ramdin 1
Nash -1
Baker -5
Marshall -5
Simmons -6
Taylor -9
DS Smith -10
Benn -13
RO Hinds -14
Edwards -22
Powell -22
It was Sarwan that won it on the batting front. Ramdin also deserves some credit for taking the pressure off Gayle and Chanderpaul. One might consider Nash disappointing, but a -1 is still moderately useful
Thinking strategically, West Indies really need another batsman, and probably two. Chanderpaul will not be around forever, and who is going to take his place? I suspect his career will end abruptly. One series he'll stink, then he'll stink again, but not having an alternative they'll be tempted to keep putting him in so he'll stink some more, putting an ugly punctuation mark on a wonderful career.
Friday, 27 March 2009
New Zealand in Charge!
Now's the time to deploy that headline. I'm not too fond of today's effort, either, about a relentless New Zealand. Rather, I wonder about this curious fact: when Franklin was out the Black Caps' chances of winning were actually higher than at the end of the innings.
New Zealand certainly were the most 'sabermetric' of sides, it seemed back when I started analysing cricket in this way. They surely know, if any side does, that there is a chance of diminishing returns if one keeps batting for runs in the first innings. Yet they have done exactly this in a series where they are one match down. As things turned out, their chances of winning are exactly 50/50 by my reckoning. What they have successfully done is put any chance of losing out of the picture.
The Indians are, to my mind, still the same group that was once (and may still be) the best batting side in the world. You have to respect that, but I wonder if New Zealand took it too far. It's a question of how much confidence they have in their attack, I suspect.
At this stage, though, they are looking smarter than me.
India opened with a .322 success rate, against a New Zealand one of .500.
The first wicket (Gambhir-Sehwag) advanced them to .430 for a gain of .108
The second wicket (Gambhir-Dravid) regressed them to .314 for a -.116.
The third wicket (Dravid-Sharma) regressed them .067 for a -.247.
CLARIFICATION: A better writer would have made it more clear that the Success Rate reflects the chance to win the match, and thus excludes draws. So the Black caps had a 50 per cent chance of winning and a 50 per cent chance of losing when I wrote the above, but no chance of losing. [z0345]
New Zealand certainly were the most 'sabermetric' of sides, it seemed back when I started analysing cricket in this way. They surely know, if any side does, that there is a chance of diminishing returns if one keeps batting for runs in the first innings. Yet they have done exactly this in a series where they are one match down. As things turned out, their chances of winning are exactly 50/50 by my reckoning. What they have successfully done is put any chance of losing out of the picture.
The Indians are, to my mind, still the same group that was once (and may still be) the best batting side in the world. You have to respect that, but I wonder if New Zealand took it too far. It's a question of how much confidence they have in their attack, I suspect.
At this stage, though, they are looking smarter than me.
India opened with a .322 success rate, against a New Zealand one of .500.
The first wicket (Gambhir-Sehwag) advanced them to .430 for a gain of .108
The second wicket (Gambhir-Dravid) regressed them to .314 for a -.116.
The third wicket (Dravid-Sharma) regressed them .067 for a -.247.
CLARIFICATION: A better writer would have made it more clear that the Success Rate reflects the chance to win the match, and thus excludes draws. So the Black caps had a 50 per cent chance of winning and a 50 per cent chance of losing when I wrote the above, but no chance of losing. [z0345]
Thursday, 26 March 2009
New Zealand in Charge?
That's what the headline on CricInfo's home page says—that New Zealand are in charge of the Second Test against India. Well, as my little series about Runs/Wicket States showed, it's possible to get some sort of measure of that.
The question as I left was whether we can really use a team's first innings to draw much of a conclusion about the match state. I'm not sure they are entirely useful even when a team might find itself at 23/3. At this stage there are just too many variables of what could happen—like a fourth-wicket partnership of 271!
However, I'd say that after the first wicket New Zealand's chance of success was .278, after the second it stood at .074. The third wicket wasn't so catastrophic, taking the success chance down to .061. The key wicket to fall, from India's point of view, was the second. That one put them in control, and they merely needed to keep up the pressure by taking wickets for an average of around 25 runs apiece.
They didn't. Ryder and Taylor increased New Zealand's chances of winning to .434. That's 37 per cent, in case you hadn't worked that out. Wow! D--n good stuff.
However, are New Zealand in charge? I don't think so, not yet at least. 'Taylor and Ryder save sinking ship' is how I would have put it. They might, however, fancy their chances. This match didn't happen all that long ago, and they are already ahead of the fourth-wicket score.
CORRECTION (27 Mar 2009): I did not apply the correct formula for the success rate. The fall of the Black Caps' first wicket took their success chances down from .331 (the percentage of all Test matches turning into wins for the opening batting side before a single ball is bowled) to .321. The second wicket took the chance down to .215, and the third down to a round .100. Taylor and Ryder did still add 37 per cent, though, taking the rate up to .473.
My figures for the Cape Town test were also a bit out, but as they were for illustrative purposes, I'll not correct them at this time.
The question as I left was whether we can really use a team's first innings to draw much of a conclusion about the match state. I'm not sure they are entirely useful even when a team might find itself at 23/3. At this stage there are just too many variables of what could happen—like a fourth-wicket partnership of 271!
However, I'd say that after the first wicket New Zealand's chance of success was .278, after the second it stood at .074. The third wicket wasn't so catastrophic, taking the success chance down to .061. The key wicket to fall, from India's point of view, was the second. That one put them in control, and they merely needed to keep up the pressure by taking wickets for an average of around 25 runs apiece.
They didn't. Ryder and Taylor increased New Zealand's chances of winning to .434. That's 37 per cent, in case you hadn't worked that out. Wow! D--n good stuff.
However, are New Zealand in charge? I don't think so, not yet at least. 'Taylor and Ryder save sinking ship' is how I would have put it. They might, however, fancy their chances. This match didn't happen all that long ago, and they are already ahead of the fourth-wicket score.
CORRECTION (27 Mar 2009): I did not apply the correct formula for the success rate. The fall of the Black Caps' first wicket took their success chances down from .331 (the percentage of all Test matches turning into wins for the opening batting side before a single ball is bowled) to .321. The second wicket took the chance down to .215, and the third down to a round .100. Taylor and Ryder did still add 37 per cent, though, taking the rate up to .473.
My figures for the Cape Town test were also a bit out, but as they were for illustrative purposes, I'll not correct them at this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
