Cricketing Queries

[drainpipe32]

So if you totalled up the number of balls the batsmen faced, you'd get more than 300?

 

[Dabi]

So if you totalled up the number of balls the batsmen faced, you'd get more than 300?

Yes.

 

[iridescentt]

Lol. Youtube Indians

Every comment in that video that even relates to ANYTHING that is against India in ANY way, gets a negative rep'.

 

[sohum]

I am pretty sure wides are counted for the batsmen.

Because everytime I watch a match live, the batsmen's 'ball faced' increases by 1.

Unless they realise their mistake and alter it at the end of the match :confused:

Wides do not count. I'm not pretty sure, I'm completely sure. I have referenced scorecards for you... Cricinfo has a whole host more of scorecards for you to see that wides are not counted.

It doesn't make sense from a statistical or logical perspective to count a wide in the ball faced. Statistically, it would affect the strike rate of a batsman. Strike rate is a measure of how many runs per ball a batsman scores. A batsman cannot score off a wide ball because then it wouldn't be a wide ball. Logically, a wide could be anything from one barely down the leg-side to something wild that misses the pitch completely. You cannot penalize the batsman for having faced a ball when he has no chance to score off it.

In the case that balls faced are incremented during a TV broadcast, they are usually rectified fairly quickly. And if they aren't, it's not the TV scorers' stats that are used officially, anyway.

sohum added 0 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...

So if you totalled up the number of balls the batsmen faced, you'd get more than 300?

As long as no balls have been bowled, yes.

 

[pcfan123]

It doesn't make sense from a statistical or logical perspective to count a wide in the ball faced.

Except for the fact that the batsman faced the ball.

Sureshot might be the solution to this query, I think he has taken some umpiring classes and is well versed with the Laws,

 

[sohum]

Except for the fact that the batsman faced the ball.

Sureshot might be the solution to this query, I think he has taken some umpiring classes and is well versed with the Laws,

1. They did not face the ball. A ball faced is a ball you have the opportunity to score of.


2. Umpiring has nothing to do with this. This is a statistical question.

3. I really do not see how there is a debate to begin with. I challenge someone to find a scorecard on Cricinfo from this millennium that proves my argument otherwise. Really I have no doubt about this. This was a question I was interested back when I was in high school and I took the time to figure out how statisticians treat the situation.

4. It is not a question about law but statistics. There is no standard in statistics in cricket as far as I am aware, but most staticians use a universal system.

 

[pcfan123]

I guess it depends on how you define facing a ball.

 

[Insomniac]

I guess it depends on how you define facing a ball.

I hope you're not a scorer.

 

[pcfan123]

Haha no worries there. I am just saying in the literal sense, the batsman does face the ball. It should be counted.

 

[drainpipe32]

As long as no balls have been bowled, yes.

The last game there were no no balls? ;P

 

[Sureshot]

A wide is not to be considered as a ball faced by the batsman, it's an unfair delivery, however, some scorers still record it, but that won't happen (shouldn't) at international and other professional levels.

Any umpiring/scoring questions, let me know.

 

[sohum]

Haha no worries there. I am just saying in the literal sense, the batsman does face the ball. It should be counted.

It's debatable, I guess. The face part.

It should definitely not be counted because the batsman cannot score off a wide ball. You could see a situation, for example, where a bowling team purposely bowls a wide so that batsmen miss out on feats such as fastest 50, fastest 100, etc. Not a major issue, but it is tampering with the integrity of the records.

 

[pcfan123]

^ true, that could definitely be one of those gray area issues.

Well you learn something new everyday (especially that there is no standardization for statistics in cricket)

 

[Sureshot]

Scoring methods are standardised in international cricket. They are in most of the domestic professional set-ups I know of, too.

 

[sohum]

I wouldn't call that standardization as much as I would call it official. Standardization would be the ICC defining a standard for scoring that must be followed by all member organizations (and by transitive relation, domestic competitions). Instead, the ICC has an official scoring system that they use (and that pretty much every one uses). However, it is not like the metric system, for example.