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.

 

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *