Introduction of "Error" as a stat in cricket...

[Ultimate_Game]

I find it strange that for a game which is stats heavy, and where numbers and stats actually make such an important part of the game, cricket still hasn't quantified "error" in the stats. I thought about it while watching Dravid shell yet another catch in the slips. At the en of the day stata will say that Dravid had 150 odd catches but the stats will never say that Dravid also dropped another 40-50. In cricket to see the complete picture and to quantify fielding as a discipline "error" category has to be introduced along with "runout". Just like in baseball where every error is scored and a record kept against every individual player these new additions will help us quantify the contributions of players such as Rhodes or Mark Waugh and conversely tell us how much it costs us to have someone like Munaf in the team. For "Runout" category, every runout has to be credited to 2 fielders at most, i.e. half (0.5) score credited to fielder/wk or fielder A/fielder B in case of throw to a wk/bowler/fielder resulting in a runout and a score of 1.0 in case of a direct hit resulting in a runout. This way it would be easy to see that someone like Ponting has "Runout" score of 28 over a span of 150 tests whereas Sehwag has a "Runout" score of just 5 over 90 tests. As for "Error" category, there can be a stat for "Dropped" catches and "Runs conceded" as a misfield. In shorter formats, especially T20 the "Runs conceded" stat could be as useful as the batting average when deciding between two batsmen. In the old days it was tough to keep track of so many stats and numbers but I wonder what's stopping ICC to add these stats as we have the ability to record these stats in this day and age.

[Stuge]

next what do you want to include? half run ,3/4 th run ? Good point though ;)

[f.b.m]

It would be a good idea in theory for wicketkeepers especially (can track dropped catches and missed stumpings) but there is a lot of subjectivity when it comes to half chances, attempts where people say "If he'd have caught that, it would have been the catch of the decade". Also in fielding, you can quantify misfields but you cant put a number on a slow fielder who never lets the ball past him but concedes runs because he cant get to the ball quickly enough. All you need is an objective standard (like a run or a wicket) to base the numbers on and it'll be an excellent addition to a player's stats.

[Ultimate_Game]

next what do you want to include? half run ,3/4 th run ? Good point though ;)

It's just that fielding as a discipline doesn't have any stats at all which is unfair to brilliant fielding sides like SA amd Aus, and especially players like Rhodes or good slip fielders like Mark Taylor or Mark Waugh. If you go with stats Rhodes will never make it into any decent XI but if we had the stats for runouts and runs it would make it an easy decision. Same with catches as Dravid will have more catches but I am sure he has also dropped quite a few more catches than Taylor and Waugh put together which again should be a consideration when deciding on the merits of a player.

[ganeshran]

Its a good point to record such data, but like f.b.m said - a dropped catch would be very subjective in nature. Some catches are dollies, and others are dying on you which most fielders wouldnt be able to complete. It is extremely difficult to define criteria which are unambiguous in nature for such metrics. IMO, some cricketing bodies could keep tab on such stats even though they are not a part of the game officially. It would be much easier to evolve a consensus within an organization rather than in the entire cricketing world. Something like an assist in Soccer which iI dont think is an official stat but is recorded.

[saneindian]

I remember creating a thread on dropped catches for the Lanka tour last year. We had some 9-10 dropped chances recorded. Since then we must have dropped 25-30 catches easily in the last 12 months. Let me bump that thread and request the mods to change the title to "Dropped catches log". We can then keep at least a track of dropped chances.

[Ultimate_Game]

It would be a good idea in theory for wicketkeepers especially (can track dropped catches and missed stumpings) but there is a lot of subjectivity when it comes to half chances, attempts where people say "If he'd have caught that, it would have been the catch of the decade". Also in fielding, you can quantify misfields but you cant put a number on a slow fielder who never lets the ball past him but concedes runs because he cant get to the ball quickly enough. All you need is an objective standard (like a run or a wicket) to base the numbers on and it'll be an excellent addition to a player's stats.

The subjectivity is there in baseball as well but they have still managed to implement a system which works. Occasionally a player may be unlucky to have an error awarded against his name but just like umpiring decisions which "even out" same would happen with error.

[saneindian]

Its a good point to record such data, but like f.b.m said - a dropped catch would be very subjective in nature. Some catches are dollies, and others are dying on you which most fielders wouldnt be able to complete. It is extremely difficult to define criteria which are unambiguous in nature for such metrics. IMO, some cricketing bodies could keep tab on such stats even though they are not a part of the game officially. It would be much easier to evolve a consensus within an organization rather than in the entire cricketing world. Something like an assist in Soccer which iI dont think is an official stat but is recorded.

Ganesh, Can you please change the title of this thread to "Dropped catches log"? http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=231484&highlight=dropped

[Ultimate_Game]

Its a good point to record such data' date= but like f.b.m said - a dropped catch would be very subjective in nature. Some catches are dollies, and others are dying on you which most fielders wouldnt be able to complete. It is extremely difficult to define criteria which are unambiguous in nature for such metrics. IMO, some cricketing bodies could keep tab on such stats even though they are not a part of the game officially. It would be much easier to evolve a consensus within an organization rather than in the entire cricketing world. Something like an assist in Soccer which iI dont think is an official stat but is recorded.

As I said in my earlier post, let the scorers make a call what was a "catchable" drop. This is no different from different umpires decide on a LBW decision in different matches and eventually it all evens out, but at least this stat will be a good indicator of good/safe fielders over a period of time.

[f.b.m]

The subjectivity is there in baseball as well but they have still managed to implement a system which works. Occasionally a player may be unlucky to have an error awarded against his name but just like umpiring decisions which "even out" same would happen with error.

Yes you could have a scorer decide which is which but these stats be more like speed gun readings rather than batting averages. The other problem that I mentioned still there though: that the conservative fielders who dont dive to save runs or catches will come up with better numbers than attacking fielders who might dive a lot and save more runs but also mess up. The basic problem is that this stat (or set of stats) needs to measure good fielding (great catches, run outs), good athleticism (to get to the ball quickly) as well as measure dropped chances. I have thought about this for some time and havent come across any set of numbers that describe fielding abilities.

[Holysmoke]

I think cricket has enough stats as it is.

[Ultimate_Game]

Yes you could have a scorer decide which is which but these stats be more like speed gun readings rather than batting averages. The other problem that I mentioned still there though: that the conservative fielders who dont dive to save runs or catches will come up with better numbers than attacking fielders who might dive a lot and save more runs but also mess up. The basic problem is that this stat (or set of stats) needs to measure good fielding (great catches, run outs), good athleticism (to get to the ball quickly) as well as measure dropped chances. I have thought about this for some time and havent come across any set of numbers that describe fielding abilities.

At the end of the day good fielders will stand out from poor fielders if we have a stst for recording fielding as a discipline. Yes, the mechanism may vary on how we implement it but it will reflect who the better fielders and better fielding teams are. I won't get into speed-gun reading as a stat as speed-gun reading doesn't give us anything and has no bearing on the fundamentals of the game, i.e. runs scored/saved/conceded, wkts taken etc. On the other hand dropped catches, or runouts made or misfields have a direct bearing on the result of the game, especially in the shorter formats like T20 where a few runs more often than not make a difference to the result of the game.

[Ultimate_Game]

I think cricket has enough stats as it is.

Only for batting and bowling, nothing for fielding which is a discipline which is becoming all the more important with the advent of T20. As I mentioned earlier, currently there's no way to quantify contributions of a player like Jonty Rhodes but with these new additions we will be able to. Currently when we talk of selecting an All Time XI we compare batting averages of 55 against 54 but totally ignore the fact that the guy with a batting average of 54 may have been one of the best fielders ever saving a few runs, affecting run-outs and hardly dropping a catch.

[f.b.m]

At the end of the day good fielders will stand out from poor fielders if we have a stst for recording fielding as a discipline. Yes' date=' the mechanism may vary on how we implement it but it will reflect who the better fielders and better fielding teams are.[/quote'] Completely agreed. Correct but that wasnt the point that I was getting at. My point was that a judgement made by a scorer needs to be taken with a hint of skepticism just as speed gun readings are because both can vary depending on the location and the scorer/technology in place. My basic thoughts on how you would quantify fielding is to break it down into two parts: Agility/Quick feet/Enthusiasm and Reliability/Error (this is the number that your OP indicates). A lower reliability number is ok as long as the first stat is good because it means that the fielder gives it everything and occasionally misses tough chances. It has its flaws but can in combination I think can distinguish a good fielder from a bad one. PS: Nice thread! People's opinions on cricket forums generally seem to be quite canned and packaged into just a couple of topics. Its good to see a topic that makes one think in a different angle.

[Ultimate_Game]

Completely agreed. Correct but that wasnt the point that I was getting at. My point was that a judgement made by a scorer needs to be taken with a hint of skepticism just as speed gun readings are because both can vary depending on the location and the scorer/technology in place. My basic thoughts on how you would quantify fielding is to break it down into two parts: Agility/Quick feet/Enthusiasm and Reliability (this is the number that your OP indicates). A lower reliability number is ok as long as the first stat is good because it means that the fielder gives it everything and occasionally misses tough chances. It has its flaws but can in combination I think can distinguish a good fielder from a bad one. PS: Nice thread! People's opinions on cricket forums generally seem to be quite canned and packaged into just a couple of topics. Its good to see a topic that makes one think in a different angle.

But I don't see any difference between judgement made by a scorer regarding awarding an error and judgement made by an umpire in giving a batsman out. Ultimately the scorer would be the same for the whole match and over a period of time the stat will even out just like a batsman's average does provided that a batsman has played for a while. And I wouldn't worry too much about agility/enthusiasm etc. Just like a batsman can be tall/fat/short/stocky etc. but all that matters is runs scored and batting average, similarly all that matters for a fielder is run-outs affected, runs conceded (misfields) or catches dropped - does not matter what the attributes of the fielder is. The whole point is to bring fielding as a discipline into the mainstream just like batting or bowling. IMO this is one area cricket is lacking and can improve upon, i.e. no recognition of fielding as a discipline.

[putrevus]

If error becomes a stat how are you going to quantify the effect of that error on bowlers and batsmen stats. In baseball as a result of an error batter never gets credited with a hit or RBI at the same time pitcher does not get penalized on his stats.All the runs scored due to that error are classified as unearned. But cricket needs to come up with some sort of stat which would allow the bowlers stats not to suffer due to ineptness of their fielders.

[yoda]

Might as well introduce double play, round bats, fielder's gloves, strikes and balls and call it.... Errors in baseball makes sense cause any fielding "error" can be a game changer, literally. The impact of an error in a cricket game is not as significant, mainly because scoring isn't as tight.

[Ultimate_Game]

If error becomes a stat how are you going to quantify the effect of that error on bowlers and batsmen stats. In baseball as a result of an error batter never gets credited with a hit or RBI at the same time pitcher does not get penalized on his stats.All the runs scored due to that error are classified as unearned. But cricket needs to come up with some sort of stat which would allow the bowlers stats not to suffer due to ineptness of their fielders.

I am not saying we need to copy the way baseball implements the 'Error' stats but as a mechanism for quantifying fielding discipline within cricket. As I've mentioned earlier this stat will have no bearing on batting & bowling stats but will allow us to quantify the contribution of a player on the field (e.g., Rhodes or Ponting).

Errors in baseball makes sense cause any fielding "error" can be a game changer, literally. The impact of an error in a cricket game is not as significant, mainly because scoring isn't as tight.

Are you telling me a dropped chance (a la Gibbs in 99) or a run-out affected are not game-changers? Currently we have subjective grading to define a player as a fielder with statements like "A is a good fielder" or "B is a great fielder". But this stat will take out any subjectivity or bias out of the equation. We should be able to see the stat on the TV which goes "Ponting: Games played - 325, Runouts affected - 28, catches taken - 57, catches dropped - 4, Misfields - 42" and compare with with another player's stats, say Rhodes which goes "Rhodes: Games Played - 238, Runouts affected - 26, catches taken - 61, catches dropped - 3, Misfields - 38". This would allow teams/coaches/selectors to quantify players on all disciplines of the game rather than leaving fielding as a gray area. Based on fielding stats, you may actually have a player with lower batting average in the team over a player with higher average simply based on the contributions made by the former player on the field. Currently, when we debate which player out of Dravid or Ponting should be in the World XI we don't even consider fielding contribution, or lack thereof. But if we started tracking fielding stats and saw that Dravid has actually dropped 54 catches in 150 games (nearly drop every 3 games), took 156 catches and affected only 6 runouts compared to Ponting's 6 drops in 140 matches (drop every 24 games), took 130 catches and affected 18 runouts, the decision would be much easier to make.

[the_indian_fan]

this used to be there in the titan cup 1996. during the titan cup, espn-star sports were showing stats on tv which had runs saved & runs conceded for every fielder including dropped catches. dont know why they were discontinued

[vamos_rafa]

The idea is nice but it would lead to the creation of threads like : Jonty v/sPonting. Dravid v/s Shane Warne/Mark Waugh, Munaf v/s Kaneria. Then people would come up with new terms like EPT and say that had player A played as many years as player B, he would have saved as many runs as him.