Moneyball
Moneyball
∗
Jack Davis, Harsha Perera and Tim B. Swartz
Abstract
This paper introduces a new metric for player evaluation in Twenty20 cricket. The proposed
metric of “expected run differential” measures the proposed additional runs that a player
contributes to his team when compared to a standard player. Of course, the definition of
a standard player depends on their role and therefore the metric is useful for comparing
players that belong to the same positional cohort. We provide methodology to investigate
both career performances and current form. Our metrics do not correlate highly with con-
ventional measures such as batting average, strike rate, bowling average, economy rate and
the Reliance ICC ratings. Consequently, our analyses of individual players based on results
from international competitions provide some insights that differ from widely held beliefs.
We supplement our analysis of player evaluation by investigating those players who may be
∗
Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A1S6.
Corresponding author: T. Swartz, email: [email protected], phone: 778.782.4579.
1
1 INTRODUCTION
Player evaluation is the Holy Grail of analytics in professional team sports. Teams are constantly
attempting to improve their lineups through player selection, trades and drafts taking into account
relevant financial constraints. A salary cap is one financial constraint that is present in many
professional sports leagues. If a team spends excessively on one player, then there is less money
challenging problem due to player interactions and the subtleties of “off-the-ball” movements.
Nevertheless, a wealth of simple statistics are available for comparing players in these sports. For
example, points scored, rebounds, assists and steals are common statistics that provide insight
on aspects of player performance in basketball. More complex statistics are also available, and
we refer the reader to Oliver (2004) for basketball, Gramacy, Taddy & Jensen (2013) for hockey
In sports of a “discrete” nature (e.g. baseball) where there are short bursts of activity and
players have well-defined and measurable tasks that do not depend greatly on interactions with
other players, there is more hope for accurate and comprehensive player evaluation. There has
been much written about baseball analytics where Bill James is recognized as a pioneer in the
subject area of sabermetrics. A biography of James and his ideas is given by Gray (2006).
James was given due credit in the book Moneyball (Lewis 2003) which was later developed into
the popular Hollywood movie starring Brad Pitt. Moneyball chronicled the 2002 season of the
Oakland Athletics, a small-market Major League Baseball team who through advanced analytics
2
recognized and acquired undervalued baseball players. Moneyball may be the inspiration of
many of the advances and the interest in sports analytics today. In particular, the discipline
of sabermetrics continues to flourish. For example, Albert & Marchi (2013) provide baseball
enthusiasts with the skills to explore baseball data using computational tools.
Cricket is another sport which may be characterized as a discrete game and it shares many
similarities with baseball. Both sports have innings where runs are scored, and whereas baseball
has batters and pitchers, cricket has batsmen and bowlers. Although analytics papers have been
written on cricket, the literature is far less extensive than what exists in baseball. A somewhat
There are various formats of cricket where the governing authority for the sport is the Inter-
national Cricket Council (ICC). This paper is concerned with player evaluation in the version of
cricket known as Twenty20 cricket (or T20 cricket). Twenty20 is a recent form of limited overs
cricket which has gained popularity worldwide. Twenty20 cricket was showcased in 2003 and
involved matches between English and Welsh domestic sides. The rationale behind Twenty20
was to provide an exciting version of cricket where matches conclude in roughly three hours
duration. There are now various professional Twenty20 competitions where the Indian Premier
League (IPL) is regarded as the most prestigious. The IPL has been bolstered by the support
of Bollywood stars, extensive television contracts, attempts at competitive balance, short but
In Twenty20 cricket, there are two common statistics that are used for the evaluation of
batting performance. However, before defining the statistics it is important to remind the reader
that there are two ways in which batting ceases during the first innings. Batting is terminated
3
when the batting team has lost 10 wickets. That is, there have been 10 dismissals (“outs” in
baseball parlance). Batting is also terminated when a team has used up its 20 overs. This means
that the batting team has faced 120 bowled balls (i.e. six balls per over) not including extras.
With this background, the first popular batting statistic is the batting average which is the total
number of runs scored by a batsman divided by the number of innings in which he was dismissed.
A logical problem with this statistic can be seen from the pathological case where over the course
of a career, a batsman has scored a total of 100 runs during 100 innings but has been dismissed
only once. Such a batsman has an incredibly high batting average of 100.0 yet he would be viewed
as a detriment to his team since he scores so few runs per innings. The second popular batting
statistic is the batting strike rate which is calculated as the number of runs scored by a batsman
per 100 balls bowled. A logical problem with this statistic can be seen from the pathological case
where a batsman always bats according to the pattern of scoring six runs on the first ball and
then is dismissed on the second ball. Such a batsman has an incredibly high batting strike rate
of 300.0 yet he would be viewed as a detriment to his team since he uses up wickets so quickly.
We remark that similar logical flaws exist for the two main bowling statistics referred to as the
Although various authors have attempted to introduce more sophisticated cricket statistics
(e.g. Croucher 2000, Beaudoin & Swartz 2003 and van Staden 2009), it is fair to say that
these approaches have not gained traction. We also mention the Reliance ICC Player Rank-
average and whose interpretation is not straightforward. Despite the prevalence and the official
nature of the rankings, the precise details of the calculations may be proprietary as they do not
4
appear to be available.
In this paper, we propose a method of player evaluation in Twenty20 cricket from the point of
view of relative value statistics. Relative value statistics have become prominent in the sporting
literature as they attempt to quantify what is really important in terms of winning and losing
matches. For example, in Major League Baseball (MLB), the VORP (value over replacement
player) statistic has been developed to measure the impact of player performance. For a batter,
player (Woolner 2002). A replacement-level player is a player who can be readily enlisted from
the minor leagues. Baseball also has the related WAR (wins above replacement) statistic which
National Hockey League (NHL), the plus-minus statistic is prevalent. The statistic is calculated
as the goals scored by a player’s team minus the goals scored against the player’s team while the
player is on the ice. More sophisticated versions of the plus-minus statistic have been developed
In Twenty20 cricket, a team wins a match when the runs scored while batting exceed the
runs conceded while bowling. Therefore, it is run differential that is the key measure of team
performance. It follows that an individual player can be evaluated by considering his team’s run
differential based on his inclusion and exclusion in the lineup. Clearly, run differential cannot
be calculated from match results in a meaningful way since conditions change from match to
match. For example, in comparing two matches (one with a specified player present and the
other when he is absent), other players may also change as well as the opposition. Our approach
to player evaluation is based on simulation methodology where matches are replicated. Through
5
simulation, we can obtain long run properties (i.e. expectations) involving run differential. By
concentrating on what is really important (i.e. expected run differential), we believe that our
In section 2, we provide an overview of the simulator developed by Davis, Perera & Swartz
(2015) which is the backbone of our analysis and is used in the estimation of expected run
differential.
In section 3, we analyze player performance where players are divided into the following broad
categories: pure batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders. Our analyses lead to ratings, and the ratings
have a clear interpretation. For example, if one player has an expected run differential that is two
runs greater than another player, we know exactly what this means. We observe that some of our
results are in conflict with the Reliance ICC ratings. In cases like these, it provides opportunities
for teams to implement positive changes that are in opposition to commonly held beliefs. This is
the “moneyball” aspect of our paper. We extend our analyses further by looking at salary data
in the IPL where we indicate the possibility of players being both overpaid or underpaid. We
We now provide an overview of the simulator developed by Davis, Perera & Swartz (2015) which
we use for the estimation of expected run differential. There are 8 broadly defined outcomes that
can occur when a batsman faces a bowled ball. These batting outcomes are listed below:
6
outcome j =0 ≡ 0 runs scored
outcome j =1 ≡ 1 runs scored
outcome j =2 ≡ 2 runs scored
outcome j =3 ≡ 3 runs scored
(1)
outcome j =4 ≡ 4 runs scored
outcome j =5 ≡ 5 runs scored
outcome j =6 ≡ 6 runs scored
outcome j =7 ≡ dismissal
In the list (1) of possible batting outcomes, we exclude extras such as byes, leg byes, wide-balls
and no balls. We later account for extras in the simulation by generating them at the appropriate
rates. Extras occur at the rate of 5.1% in Twenty20 cricket. We note that the outcome j = 5 is
According to the enumeration of the batting outcomes in (1), Davis, Perera & Swartz (2015)
where Xiowj is the number of occurrences of outcome j by the ith batsman during the oth over
when w wickets have been taken. In (2), miow is the number of balls that batsman i has faced
in the dataset corresponding to the oth over when w wickets have been taken. The dataset is
“special” in the sense that it consists of detailed ball-by-ball data. The data were obtained using
a proprietary parser which was applied to the commentary logs of matches listed on the CricInfo
of the ICC. Currently, the 10 full members of the ICC are Australia, Bangladesh, England, India,
New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies and Zimbabwe. In total, we obtained
7
data from 282 matches that spanned the period from January 2005 to August 2014. The first
innings data consist of 35356 balls bowled where j = 1 in (1) is the most common occurrence
with 14542 (41.1%) cases. The outcomes j = 5 and j = 3 are the least frequent occurrences with
The estimation of the multinomial parameters in (2) is a high-dimensional and complex prob-
lem. The complexity is partly due to the sparsity of the data; there are many match situations
(i.e. combinations of overs and wickets) where batsmen do not have batting outcomes. For ex-
ample, bowlers typically bat near the end of the batting order and do not face situations when
To facilitate the estimation of the multinomial parameters piowj , Davis, Perera & Swartz (2015)
τowj pi70j
piowj = P . (3)
j τowj pi70j
In (3), the parameter pi70j represents the baseline characteristic for batsman i with respect to
batting outcome j. The characteristic pi70j is the probability of outcome j associated with the ith
batsman at the juncture of the match immediately following the powerplay (i.e. the 7th over) when
no wickets have been taken. The multiplicative parameter τowj scales the baseline performance
characteristic pi70j to the stage of the match corresponding to the oth over with w wickets taken.
The denominator in (3) ensures that the relevant probabilities sum to unity. There is an implicit
assumption in (3) that although batsmen are unique, their batting characteristics change with
respect to overs and wickets by the same multiplicative factor which is essentially an indicator of
8
aggression. For example, when aggressiveness increases relative to the baseline state, one would
expect τow4 > 1 and τow6 > 1 since bolder batting leads to more 4’s and 6’s.
Given the estimation of the parameters in (3) (see Davis, Perera & Swartz 2015), an algorithm
for simulating first innings runs against an average bowler is available. One simply generates
multinomial batting outcomes in (1) according to the laws of cricket. For example, when either 10
wickets are accumulated or the number of overs reaches 20, the first innings is terminated. Davis,
Perera & Swartz (2015) also provide modifications for batsmen facing specific bowlers (instead
of average bowlers), they account for the home field advantage and they provide adjustments for
second innings simulation. In summary, with such a simulator, we are able to replicate matches,
and estimate the expected runs scored when Team A (lineup specified) plays against Team B
(lineup specified). Davis, Perera & Swartz (2015) demonstrate that the simulator generates
3 PLAYER EVALUATION
Recall that our objective in player evaluation is the development of a metric that measures player
contribution in terms of run differential relative to baseline players. We restrict our attention to
first innings performances since the second innings involves a target score whereby players alter
their standard strategies. Accordingly, we define Rs (l) as the number of runs scored in the first
innings with a batting lineup l. Letting tbat denote a typical batting lineup, the quantity Rs (tbat )
9
is therefore the standard of comparison and
is the expected differential for runs scored due to batting lineup l. An above average batting
lineup l is one which produces a positive value of E(Ds (l)) and a below average batting lineup l is
one which produces a negative value of E(Ds (l)). Operationally, the calculations of E(Rs (l)) and
E(Rs (tbat )) are obtained via match simulation. The simulation follows the description provided
in section 2 where the batting characteristics of player i who forms part of a batting lineup are
given by piowj .
Since success in cricket depends on both scoring runs and preventing runs, we introduce
analogous measures for bowling. Accordingly, we define Rc (l) as the number of runs conceded
by the bowling lineup l in the first innings. Letting tbowl denote a typical bowling lineup, the
is the expected differential for runs conceded due to bowling lineup l. An above average bowling
lineup l is one which produces a negative value of E(Dc (l)) and a below average batting lineup
l is one which produces a positive value of E(Dc (l)). The simulations used in the calculation of
10
(5) require bowling characteristics for each of the bowlers in the bowling lineups. The bowling
Summarizing, (4) measures the batting contribution of a batting lineup l. Similarly, (5)
measures the bowling contribution of a bowling lineup l. We now wish to synthesize these two
components to evaluate the overall contribution of an individual player. For player i, let lbat,i =
tbat except that player i is inserted into the batting lineup. Similarly, let lbowl,i = tbowl except that
player i is inserted into the bowling lineup. If player i is a pure batsman, then he is not inserted
is the overall expected run differential due to player i. The quantity (6) is interpreted as the
average number of runs that player i contributes to his team over a baseline player. Since runs is
the currency of winning matches, E(D(i)) provides a direct evaluation of player worth.
There are two remaining details required in the evaluation of (4) and (5). We need to define
the typical batting lineup tbat and the typical bowling lineup tbowl . For tbat , we consider all 448
players in our dataset, and for each player, we determine their mean batting position (1, . . . , 11)
based on their individual match histories. For all batsmen i who are classified according to batting
position k, we average their batting characteristics piowj to obtain batting characteristics for the
typical batsman who bats in position k. We note that there is not a lot of data available for
batting performances in batting positions 10 and 11. In these two positions, we use a pooled
average over the two positions. For tbowl , we average bowling characteristics over all 306 bowlers.
11
We then set tbowl to consist of five identical bowlers with the average bowling characteristics, each
who bowl four overs. In the above discussion, all averages refer to weighted averages where the
We note that there is considerable flexibility in the proposed approach. Whereas (6) provides
the number of runs that player i contributes over a baseline player, the lineups tbat and tbowl
do not need to be typical lineups. For instance, these baseline lineups could correspond to a
player’s team, and then (6) quantifies the contribution of the player to his specific team. Also,
the development of (4) and (5) suggest that not only can we compare individual players but
subsets of players. For example, a team may be interested in knowing how the substitution of
three players from their standard roster affects expected run differential.
Pure batsmen do not bowl. It follows that their overall performance is based entirely on batting
When assessing pure batsmen, it is important to compare apples with apples. Therefore, in
the calculation of (7), we always insert a pure batsman i into batting position 3 when simulating
matches. The third batting position is the average batting position for pure batsmen.
Table 1 provides the performance metric (7) for the 50 batsmen in our dataset who have faced
at least 250 balls. These are primarily well-established batsmen with a long history in Twenty20
12
cricket. Wicketkeepers in Table 1 are marked with an asterisk; it may be reasonable to assess
them separately from the other pure batsmen since wicketkeepers contribute in a meaningful way
Ahmed Shehzad is the best pure batsman with E(D) = 7.83. This means that if an average
pure batsman is replaced by Shehzad, a team’s scoring would increase by 7.83 runs on average.
There are some surprises in Table 1. For example, AB de Villiers does not have an exceptional
expected run differential (E(D) = 1.66) yet he is regarded as one of the best Twenty20 batsmen.
On the other hand, MDKJ Perera is rated as the best Sri Lankan pure batsman, and is ranked
There are no pure batsmen who are much worse than E(D) = 0, likely because their poor
performances prevented them from playing long enough to face 250 balls. We also observe that
there are few wicketkeepers at the top of the list (only BB McCullum and K Sangakkara). This
might be anticipated because the specialized skills of a wicketkeeper may be sufficient for their
continued selection.
The E(D) measure can also be used to estimate the effect of specific player replacements. For
example, although they did not play during the same time period, it is interesting to compare the
South African wicketkeepers Mark Boucher (now retired) and Quinton de Kock. With de Kock
(E(D) = −1.85) in the batting lineup instead of Boucher (E(D) = −4.04), South Africa could
13
3.2 Bowlers
Surprisingly, the term “bowler” is not well-defined. The intention is that a player designated as a
bowler is one who specializes in bowling and is not “good” at batting. We are going to make the
term precise and define a bowler as a player who bowls and whose average batting position is 8, 9,
10 or 11. Since a bowler bats late in the lineup, he does not bat often and his expected differential
for runs scored E(Ds (lbat,i )) is negligible. Therefore the metric of interest (6) for bowler i reduces
to
The calculation of (6) is obtained by simulation where four bowling overs are uniformly selected
from the innings and these are the overs that are assigned to bowler i. The simulation is based
on estimated bowling characteristics where qiowj denotes the probability of outcome j by bowler
As any cricket fan knows, the taking of wickets is something that distinguishes bowlers and
is highly valued. We wish to emphasize that wicket taking is an important component of our
metric (6). A bowler i who takes wickets regularly has larger bowling characteristics qiow7 than
a typical bowler. Therefore, in the simulation procedure, such bowlers take wickets more often,
Table 2 provides the performance metric (6) for the 60 bowlers in our dataset who have bowled
at least 250 balls. These are primarily well-established bowlers with a long history in Twenty20
cricket. When comparing Table 2 to Table 1, we observe that the bowlers at the top of the
14
list contribute more to their team than do the top batsmen. This may be relevant to the IPL
auctions where teams should perhaps spend more money on top bowlers than on top batsmen.
We also note that Chris Mpofu has a very poor expected run differential E(D) = −11.45. The
natural question is how can he continue to play? Perhaps this is due to the fact that he plays for
Zimbabwe, a weak ICC team that has little depth in its bowling selection pools.
Interestingly, among the top five bowlers according to the October 2014 ICC rankings, only
Sachithra Senanayake and Samuel Badree place highly in terms of E(D). The other three bowlers,
Sunil Narine, Saeed Ajmal and Mitchell Starc are found near the top quartile of the E(D) rankings.
Coincidently, Senanayake, Ajmal, and Narine have been recently banned by the ICC for illegal
bowling actions.
Table 2 also suggests that there is little difference between fast and spin bowlers in terms of
E(D). In cricket commentary and tactics, much is made about the distinction between fast and
spin bowlers. For example, it is customary for teams to begin innings with fast bowlers and to
impose a particular composition of both fast and spin bowlers in the bowling lineup. We believe
that teams should consider bowler selection with a greater emphasis on actual performance. The
E(D) statistics in Table 2 tell us precisely about bowling contributions in terms of runs. If a
team, for example, has a preponderance of quality fast bowlers, they should perhaps think twice
about subsituting one of these exceptionally fast bowlers for a mediocre spin bowler.
3.3 All-Rounders
As with bowlers, the term “all-rounder” is not well-defined although it is intended to convey that
a player excels at both batting and bowling. We define an all-rounder as a player who bowls and
15
whose average career batting position is 7 or earlier in the lineup. The calculation of (6) involves
simulations where the all-rounder of interest is inserted into position 5 of the batting order. For
bowling, four overs are uniformly selected from the 20 overs in the innings and these are the overs
Table 3 provides the performance metric (6) for the 25 all-rounders in our dataset who have
faced at least 250 balls and who have bowled at least 250 balls. These are primarily well-
Among the all-rounders, there are some players who have expectionally good batting compo-
nents of their E(D). For example, Thisara Perera is considered one of the best all-rounders in
our data, owing entirely to his outstanding batting performance, and in spite of his poor bowling
performance. Perera would take the top spot in Table 1, had he been a pure batsman during his
career, which has now ended. Strategically, it may have been preferable for Sri Lanka to utilize
Perera as a pure batsman rather than an all-rounder. The same might be said of Kieron Pollard
of the West Indies. And by a similar logic, Pakistan might be better served to use Abdul Razzaq
as a bowler rather than an all-rounder. These are strategies that may be of considerable benefit
to teams.
In Tables 1, 2 and 3, we calculated the expected run differential metric (6) for pure batsmen,
bowlers and all-rounders, respectively. It is interesting to see how the new measures for batting
In Table 4, we provide correlations involving the new measures against the traditional batting
16
average, strike rate, bowling average and economy rate. The correlations are stratified over the
three classes of players. We observe that all metrics have similar correlations, neither strong nor
weak. If we take E(D) as the gold standard for performance evaluation, then strike rate should be
slightly preferred to batting average as a batting measure in Twenty20. Similarly, economy rate
should be slightly preferred to bowling average as a bowling measure in Twenty20. These findings
are in keeping with the view that wickets are less important in Twenty20 due to the shorter nature
of the game when compared to one-day cricket. We note that both bowling average and batting
Up until now, our analyses have focused on career performances. However, in some situations
such as team selection, it is current form which is of greater importance. Davis, Perera & Swartz
(2015) provide methodology for determining current form. The approach is implemented by
providing more weight to recent match performances. To see that the distinction between career
performance and current form is meaningful, Table 5 reports the baseline characteristics for AB
de Villiers, Mohammad Hafeez and Umar Gul based on both career performance and current form
(up to August 2014). AB de Villiers, a pure batsman, has better recent form than his average
career performance where he is now scoring roughly one more run per over than his career average.
Much of de Villiers improvement may be attributed to added power as he is now scoring 4’s and
6’s with more regularity. On the other hand, Umar Gul, a bowler, is experiencing a decline in
performance in recent matches compared to his career values, allowing 1.66 additional runs per
over. We observe that the current form of Mohammad Hafeez is in keeping with his average career
More generally, it is interesting to investigate how current form compares with career per-
17
formances across all players. We look at the correlation between E(D) in (6) with respect to
current form and career for the players available in our dataset. The correlations are 0.77 for pure
batsmen, 0.91 for bowlers and 0.68 for all-rounders. This suggests that although performances
change over time, the changes are not typically great. The cases of AB de Villiers and Umar Gul
With the availability of batting and bowling characteristics representing current form as in
Table 5, we carry out further simulations to obtain the expected run differential metric (6) based
on current form. It is interesting to compare our metric (6) with the Reliance ICC ratings which
also reflect current form. The Reliance ICC ratings are taken from October 5, 2014.
In Figure 1, we provide a scatterplot of our metric (6) based on current form against the
Reliance ICC rating for the 50 pure batsmen in our dataset who have faced at least 250 balls.
There is a moderate correlation (r = 0.56) between the Reliance ICC batting ratings and the E(D)
for pure batsmen. We observe that Younis Khan is valued highly using expected run differential
(E(D) = 5.01) yet his Reliance ICC rating (309) is mediocre for a pure batsman.
In Figure 2, we provide a scatterplot of our metric (6) based on current form against the
Reliance ICC rating for the 60 bowlers in our dataset who have bowled at least 250 balls. As
in Figure 1, we obtained a moderate correlation (r = 0.61) between the Reliance ICC bowling
ratings and the E(D) for bowlers. We note that Samuel Badree (ICC = 831), Sunil Narine (ICC
= 808), Graeme Swann (ICC = 750) and Sachithra Senanayake (ICC = 712) are each identified as
outstanding bowlers using both measures. However, there are interesting discrepancies between
our metric and the Reliance ICC ratings for bowlers. For example, Brett Lee is valued highly
using expected run differential (E(D) = 7.88) yet his Reliance ICC rating (501) is only average
18
for a bowler. On the other hand, Chris Mpofu has an extremely poor expected run differential
(E(D) = −11.45 yet his Reliance ICC rating (418) is only a little below average.
In Figure 3, we provide a scatterplot of our metric (6) based on current form against the
Reliance ICC rating for the 25 all-rounders in our dataset who have faced at least 250 balls and
have bowled at least 250 balls. In this case, the correlation between our metric and the Reliance
ICC all-rounder ratings was r = −0.04. If we believe in the metric E(D) as the gold standard for
player evaluation, then there is little value in the Reliance ICC all-rounder rating. We note that
the Reliance ICC all-rounder rating is proportional to the product of the Reliance ICC bowling
and batting ratings. Taking a product is not a recommended approach for combining ratings.
Another investigation with “moneyball” in mind concerns salary. We are interested in how the
expected run differential measure (which measures true contribution) compares against perceived
worth expressed as salary. To make this investigation, we have collected salary data from the
Figures 4, 5, and 6 provide scatterplots of most recent IPL salaries against our metric (6)
based on current form for the 21 pure batsmen, 26 bowlers, and 18 all-rounders from our dataset
who played in the IPL during the period. In each case, there is no detectible correlation between
a player’s performance by the E(D) metric and their salaries. The year of a player’s most recent
IPL salary, denoted by the shape of the plotted points in Figures 4, 5, and 6, explains more of
the variation in salaries than our metric. We take this as a sign that the IPL is increasing in
popularity and that the players’ compensation is not reflective of their impact on a team. Player
salaries may be confounded by the auction system where players are assigned to teams and salaries
are determined. Problems with the auction system including the limited information that teams
19
have while bidding, are discussed in Swartz (2011).
For comparison purposes, Figure 7 provides scatterplots of the most recent IPL salaries against
the Reliance ICC ratings. The three plots correspond to batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders. The
correlations here seem a little stronger than in Figures 4, 5 and 6. If we believe that expected
run differential E(D) is the definitive measure of performance, then Figure 7 suggests that there
may be mispricings in the IPL marketplace which are predicated on the ICC ratings.
We extend our analyses in two further directions. First, we ask whether it is a good idea
to use only first innings data for the estimation of batting characteristics piowj and bowling
characteristics qiowj . The rationale is that players are more directly comparable based on their
first innings performances. In the second innings, batting behavior depends greatly on the target.
For example, a second innings batsman behaves much differently with 3 overs remaining and 7
wickets taken when his team is behind 10 runs (he is very cautious) compared to the situation
We therefore repeat our analysis of career performance by including second innings data. Per-
haps it is the case that second innings conditions average out in terms of cautious and aggressive
situations. In Figure 8, we provide a scatterplot of the E(D) statistic based on both innings versus
the E(D) statistic based on the first innings. The correlation r = 0.73 indicates some agreement
between the two approaches although there are cases where the differences are considerable. The
natural question is which of the measures should be more trusted for player evaluation? We take
the view that there is value in considering both measures. When there are large discrepancies
between the two measures, it indicates a difference in performance between the two innings. We
believe in such cases it would be useful to look at the circumstances associated with the second
20
innings. For example, it is conceivable that some players may be well-suited or ill-suited for the
Our final analysis compares our expected run differential metric E(D) against another pro-
posed performance metric. We have pointed out in the Introduction that there are logical flaws
with the commonly used statistics batting average, strike rate, bowling average and economy rate.
Croucher (2000) also recognized these limitations and consequently proposed the batting index
as alternative measures. The appeal of (8) and (9) is that both statistics take into account the
three important components of cricket, namely runs, overs and wickets. The statistics are also
easily computable. A drawback of C1 and C2 is that they are not directly interpretable. For
example, what is meant by a batting index C1 = 2000? Also, C1 and C2 compare batting and
bowling contributions separately whereas E(D) addresses a player’s overall contribution in terms
of expected run differential. In Figure 9, we compare Croucher’s statistic (8) for batsmen with
our metric using career Twenty20 performances. We observe some agreement between the two
approaches (r = 0.60).
21
4 DISCUSSION
Traditional performance measures in Twenty20 cricket may not be seen as “fair”. For example,
it is easier to score runs for an opening batsman than a batsman who bats in position 7. This
paper overcomes these types of difficulties and develops performance measures that focus on
expected run scoring differential relative to baseline players. Although there is no gold standard
for measuring performance statistics, we take it as axiomatic that expected run differential is the
correct metric in Twenty20 cricket. The reason is that the rules of the game are such that a
team defeats its opponent if they score more runs. With an emphasis on what is really important
in winning matches, the metrics introduce a “moneyball” philosophy to Twenty20 cricket. The
metrics are also flexible in the sense that baseline players can be modified and subsets of players
We have observed that the magnitude of E(D) values for pure batsmen, bowlers and all-
rounders are comparable. The differences between the best and worst pure batsmen, bowlers,
and all-rounders are approximately 13, 21, and 13 runs, respectively. This suggests that it is
possible for all players to make meaningful contributions to the game regardless of position.
Whereas our performance analysis takes both batting and bowling into account, there exists
the possibility for future refinements. For example, fielding is an important component of cricket
and it would be useful to quantify fielding contributions in terms of expected run differential.
Also, how can one measure a wicketkeeper’s contribution beyond his batting performances?
Another avenue for future research involves data collection. Currently, we use only Twenty20
22
that comes from other competitions such as the IPL and the Big Bash?
5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Tim Swartz has been partially supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada. The authors thank the two Editors Philip Maymin and Eugene
Shen, and three anonymous reviewers whose comments have helped improve the manuscript.
6 REFERENCES
Albert, J. & Marchi, M. 2013, Analyzing Baseball Data with R. Chapman & Hall/CRC The R Series,
New York.
Beaudoin, D. & Swartz, T.B. 2003, The best batsmen and bowlers in one-day cricket. South African
Statistical Journal, vol. 37, pp. 203-222.
Clarke, S.R. 1998, Test statistics. In Statistics in Sport, J. Bennett (editor), Arnold Publishers, London,
pp. 83-104.
Croucher, J.S. 2000, Player ratings in one-day cricket. In Mathematics and Computers in Sport, G.
Cohen and T. Langtry (editors), University of Technology, Sydney, Australia, pp. 95-106.
Davis, J., Perera, H. & Swartz, T.B. 2015, A simulator for Twenty20 cricket. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Statistics, vol. 57, pp. 55-71.
Gramacy, R.B., Taddy, M.A. & Jensen, S.T. 2013, Estimating player contribution in hockey with
regularized logistic regression. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, vol. 9, pp. 97-112.
Gray, S. 2006, The Mind of Bill James: How a Complete Outsider Changed Baseball. Doubleday, New
York.
McHale, I.G., Scarf, P.A. & Folker, D.E. 2012, On the development of a soccer player performance
rating system for the English Premier League. Interfaces, vol. 42, pp. 339-351.
Oliver, D. 2004, Basketball on Paper: Rules and Tools for Performance Analysis. Brassey’s Inc, Dulles,
VA.
Lewis, M. 2003, Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game. WW Norton, New York.
23
Schuckers, M.E., Lock, D.F., Wells, C., Knickerbocker, C.J. & Lock, R.H. 2011, National Hockey
League skater ratings based upon all on-ice events: An adjusted minus/plus probability (AMPP)
approach. Unpublished manuscript.
van Staden, P.J. 2009, Comparison of cricketers’ bowling and batting performances using graphical
displays. Current Science, vol. 96, pp. 764-766.
Swartz, T.B. 2011, Drafts versus auctions in the Indian Premier League. South African Statistical
Journal, vol. 45, pp. 249-272.
Woolner, K. 2002, Understanding and measuring replacement level. In Baseball Prospectus 2002, J.
Sheehan (editor), Brassey’s Inc, Dulles, VA, pp. 55-66.
24
Name Team E(D) Bat Avg Name Team E(D) Bat Avg
A Shehzad Pak 7.83 25.42 H Masakadza Zim 0.82 33.98
BB McCullum* NZ 6.93 38.25 C Kapugedera SL 0.80 20.25
MDKJ Perera SL 6.77 35.02 C White Aus 0.69 29.26
K Pietersen Eng 6.40 40.78 B Taylor Zim 0.46 25.64
R Ponting Aus 5.85 29.13 L Thirimanne SL 0.29 17.86
A Hales Eng 5.50 42.90 I Nazir Pak 0.27 29.23
M Jayawardene SL 5.04 33.18 C Kieswetter Eng 0.23 23.80
Y Khan Pak 5.01 23.91 O Shah Eng -0.10 27.84
E Morgan Eng 4.98 32.08 K Akmal Pak -0.20 19.54
U Akmal Pak 4.76 30.68 L Simmons WI -0.31 29.94
MEK Hussey Aus 4.07 39.77 S Butt Pak -0.41 27.21
D Miller SA 3.88 24.91 MS Dhoni* Ind -0.78 39.03
D Warner Aus 3.49 29.08 A Lumb Eng -0.92 23.48
K Sangakkara* SL 3.25 35.21 D Ramdin* WI -1.06 18.08
G Smith SA 3.04 32.19 G Bailey Aus -1.31 26.31
F du Plessis SA 2.58 41.64 Misbah-ul-Haq Pak -1.32 40.19
N Jamshed Pak 1.99 21.44 B Haddin Aus -1.58 17.92
AB de Villiers SA 1.66 20.66 D Chandimal SL -1.77 12.71
G Gambhir Ind 1.53 34.33 Q de Kock* SA -1.85 35.15
J Buttler Eng 1.52 23.83 S Chanderpaul WI -2.23 20.08
H Gibbs SA 1.19 18.59 T Iqbal Ban -2.28 20.29
H Amla SA 1.15 26.18 J Charles WI -2.37 21.25
R Taylor NZ 1.08 26.73 M Boucher* SA -4.04 19.40
M Guptill NZ 1.06 32.72 R Sarwan WI -4.33 21.83
V Sehwag Ind 1.01 27.43 M Rahim* Ban -4.64 24.29
Table 1: Performance metrics of pure batsmen with at least 250 balls faced. Wicketkeepers are
marked with an asterisk.
25
Name Team E(D) Econ Style Name Team E(D) Econ Style
S Senanayake SL 9.94 5.72 Spin J Botha SA 1.84 6.51 Spin
H Singh Ind 9.43 6.50 Spin S Tait Aus 1.69 6.66 Fast
D Vettori NZ 9.34 5.63 Spin J Butler NZ 1.68 8.12 Fast
I Tahir SA 8.44 5.57 Spin R Price Zim 1.38 6.47 Spin
B Lee Aus 7.88 7.46 Fast F Edwards WI 1.33 7.82 Fast
S Badree WI 6.66 5.72 Spin W Parnell SA 0.87 7.67 Fast
BAW Mendis SL 6.34 6.65 Spin J Anderson Eng 0.82 7.55 Fast
R Peterson SA 5.97 7.54 Spin R Ashwin Ind 0.75 7.16 Spin
D Steyn SA 5.57 6.37 Fast R McLaren SA 0.74 7.46 Fast
G Swann Eng 5.34 6.45 Spin A Razzak Ban 0.74 7.24 Spin
M Amir Pak 5.33 7.19 Fast D Nannes Aus 0.70 7.50 Fast
J Taylor WI 4.79 7.59 Fast D Fernando SL 0.58 7.43 Fast
S Bond NZ 4.60 7.11 Fast S Benn WI 0.36 7.00 Spin
S Narine WI 4.51 5.93 Spin R Jadeja Ind -0.11 7.34 Spin
U Gul Pak 4.31 7.21 Fast R Hira NZ -0.18 7.73 Spin
M Morkel SA 4.24 7.10 Fast Z Khan Ind -0.41 7.24 Fast
S Ajmal Pak 4.17 6.41 Spin T Southee NZ -0.62 8.52 Fast
M Starc Aus 4.15 6.89 Fast S Broad Eng -1.09 7.69 Fast
M Yardy Eng 4.11 6.38 Spin S Akhtar Pak -1.14 8.36 Fast
N Kulasekara SL 4.10 7.12 Fast M Muralitharan SL -1.24 6.60 Spin
S Finn Eng 3.60 7.58 Fast T Bresnan Eng -1.44 7.88 Fast
M McClenaghan NZ 3.57 8.29 Fast IK Pathan Ind -2.70 7.84 Fast
N Bracken Aus 3.43 6.93 Fast J Dernbach Eng -3.64 8.35 Fast
S Tanvir Pak 3.28 7.06 Fast K Mills NZ -3.77 8.22 Fast
NL McCullum NZ 2.83 6.86 Spin J Tredwell Eng -4.12 8.21 Spin
R Sidebottom Eng 2.66 7.22 Fast B Hogg Aus -6.66 7.86 Spin
L Malinga SL 2.45 7.14 Fast I Sharma Ind -7.38 8.69 Fast
M Johnson Aus 2.04 6.98 Fast M Mortaza Ban -7.83 9.09 Fast
S Pollock SA 1.98 7.35 Fast R Rampaul WI -8.37 8.45 Fast
P Utseya Zim 1.93 6.66 Spin C Mpofu Zim -11.45 8.84 Fast
26
Name Team Style E(D)Bat E(D)Bowl E(D) BowlEcon BatAvg
A Razzaq Pak Fast 0.30 8.25 8.55 7.39 19.75
T Perera SL Fast 7.95 0.56 8.50 8.31 34.90
D Sammy WI Fast 2.38 5.62 7.99 7.24 18.97
A Mathews SL Fast 2.96 3.76 6.72 6.98 26.76
Y Singh Ind Spin 4.98 0.39 5.37 7.46 31.39
M Samuels WI Spin 3.43 1.19 4.62 7.78 28.59
K Pollard WI Spin 7.00 -2.50 4.50 8.11 25.47
S Afridi Pak Spin 1.90 2.35 4.25 6.66 18.99
C Gayle WI Spin 5.14 -1.35 3.79 7.23 36.70
S Styris NZ Spin 0.56 3.13 3.69 6.69 20.26
J Kallis SA Spin 1.80 1.83 3.63 7.34 36.12
DJ Hussey Aus Spin 1.70 1.92 3.62 6.57 21.69
JA Morkel SA Fast 2.07 1.07 3.15 7.99 23.09
J Franklin NZ Fast -0.37 3.26 2.88 7.46 23.06
S Al Hasan Ban Spin -0.85 2.91 2.06 6.57 17.58
M Hafeez Pak Spin -0.66 2.16 1.50 6.61 21.84
S Watson Aus Fast 1.51 -0.13 1.37 7.69 26.20
S Malik Pak Spin -1.04 2.30 1.27 6.69 23.10
JP Duminy SA Spin 3.58 -3.28 0.29 7.62 41.87
R Bopara Eng Spin -2.13 1.04 -1.09 7.05 23.34
J Oram NZ Fast -0.85 -0.43 -1.28 8.53 22.23
DJ Bravo WI Fast 1.79 -4.10 -2.31 8.49 30.68
L Wright Eng Spin -1.04 -1.88 -2.93 8.21 14.51
M Mahmudullah Ban Fast -1.05 -2.21 -3.26 7.78 24.81
S Jayasuriya SL Spin -1.28 -3.06 -4.34 7.56 20.32
Table 3: Performance metrics of all-rounders with at least 250 balls faced and 250 balls bowled.
27
Batting E(D) Bowling E(D) Bat Avg Bowl Avg
vs Bat Avg vs SR vs Bowl Avg vs Econ vs SR vs Econ
Batsmen 0.497 0.569 0.424
All-Rounders 0.621 0.645 0.439 0.549 0.111 0.461
Bowlers 0.714 0.773 0.543
Table 4: Pearson correlation between E(D) and four established performance metrics: batting
average, strike rate (SR), bowling average and economy rate.
28
Role Name Form pi700 pi701 pi702−3 pi704 pi706 pi70w E(R)/Over
Career 0.305 0.389 0.109 0.136 0.028 0.033 7.97
AB de Villiers
Current 0.294 0.367 0.099 0.176 0.036 0.029 8.96
Batting
Career 0.368 0.365 0.091 0.113 0.027 0.037 7.02
M Hafeez
Current 0.343 0.373 0.109 0.107 0.032 0.037 7.31
Career 0.400 0.322 0.098 0.117 0.022 0.041 6.78
U Gul
Current 0.340 0.306 0.127 0.153 0.037 0.037 8.44
Bowling
Career 0.349 0.422 0.084 0.090 0.029 0.026 6.86
M Hafeez
Current 0.351 0.422 0.081 0.094 0.029 0.023 6.78
Table 5: Comparison of career average and current form characteristics for selected players where
the final column denotes the expected number of runs per over.
29
Figure 1: Scatterplot of E(D) (current form) against the Reliance ICC rating for batsmen.
30
Figure 2: Scatterplot of E(D) (current form) against the Reliance ICC rating for bowlers.
31
Figure 3: Scatterplot of E(D) (current form) against the Reliance ICC rating for all-rounders.
32
Figure 4: Most recent IPL salary versus current form E(D) for pure batsmen. Triangles represent
2012 salaries, plus signs (+) represent 2013 salaries, and cross signs represent 2014 salaries.
33
Figure 5: Most recent IPL salary versus current form E(D) for bowlers. Triangles represent 2012
salaries, plus signs (+) represent 2013 salaries, and cross signs represent 2014 salaries.
34
Figure 6: Most recent IPL salary versus current form E(D) for all-rounders. Triangles represent
2012 salaries, plus signs (+) represent 2013 salaries, and cross signs represent 2014 salaries.
35
Figure 7: Most recent IPL salary versus ICC Reliance rating for batsmen (top), bowlers (middle)
and all-rounders (bottom).
36
Figure 8: Scatterplot of E(D) using first and second innings data against E(D) using only first
innings data.
37
Figure 9: Scatterplot of Croucher’s (2000) statistic for pure batsmen versus E(D).
38