Abstract
Some managers are still in doubt about whether the fielding skill actually makes a huge difference or not. I’m trying to collect a snapshot of data on fielding and catches over a players career, to see if there is any pattern.
This is only a snapshot, rather than an in-depth study that proposes to account for all variables, and give absolute figures in return. Instead, it will look at the catching and matches figures, and see if there is a natural pattern based on the level of fielding a player has. We would expect that the higher the level of fielding, the more catches per match they would have.
Update: I fully accept that weighting the catches from different types of games may give a better reflection (for some definition of better), but I make the data available and leave this to the reader to follow-up.
Download
Collection of Data
This is the spreadsheet you need to be able to collect data. Please complete it (instructions included) and email back it me (address included in the instructions!).
Fielding-Snapshot-Collection.xls (27KB). Downloaded 99 times since 2008-02-03.
Results
This is the collection of data and small summary that I have so far. It will get updated as and when I get a chance.
Last updated: 2008-02-10.
Fielding-Snapshot.xls (21KB). Downloaded 106 times since 2008-01-30.
{ 6 } Comments
Just a comment on the fielding collation (I have already sent mine through). It was jsut an interesting process going through my own player and realising how few catches some of my players actually took (drop catches would certainly be interesting). I was wondering if you were going to look at a weighting of the catches and have an ECPODM (Effective catches per OD match) index with the BT being 40% weighted, and FC something like 200% weighted. It might be interesting to compare this to the straight catch per match ratio.
Thanks for the data Michael.
It’s certainly an idea to have weighted a weight comparison, bus is their a standard weighting that already exists? Obviously FC matches can vary on the number of innings, and overall there may be other factors that affect catches, such as secondary skills.
The data is available at any time if you want to take it further!
Gazza,
Have you considered that opposing batsmen skills might have something to do with it? I could see Allan programing it this way so that there are catches at the lower levels and centuries in I.1.
Cheers.
My team consists of a few trained individuals and a few original players. It’s clear to me that the trained ones (I view fielding as important) take a lot more catches. Random allocation depending on catching level v better catchers making more chances is the argument in my view.
The way I see it, overall fielding level is taken into account by the match engine, and any catches are allocated randomly, weighted by catching level. A more interesting study (to me) would be “number of dismissals by caught out per match” versus “reporter’s summary of fielding skill”. I think you’d find that more catches are taken per match the higher the team level of fielding you go.
Of course, this doesn’t take into account run outs which are also fielding related
Anyway, good luck, and I’ll submit my stats soon.
Surely there is more to fielding that just catching. A team could take no catches but stop 100 runs in the field by being better fielders… I think this study is flawed in too many departments to actually deduce anything from the results.
That’s nice jonty, but how do you propose to count the number of runs a fielder saves / gives away? If you don’t have anything constructive to say you might as well wait for the results before criticizing.
Woppa’s question of what actually determines a successful catch is interesting. IMO the number of chances will be determined by the bowler/batsman comparison, the catcher will be randomly selected and then will pass or fail the chance depending on his skills. I would have expected the good fielders to be selected more often when the captain is more experienced (ie puts his best men at slip, etc.), but I think Allan already said it isn’t so in a Q&A.
Post a Comment