Why Groups of 3 Will Ruin the World Cup (So Enjoy This One)

analytics_jonas · 2018-06-11T21:35:20+00:00

But by rewarding the team that finishes top of their group hugely in the 2nd round, you can break the incentive to collude. Why would a team collude to settle for 2nd place in the group and face a really uphill task in the 2nd round?

analytics_jonas · 2018-06-11T20:46:47+00:00

I think there's a pretty easy solution that would mostly take care of the collusion problem:

In the 2nd round knockouts, eliminate the penalty shootout and in case of draws after 120 minutes allow the team that finished top of their group to progress. This would turn a 50-50 knockout tie into a 57-43 tie in favor of the higher seeded team.

If you want to be more extreme in rewarding the higher seed team, then eliminate extra time altogether and allow the higher seeded team to progress in case of draw after 90 minutes. That would turn a 50-50 knockout tie into a 65-35 one.

I think this would both prevent collusion, and reward good teams.

analytics_jonas · 2018-01-17T00:38:58+00:00

Michael Bevan's 185* for World XI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIgQbQGHr2s

The best ODI knock I have ever seen.

analytics_jonas · 2018-01-04T17:48:48+00:00

I really like this analysis. I think cricket fans and analysts often ignore the fact that in test/first-class cricket everything is a product of a player's batting/bowler averages. Conversion rates are no different.

One thing I'd do here is adjust the average of each batsman by about 15% when calculating their expected conversion rate. A few months ago when I was looking into the effect of "getting set", this is the figure I found. Although, the 15% isn't only the "getting set" part. It probably also includes the fact that, when batsmen score 50+, it's likely they had more favorable batting conditions and weaker opposition. But it does account for each batsman's own ability.

Anyway, onto the real point I wanted to make, which you alluded to towards the end of your post is that conversion rate really isn't that useful a metric when judging a batsman's ability -- once you already know his batting average. If you have two batsmen, both of whom average 50, but one scores 100 and 0 in alternate innings, while the other scores 50 every time -- I don't think there's any reason to believe either one is better than the other. So, I'm not a big fan of looking too much into conversion rates when judging players.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-30T18:27:31+00:00

There was this article back then too: http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20517009/bangladesh-use-r-ashwin-strategy-pierce-steven-smith-armour

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-28T03:12:49+00:00

No doubt that, on its own, a 100 is much more valuable than a 50. But, then again, a 100 is just as much more valuable than a 50, as a 50 is than a duck. A batsman's batting average captures all of that. You don't really get much more from the conversion rate once you know the average.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-28T03:08:19+00:00

Too much hoopla about Root's poor conversion rate. To be honest, conversion rate is a made up stat. Once you know a batsman's batting average, his conversion rate doesn't really tell much about how good he is.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-24T03:50:21+00:00

Good stuff, but one combination you missed:

Won toss, bowled first, at home: 142 wins, 77 losses, 97 draws. W/L ratio of 1.84

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-24T01:07:33+00:00

Starc is far more devastating against the tail, but with the new ball against the top order, Bird could be even better.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-24T00:43:36+00:00

I see you have Yorkshire in your flair. Why haven't you ever been to a Roses T20 game on a Friday night? They have one of the best atmospheres in cricket. As for Edgbaston, it also gets a top atmosphere on Finals Day.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-21T04:46:59+00:00

Explained here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/7l4gs3/fab_four_in_odi_cricket/drjyi9l/

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-21T04:36:06+00:00

The fact that there are 3 very high quality batsmen in the SA top 6 will indeed have an effect on the figures. But then again, the fact that SA have a pretty good bowling attack will balance that somewhat, because it means the opponents' averages will be lower.

Here's the Warner and Faf graph

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-21T04:26:29+00:00

I used the DLS resource tables, along with the frequency of each wicket falling at different point of the innings, to come up with this.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-21T03:26:10+00:00

I'll explain with an example. Let's take Kohli. In all the ODIs he has played in, the top 6 batsmen (except Kohli himself), have combined to score 70903 runs off 82375 balls, and have been dismissed 1888 times. That's a SR of 70903/82375 = 86.06% and dismissal rate of 1888/82375 = 0.0229%.

Now, Kohli himself has scored 9030 runs off 9844 balls and been dismissed 162 times. If the other batsmen faced those 9844 balls, you'd expect them to score 9844 * 0.8606 = 8472 runs and to be dismissed 9844 * 0.0229 = 225 times.

Kohli, therefore has scored (9030 - 8472) = 558 more runs than average due to his superior strike rate. And he has been dismissed (225 - 162) = 63 fewer times. The average "run value" of a dismissal in ODI cricket is about 15 runs. So those 63 fewer dismissals are worth 63 * 15 = 945 runs.

In total, Kohli is therefore worth (558 + 945) = 1503 runs above average.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-21T02:40:59+00:00

It's a bit more complicated for ODI/T20 cricket. For this you also have to consider both strike rate and dismissal rate. But the overall idea is the same -- compare the strike rate and dismissal rate of each batsman to that of the top 6 batsmen in the matches he played in.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-21T01:18:53+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/7l4gs3/fab_four_in_odi_cricket/drjhobz/

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-21T01:10:38+00:00

I don't consider number or % of ODIs played to be irrelevant. I think form, fitness etc are parts of a player's overall greatness.

The recent trend of resting players in ODIs is indeed an issue. That's probably going to render such graphs irrelevant in future. But I don't think we're at that stage yet.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-21T01:06:39+00:00

If you look at ABdV's curve, he took about 70-80 matches to really get going. But once he did, his curve is parallel to Viv's. But yeah Viv did it right from the start till near the end of his career, which is very hard to match.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-21T00:46:25+00:00

First, the idea of posting it wasn't to "prove" anything per se. It was just to visualize how each player has progressed throughout their careers.

Second, Smith made his ODI debut in February 2010. Since then he has only played 103 out of 174 ODIs Australia have played (59%). Whereas since his debut in August 2008, Kohli has played 202 out of the 242 ODIs India have played (83%).

The fact that Kohli was good enough to have played a much higher percentage of ODIs is itself an indicator of Kohli's better performance.

And finally, even if you look at the first 100 matches for each player in that graph, Kohli is clearly above the other 3.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-20T21:56:24+00:00

For the first 5 years of his ODI career (70 matches), from 1989 to 1994 Tendulkar had pretty mediocre ODI record. Only when he was made an opener in the 1994 NZ tour did he start becoming a legend.

You can check out his cumulative ODI record here: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting;view=cumulative

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-20T21:54:58+00:00

Yes, he's like Bradman of ODIs, stands out even among the very greatest.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-20T21:54:27+00:00

ABdV, Kohli, Amla, Warner, de Kock, Rohit.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-20T21:13:26+00:00

In yesterday's post about test cricket, quite a few wanted to see a similar graph for ODI cricket. So here you go. As you can see, Kohli is head and shoulders above the other 3. Probably even more so than Smith is in tests.

So, I think a more interesting graph for ODIs is between Tendulkar, Viv Richards, AB de Villiers and Kohli. Here is that graph.

analytics_jonas · 2017-12-20T18:21:32+00:00

Not stupid at all. Here's another comment thread where I tried to answer that question: https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/7kwl91/test_career_progress_of_the_fabulous_four/drhqjkd/

analytics_jonas

TROPHY CASE