Bring on the Quant revolution
February 27, 2008
This is the second in a series of posts on the IPL.
In those interminable Tendulkar vs Lara debates, wouldn’t it be great if we had a way to measure who has been the better batsman in all possible conditions. Rahul has been a tireless advocate of the use of advanced statistics and in general more sophisticated metrics to measure player effectiveness (than just averages and strike rates) in cricket. On the face of it I am just as hopeful and excited that private enterprises such as IPL franchises will bring about this long needed revolution even as I am disappointed that private individuals (cricket loving geeky really) haven’t already made a start with the data currently available. The Americans have already ushered in this quant revolution starting with Moneyball and since taken forward by sports loving geeks, some of whom have been employed by teams including one who has risen to GM of a franchise.
There are inherent problems with using advanced metrics in a cricketing context: the pitch and weather are critical factors that can render many comparisons across different conditions less than meaningful. But we should not fall victim to the perfect solution fallacy. Here are some ideas to consider.
Analytics
Cricket’s basic metrics (runs, wickets, catches) are much fewer in number than say basketball (points, FG%, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers). So if you want to devise a composite measure of player effectiveness, you have very few ingredients to play with. (Of course you could argue that a player has an influence on the game only through one of these three modes. But we know the truth is more complicated than that.) Here are possible ways to get to the elusive composite measure.
- Weight each innings by two factors: the average runs/wicket scored in the match and the average runs/wicket scored in all matches in that ground in the last 4 years. This ensures that a 100 scored when most batsmen have not done as well is obviously more valuable than a 100 in a match where both teams have declared for 500+ scores. Similarly a 100 scored in a ground unconducive to batting like Durban is better than a 100 at the Oval.
- The weighting can similarly be done for every bowling performance by using strike rate (balls/wicket) both in the match and historically.
- Running between the wickets is another “intangible” quality that has not been quantified. How about adding a running weight to a batsman’s overall rating by factoring in the percentage of run runs (1s/2s/3s) in all partnerships involving him or the number of run runs per 100 balls in a partnership involving him. This is a far from perfect measure as it may punish the boundary hitters. But over a large enough sample size, it will separate the better runners from the poor ones and more importantly provide a servicable quantitative input into an overall composite measure.
- Ground fielding is a tough nut to crack and I haven’t been able to come up with an acceptable metric. I’d love to hear suggestions.
Of course none of this is perfect and I hardly have the statistical expertise to give weights and incorporate them into a composite measure. I’m just trying to set the debate rolling so that we can ultimately get better ways to measure effectiveness. And every proposed measure can be tested for by checking if teams that have players rated better (by the measure) on average win more often than not. Cricinfo has a made a promising start with their tackily named It Figures blog – they seem to have used standard deviations to measure consistency and a variation of a moving average I have suggested. But there’s ways to go yet.
Measurement and mapping
It’s great that the wagonwheel and bowler’s pitchmap have become common tools of analyses. But it’s time to free this data from the TV production companies and release this information to the public as the NBA has. Won’t it be great if we can compare Tendulkar’s cumulative wagonwheel from 2003 and 2007 to see if he’s playing any differently. Or the wagonwheel for all runs scored in Perth over the last 3 years to see if horizontal bat shots are still the way to score runs there.
But I have a slightly more radical suggestion. How about mapping every ball bowled from start to finish and annotating it. For example, you start with recording the bowler’s line and length, the height to which the ball bounced, the shot played by the batsman, the result (runs or wicket), the fielder involved and if possible even the field positioning at the time. It should then be possible to digitally retrieve say every ball bowled to Ganguly short of good length just outside off stump in the last 4 series and see if there’s a pattern to his shots. It sure does sound like a lot of work, but the Indian team’s analyst is on record as saying that they’re already doing some version of this. Of course a team would like such data on every match played by every team. So what’s the solution? Trust the Americans to find a viable one. There is a company that does precisely this for basketball; every play is mapped in every game right down to the tee. Of course this data is expensive to record and will therefore be only available for a hefty fee. With rich IPL franchises, there is an incentive to use every possible means to get ahead and so there will most certainly be demand for this service. And it sure beats having your own analyst do an inadequate job.

February 28, 2008 at 9:30 pm
This is good news for those who like to bet large sums on the outcome of a game/player. Otehr than that, the only ones who would be interested in recalling stats with obvious glee would be the statisticans themselves, the geeks and the commentators. I’d like to know what it has for a connoiseur of the sport?
These stat-based evaluation solutions could be being applied at cricket administration level far more than at the players level. Besides, a glut of stats are making this whole proposition similar to those applied in US-originated sports. For long have Baseball and American Football marketers lured a public into believing that performance measured through statistics is more exciting than skill, finesse, grace and all things human that make sport – escpecially Cricket – what it is.
I guess the days of Neville Cardus and John Arlott are over, but as an observer of the game, I would rather base my player/match forecasts upon being made to study background, temperament and ability rather than use the aid of numbers.
Then again, like it was said by an American Aaron Levenstien:”Statistics are like a bikini bathing suit – what they reveal is suggestive, what they conceal is vital.”
February 28, 2008 at 11:43 pm
SVA: Why do you assume that using statistics to better understand the value of a player will stop us from making judgements based on background, temperament and ability. It is not an either/or situation; even advanced stats are meant merely to confirm intuition or if they appear to be counter-intuitive, are meant to make us stop and question our assumptions. For a while now, our selections have been lurching from one end to the other on the question of whether to select younger players who are better at fielding and running between the wickets or to rely on old hands. Surely an attempt to quantify and better understand the value of fielding and running between the wickets advances the standard of the debate. Again, I reiterate that even the most advanced stats will serve only as supplements and not as substitutes to sound judgement.
And the use of statistics will not diminish or prevent the selections of players with skill, finesse and grace. If you agree with my assertion that it is only the players of great skill and temperament who will perform under all conditions, using stats (like the ones I have suggested) to understand their worth will, if anything, illustrate how much better these players are compared to the dregs of the game who pad their averages with performances against weak opposition. A Dravid or a Sangakkara puts up scores when everyone else fails; I’m sure you’ll agree that it is in our interest to understand the true value of this.
As for the Americans, I can only speak for basketball but they too value the same things we hold dear (skill, temperament etc.) even as they value stats. The best player of the day, Kobe Bryant and the kid who will become the best in the future, Kevin Durant are both players of enormous skill, finesse and grace brought up in the finest traditions of their game. Some things will never die.
March 3, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I can buy your argument which is soundly reasoned.Going further, the selection matters that you mentioned are administrative. Taking a selectorial decision is also part of a performance-based trial for a selector. Unfortunately it is not considered as such.
March 3, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Our selectors have not been very good and in general, they don’t seem to be appointed on the basis of competence. There is no doubt an administrative problem but cricket selection is anyway a tough job. You need to compare players with different skill sets and judge how suitable they will be to varying conditions, formats and opposition teams. New and hopefully better player evaluation techniques won’t hurt the cause.
June 19, 2008 at 4:36 am
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Nonstructural.