12 Feb / 2017(443)…BBL-6 Scorchers success very predictable using the right metrics!

Looking back in hindsight to the BBL Final, there are sufficient indicators of performance that suggested Perth Scorchers would win. The margin of the win was not as predictable.

With inputs from John Buchanan(buchanancoaching.com) and Keith Lyons(https://keithlyons.me/about/) here is a selection of data that i compiled in order to show that provided you are looking at the right metrics, good prediction is possible.

Contrasting teams prior to the finals, some of the data suggested a very close contest –

• The success of a home win was lowest this year BBL 6. Only 35.29% success for home teams, and was worse when a team batted first 26.32%.
• The Scorchers had the best home record this year, winning 3 out of 5 games not to mention the unquantifiable factor of the home crowd!
• The Sixers had the best away record(including the tied semi-final) winning 4 out of 5 games.

So on paper, the Final loomed as an absorbing contest.

Of course there are other factors such as Sixes travelling to Perth, although their record doing this is not too bad; as well as being involved in a nerve wracking Super Over in Brisbane to qualify.

What does some of the data say –

 

Batting

 batting average  scoring rate = % balls scored off per 100 balls  boundary rate = % boundary balls per 100 balls  economy sector let us look at difference in % of high scoring overs

 

 

Best batsman for each over of the tournament 

best for each over	Balls.	Runs	Wk	st.rate	4/6ss	Consecutive scoring shots
1st over	444	425	17	95.72	13.74	4.50
Dunk	21	24	1	114.29	19.05	0.00
McCullum	17	31	0	182.35	35.29	11.76
Peirson	26	37	0	142.31	26.92	3.85
2nd over	449	575	15	128.06	19.38	10.69
D Hughes	21	21	0	100.00	9.52	14.29
Dunk	20	43	0	215.00	35.00	30.00
Finch	25	40	0	160.00	20.00	20.00
Klinger	22	25	2	113.64	18.18	0.00
McCullum	33	55	1	166.67	27.27	9.09
Patterson	24	26	0	108.33	20.83	8.33
Peirson	22	28	2	127.27	18.18	9.09
Short	25	43	3	172.00	36.00	4.00
3rd over	430	552	18	128.37	18.60	15.81
Dunk	18	30	0	166.67	33.33	16.67
Finch	18	28	0	155.56	22.22	22.22
Heazlett	16	26	1	162.50	25.00	12.50
Klinger	19	29	0	152.63	26.32	15.79
M Harris	21	40	0	190.48	38.10	28.57
McCullum	18	40	0	222.22	38.89	44.44
Quiney	19	30	0	157.89	26.32	26.32
4 over	423	619	24	146.34	21.99	13.24
D Hughes	25	38	0	152.00	28.00	4.00
Dunk	20	40	2	200.00	30.00	5.00
Finch	25	51	1	204.00	36.00	20.00
McCullum	22	36	1	163.64	22.73	9.09
5th over	425	562	19	132.24	17.88	12.71
D Hughes	25	32	0	128.00	16.00	8.00
Dunk	16	20	0	125.00	12.50	12.50
Finch	18	27	1	150.00	16.67	22.22
Klinger	15	19	1	126.67	13.33	20.00
M Harris	19	17	1	89.47	10.53	10.53
McCullum	17	45	0	264.71	52.94	17.65
Ross	22	17	0	77.27	9.09	4.55
Wright	22	41	1	186.36	31.82	27.27
6th  over	434	615	19	141.71	22.58	16.36
Bailey	18	21	1	116.67	11.11	11.11
D Hughes	24	30	2	125.00	20.83	8.33
Dunk	28	58	0	207.14	35.71	39.29
M Harris	21	29	1	138.10	19.05	4.76
Wright	21	23	0	109.52	14.29	19.05
7th over	428	452	10	105.61	8.18	20.56
Finch	18	15	0	83.33	5.56	22.22
8th over	429	480	15	111.89	9.32	20.05
Dunk	21	40	0	190.48	28.57	28.57
Finch	19	33	0	173.68	15.79	26.32
Henriques	25	30	0	120.00	8.00	16.00
Hodge	20	21	0	105.00	10.00	15.00
Morgan	15	8	0	53.33	6.67	0.00
Wright	18	33	0	183.33	22.22	38.89
9th over	425	477	24	112.24	9.41	20.24
Bell	16	18	0	112.50	12.50	12.50
Finch	15	30	1	200.00	20.00	20.00
Henriques	25	28	2	112.00	8.00	24.00
Hodge	21	23	0	109.52	9.52	28.57
KP	18	11	0	61.11	0.00	11.11
10th over	426	524	13	123.00	11.97	22.30
Bell	17	27	1	158.82	11.76	17.65
Henriques	19	32	2	168.42	26.32	21.05
KP	19	29	0	152.63	21.05	21.05
McCullum	15	22	1	146.67	20.00	26.67
Roher	21	38	2	180.95	23.81	23.81
White	20	37	0	185.00	25.00	20.00
11th over	425	526	18	123.76	12.24	17.41
Finch	14	18	0	128.57	7.14	50.00
Hodge	25	43	0	172.00	24.00	20.00
Ross	19	14	0	73.68	0.00	0.00
White	20	24	1	120.00	15.00	10.00
12th over	426	501	26	117.61	11.97	20.89
Burns	15	18	0	120.00	6.67	6.67
Hodge	18	16	1	4.06	34.25	0.00
M Marsh	21	21	0	3.52	37.84	0.00
Ross	21	14	1	3.57	33.33	0.00
13th over	419	572	17	0.15	1282.26	222.58
Bailey	14	18	1	5.93	32.53	7.23
Burns	19	33	0	4.21	47.50	7.50
Hodge	16	24	3	4.69	44.00	16.00
KP	15	24	0	5.93	33.71	6.74
Lynn	15	30	0	5.07	47.37	23.68
M Marsh	17	16	1	4.65	34.18	0.00
14th over	425	544	28	0.16	1116.42	205.97
Cooper	15	23	1	7.07	25.47	0.00
KP	19	35	1	4.95	47.87	6.38
Lynn	11	18	0	7.45	29.27	7.32
Ross	15	13	2	5.73	27.91	0.00
Wright	13	14	0	5.69	27.03	0.00
15th over	415	589	21	0.17	1104.35	226.09
Bailey	11	17	1	9.00	21.21	6.06
Hodge	14	16	0	6.86	20.83	0.00
KP	16	29	0	6.06	34.02	6.19
16th over	410	541	22	0.19	975.00	181.58
Burns	15	16	0	6.93	19.23	11.54
Cooper	10	7	1	12.20	10.66	0.00
Cummins	11	20	0	8.45	27.96	6.45
Cutting	12	25	1	8.75	28.57	11.43
Ferguson	14	21	0	9.14	22.66	0.00
M Marsh	12	17	0	8.33	22.00	0.00
Stoinis	11	13	0	9.36	16.50	0.00
Wildermuth	10	16	1	9.40	22.34	12.77
17th over	404	563	33	0.20	929.63	170.37
Bailey	12	17	0	10.17	18.03	4.92
Burns	13	12	0	8.69	17.70	0.00
Cooper	13	12	2	9.54	12.90	0.00
Cummins	19	24	0	5.37	31.37	11.76
Ferguson	10	15	0	13.70	14.60	0.00
Klinger	10	20	0	11.50	19.13	5.22
M Marsh	11	17	0	9.36	23.30	5.83
Pollard	13	16	0	8.69	19.47	0.00
Ross	11	10	0	9.91	16.51	0.00
Stoinis	12	31	0	9.33	30.36	10.71
18th over	384	603	29	0.22	902.33	209.30
Agar	10	15	0	10.60	16.98	0.00
Bailey	11	24	0	12.09	21.05	4.51
Botha	14	29	0	8.43	28.81	5.08
Burns	18	52	0	6.83	48.78	29.27
Cummins	17	24	1	6.29	27.10	11.21
Ferguson	14	20	1	10.29	18.75	4.17
Hodge	11	20	1	11.64	19.53	4.69
Pollard	11	24	1	11.45	23.02	9.52
Wildermuth	10	4	2	11.60	6.90	0.00
19th over	341	424	39	0.26	650.00	113.33
Agar	11	20	0	10.82	19.33	5.04
Botha	13	19	2	11.08	16.67	0.00
Burns	10	19	0	16.60	14.46	0.00
Cummins	13	11	3	9.46	13.82	4.88
Ferguson	10	11	1	14.80	12.84	0.00
Hilfenhaus	16	5	1	7.31	7.69	0.00
M Marsh	13	26	1	8.77	28.95	10.53
20th over	315	473	44	0.30	637.89	176.84
Agar	16	30	1	7.69	28.46	9.76
Burns	12	20	1	14.58	14.29	6.86
Ferguson	13	37	2	12.31	26.25	15.00
Green	11	30	0	10.64	26.50	15.38
Hilfenhaus	11	7	5	12.09	11.28	0.00
M Marsh	11	18	1	11.09	17.21	0.00
Pollard	10	25	2	14.30	19.58	12.59
Rose	12	20	1	11.17	20.15	4.48
Wright	12	22	0	10.83	18.46	9.23

Batting Position and partnerships with average

The data represent % of runs scored in terms of team’s total.
Interestingly at home, the Scorchers openers have performed poorly; hence their percentage of contribution to team’s score is least percentage in this tournament! Sixers have balance contribution across batting position.

Only included the top 5 batting position for this analysis –
Openers 1-2
Top middle order 3-4-5
Middle lower order 5-6-7
Batting Partnerships with average

Summary:

While it is very difficult to weigh up one indicator against another in terms of its greater or lesser significance to the overall result, qualitatively one might have reached the conclusion before the start of the Final that –

• A batting average for Perth 30+ at home verses Sixers in Perth of 23.7 outweighs the other factors of scoring rates, boundary rates and big overs since they were only marginally different
• Consistent top order batting was Klinger for Scorchers and Hughes for Sixers, and again qualitatively suggesting Klinger outperformed Hughes
• Bringing the innings home Agar for Scorchers and Botha for Sixers were the best for each team during these overs with Botha marginally shading Agar.

 

Bowling(Team’s bowling performance home and away with primary indicators)

Drilling into this table from the
• Sixers perspective, they start well conceded 6.40 in the first over, but then conceded 10 or more in remaining powerplay overs. On average they concede 12 runs on the 5th over followed by 9.70 in the last over of powerplay. Only once did they concede less than 6 in the fifth over which had excellent effect in the following over
• Scorchers’ bowlers are the meanest in this phase. They start well AND only their 4th over (8.80)and the 6th over(8.00) is most expensive.

For these indicators – R/OxSR = lower the number the better R/O = lower the number the better Consec <5 R/O = the higher the number the better <5R/O = the higher the number the better >6R/O = lower the number the better

 

Best bowlers for each over of the tournament

Firstly define what best means:

Is it the highest number of balls per scoring shots?

Is it the lowest number of runs in that over?

Is it the highest number of consecutive dot balls?

Is it the highest strike rate ie wickets taken in that over?

Is it the highest number of dot balls in that over?

Is it the lowest number of boundaries in that over?

Is it the lowest number of wides/noballs conceded?

 

For the purposes of this article, the first three will be the primary indicator to define the best over for a bowler at any time of the game. These indicators tend to apply pressure on batsman to score.

 

Top best bowlers for each over with three prime indicators (Minimum requirement is 18 balls in every Over)

 

Each over’s best	balls.	Runs	wk	R/O	balls/ss	2 consecutive (%)dot balls
1st over	445	455	17	6.13	2.31	12.36
Cooper	48	45	3	5.63	1.85	10.42
Green	19	12	0	3.79	3.17	5.26
Johnson	25	22	3	5.28	3.57	24.00
McKay	18	14	3	4.67	3.60	5.56
Neser	26	15	1	3.46	4.33	30.77
Steketee	27	17	4	3.78	4.50	22.22
2nd over	449	611	15	8.16	1.86	5.12
Richardson	20	23	0	6.90	2.50	0.00
Russell	21	25	0	7.14	1.91	4.76
Tremain	18	14	1	4.67	2.57	22.22
3th over	430	578	18	8.07	1.81	6.51
Beer	41	45	2	6.59	1.52	4.88
Christian	19	18	1	5.68	2.38	0.00
Johnson	24	12	2	3.00	4.00	41.67
4th over	423	633	24	8.98	1.69	6.38
Badree	18	22	2	7.33	1.64	0.00
Boland	30	38	5	7.60	1.67	0.00
Richardson	24	30	4	7.50	2.18	8.33
5th over	425	573	19	8.09	1.75	5.41
Boland	24	14	2	3.50	2.67	16.67
Johnson	24	20	2	5.00	2.40	12.50
Laughlin	26	18	1	4.15	2.60	7.69
6th over	434	627	19	8.67	1.64	4.15
Jordan	21	27	2	7.71	1.91	4.76
Narine	24	20	1	5.00	2.18	8.33
7th over	428	469	10	6.57	1.44	2.57
Fawad	19	14	1	4.42	1.90	5.26
Hogg	18	13	1	4.33	1.50	11.11
Swepson	24	21	1	5.25	1.41	4.17
8th over	429	504	15	7.05	1.51	2.56
Hogg	18	12	0	4.00	2.00	5.56
Zampa	19	18	1	5.68	1.46	0.00
9th over	425	487	24	6.88	1.49	2.59
Agar	18	15	0	5.00	1.29	0.00
Boyce	18	19	1	6.33	1.80	0.00
Fawad	18	20	4	6.67	2.00	11.11
Hogg	31	30	0	5.81	1.55	3.23
Swepson	30	21	4	4.20	1.67	0.00
Zampa	18	16	1	5.33	1.80	0.00
10th over	426	532	13	7.49	1.45	3.29
Bresnan	18	20	1	6.67	1.50	5.56
Narine	18	18	0	6.00	1.29	0.00
O’Connor	18	22	0	7.33	1.64	0.00
Zampa	18	15	0	5.00	2.00	22.22
11th over	425	552	18	7.79	1.50	1.88
Beer	24	17	0	4.25	1.71	0.00
Fawad	18	14	3	4.67	2.00	11.11
O’Connor	25	33	2	7.92	1.56	0.00
Swepson	42	47	3	6.71	1.45	0.00
Zampa	20	22	1	6.60	1.54	0.00
12th over	426	521	26	7.34	1.50	3.05
Agar	24	26	1	6.50	1.33	0.00
Sodhi	18	19	3	6.33	2.00	0.00
Wildermuth	18	19	0	6.33	1.80	11.11
Zampa	18	19	0	6.33	1.29	0.00
13th over	419	584	17	8.36	1.36	1.67
Botha	18	20	0	6.67	1.20	0.00
Fawad	25	26	1	6.24	1.39	0.00
Johnson	19	26	1	8.21	1.58	10.53
O’Connor	18	24	1	8.00	1.20	0.00
Tye	18	22	1	7.33	1.80	5.56
14th over	425	548	28	7.74	1.54	4.71
Boland	25	20	3	4.80	1.79	0.00
Broad	19	26	0	8.21	1.36	0.00
Tremain	20	13	1	3.90	3.33	35.00
15th over	415	600	21	8.67	1.53	3.13
Hilfenhaus	18	21	1	7.00	1.38	0.00
Hogg	30	45	2	9.00	1.36	0.00
16th over	410	562	22	8.22	1.48	3.41
Agar	19	19	1	6.00	1.73	15.79
Dwarshuis	18	25	1	8.33	1.50	0.00
Narine	30	39	4	7.80	1.43	0.00
Watson	18	13	2	4.33	1.80	0.00
Wildermuth	33	46	1	8.36	1.32	3.03
17th over	404	583	33	8.66	1.46	2.72
Johnson	19	15	1	4.74	2.11	10.53
Laughlin	24	16	3	4.00	1.85	4.17
Mills	18	23	2	7.67	1.80	0.00
Narine	21	24	4	6.86	1.40	0.00
Stoinis	18	18	1	6.00	1.06	0.00
18th over	384	626	29	9.78	1.45	2.60
Botha	19	28	1	8.84	1.58	0.00
Brathwaite C	21	28	3	8.00	1.50	0.00
Cutting	40	53	2	7.95	1.54	2.50
Dwarshuis	18	28	2	9.33	2.00	11.11
Tye	19	24	1	7.58	1.73	5.26
19th over	341	462	39	8.13	1.62	5.28
Abbott	18	19	2	6.33	1.80	5.56
Cummins	20	31	2	9.30	1.67	0.00
Dwarshuis	26	38	3	8.77	1.37	0.00
Hilfenhaus	32	35	3	6.56	1.88	15.63
Steketee	41	51	3	7.46	1.95	14.63
20th over	315	512	44	9.75	1.57	4.76
Abbott	31	54	6	10.45	1.48	3.23
Cutting	52	85	5	9.81	1.53	5.77

 

 

1. Best bowlers for each over of the tournament when defending 160 or less.

(using three prime indicators)

 

In 34 games there were 14 instances were teams were asked to defend less than 160 score, and only twice(14.28%) teams managed to defend it. Here is a list of best bowlers for each over in this segment.

 

 

<160defending	Balls .	Sum of r/o(without B&LB)	Wkts	R/O	balls/ss	2 consecutive (%)dot balls
1st over	116	127	3	6.57	2.19	9.48
Beer	18	19	0	6.33	1.38	5.56
Cooper	13	9	1	4.15	2.60	23.08
Johnson	13	18	1	8.31	2.17	7.69
Willey	13	6	0	2.77	3.25	23.08
2th over	112	142	3	7.61	1.96	4.46
Hilfenhaus	21	24	0	6.86	3.00	4.76
3th over	111	151	7	8.16	2.02	8.11
Boland	19	25	2	7.89	2.71	21.05
Johnson	12	10	1	5.00	3.00	33.33
Willey	12	19	2	9.50	1.71	8.33
4th over	108	129	6	7.17	1.86	6.48
Richardson	18	22	3	7.33	2.57	11.11
Tremain	12	13	0	6.50	2.00	0.00
5th over	109	117	5	6.44	2.02	9.17
Boland	18	10	1	3.33	2.57	22.22
Johnson	12	13	0	6.50	2.00	0.00
Laughlin	12	5	1	2.50	4.00	16.67
6th over	111	146	7	7.89	1.85	4.50
Jordan	14	20	1	8.57	1.75	7.14
Narine	12	6	1	3.00	2.40	8.33
Richardson	18	14	0	4.67	1.80	0.00
7th over	108	126	2	7.00	1.35	1.85
Beer	18	26	0	8.67	1.06	0.00
Tye	12	13	0	6.50	1.71	0.00
8th over	110	105	5	5.73	1.59	5.45
Stanlake	13	6	1	2.77	3.25	23.08
Zampa	12	14	0	7.00	1.20	0.00
9th over	111	109	7	5.89	1.54	0.00
Agar	12	9	0	4.50	1.33	0.00
Gulbis	18	23	2	7.67	1.50	0.00
10th  over	107	122	2	6.84	1.51	5.61
Narine	12	11	0	5.50	1.33	0.00
Zampa	12	4	0	2.00	3.00	33.33
11th over	107	145	6	8.13	1.57	1.87
Beer	12	6	0	3.00	2.00	0.00
Tye	13	19	1	8.77	1.63	0.00
12th over	105	119	6	6.80	1.48	0.95
Richardson	13	14	1	6.46	1.86	7.69
Zampa	12	8	0	4.00	1.50	0.00
13th  over	104	139	4	8.02	1.41	0.96
Hogg	13	15	0	6.92	1.18	0.00
Pollard	12	18	0	9.00	1.20	0.00
Stoinis	12	12	0	6.00	1.50	0.00
Tye	12	6	1	3.00	2.40	8.33
14th  over	109	118	4	6.50	1.68	8.26
Tremain	12	8	1	4.00	4.00	41.67
Zampa	12	10	0	5.00	1.50	0.00
15th over	98	135	5	8.27	1.53	3.06
Hogg	12	15	2	7.50	1.33	0.00
Johnson	12	13	0	6.50	2.00	0.00
Richardson	12	17	0	8.50	1.20	0.00
16th over	99	139	3	8.42	1.52	4.04
Agar	12	13	0	6.50	1.33	0.00
Beer	12	16	0	8.00	2.00	0.00
17th over	100	159	5	9.54	1.30	0.00
Stoinis	12	12	0	6.00	1.00	0.00
18th over	92	166	3	10.83	1.42	2.17
Narine	6	3	1	3	2	16.67
M Marsh	7	4	1	3.43	1.75	0
Nesser	4	7	0	7	2.00	16.67
19th over	45	63	7	8.40	1.40	0
Boland	11	17	1	9.27	1.38
Laughlin	6	5	2	5.00	2.00
Rimmington	6	7	1	7	1.50
20th over	22	34	4	9.27	1.38
Finch	6	12	2	12	1.50
Richardson	7	12	0	10.49	1.40

Best type of bowlers (Spin & Pace) for each phase

This season spinners have picked 9 wickets(56) at At WACA @ 32.89 run/wkt conceding 7.28/over and have conceded less boundary than fast bowlers. An off spinner has been the most economical of any bowler at this venue this year!. Hence Johan Botha’s performance would be key for Sixers

Here is how various type of bowlers performed at WACA.

 

 

Phase wise performance for all type of bowlers in this tournament

	Balls	Runs	Wkt	R/O	balls/ss	4/6ss	% < 6 runs	2 consecutive (%)dot balls
(0-6)	667	812	31	7.30	1.98	17.09	35.08	7.05
LF	37	41	2	6.65	2.31	16.22	32.43	13.51
LMF	31	30	2	5.81	2.38	16.13	58.06	16.13
RFM	88	118	3	8.05	1.76	19.32	27.27	1.14
RM	6	6	1	6.00	2.00	16.67	0.00	0.00
RMF	304	344	17	6.79	2.17	15.46	45.39	8.88
SLA	61	71	1	6.98	1.56	11.48	19.67	3.28
(7-10)	436	462	16	6.36	1.49	8.72	0.00	3.21
LBG	96	93	3	5.81	1.68	9.38		6.25
LMF	7	8	0	6.86	1.17	0.00		0.00
OFFIE	54	47	3	5.22	1.42	3.70		1.85
RF	18	13	1	4.33	2.25	5.56		16.67
RM	37	44	3	7.14	1.48	13.51		0.00
RMF	115	139	4	7.25	1.55	13.91		3.48
SLA	66	71	0	6.45	1.22	1.52		0.00
SLC	31	28	2	5.42	1.63	6.45		0.00
(11-15)	523	656	25	7.53	1.53	14.72	32.12	3.06
LBG	78	102	5	7.85	1.34	11.54	53.85	0.00
LF	26	26	1	6.00	2.36	15.38	46.15	3.85
OFFIE	25	22	1	5.28	1.56	4.00	72.00	4.00
RFM	37	38	3	6.16	1.61	18.92	16.22	2.70
RMF	177	214	8	7.25	1.70	16.38		6.78
SLA	68	90	1	7.94	1.36	13.24		0.00
SLC	39	45	3	6.92	1.34	5.13		0.00
(16-20)	358	561	22	9.40	1.42	17.04		1.68
LF	6	8	0	8.00	1.50	16.67
LMF	6	6	0	6.00	1.50	0.00
RM	20	23	0	6.90	1.18	5.00

 

 

Note – (Byes and leg byes not included)

 

Summary:

As stated for Batting, it is very difficult to weigh up one indicator against another in terms of its greater or lesser significance to the overall result, qualitatively one might have reached the conclusion before the start of the Final that –

• On all indicators with the possible exception of the last 3 overs, the Scorchers’ bowling attack was far more dominant than that of the Sixers

 

Predictions pre-final:

It was clearly evident from the data presented here, that the Scorchers’ bowling was the key to a Final’s win. There was not sufficient evidence to suggest one team’s batting would or could dominate the opposition

Of course there is another skill component to winning games of cricket – fielding.

While this is somewhat reflected in a team’s bowling performance, a closer analysis will reveal why some teams are more inconsistent than others.