For no obvious reason spent part of last night leafing though the 2009 Yorkshire Year book and ended up in the wicket keeping section. Page 326 if you're interested.

Can any statisticians out there, confirm whether YCCC have got the following correct? (I'm referring to the principle rather than the numbers, I'm sure the numbers are spot on).

Dick Blakey is listed as taking 768 catches and 56 stumping giving him a match average of 2.43 dismissals. This puts Dick at number 6 in our all time list and top of the dismissals per game ranking.

However in the early part of his career Dick was selected as a batter and several of these catches were taken as a normal fielder. If the stats reflected dismissals taken as a keeper the match average is even better. Is it usual practice to include non keeping catches in the career stats of a wicket keeper?

NOTE - the list on page 326 is purely about wicket keeping and not fielding.

I think you need to get out more Sid.
It's going to be a long Winter. I'm sure there are places you can visit, groups you can join....

Ease up. It is a legitimate question. Statman????

its a valid question as in 20 years time the same issue may arise with Bairstow junior

.....and a valid one as well!

However, I'm not sure that you would be able to unravel it completely.

Even recourse to actual scorecards would not necessarily give 100% acturate information, either because the wicket-keeper is not specified, or because the specified wicket keeper was replaced during the game.

For example, on the last afternoon at Trent Bridge this year Chris Reed passed the pads over to Shafhayat at lunchtime and captained the side from the outfield. I do not recall whether Reed then took any catches during the afternoon, but Shafhayat had at least one dismissal behind the stumps. He also allowed somes Byes which I am pretty sure that Reed would not have conceded. So it becomes impossible to assess the wicket-keeping for Yorkshire's second innings.

I am pretty sure that similar situations will have applied to Dick Blakey (for example, I recall Mags keeping wicket after Dickie had left the field with migraine on one occasion) and it will also have occurred with most, if not all, Yorkshire's other wicket-keepers. It has already happened, this last season, with Brophy and Bairstow.

T'was meant as a joke! I'm sorry if it came across as if I was being serious...Sometimes it's hard to convery nuances and subtlety in print.
As has been discussed in the past, I find any interest in cricket statistics a complete and utter mystery. I'm more than happy for people to find whatever pleasures they can during the Winter monthes - but this seemed like quite an obscure debate - even for statisticians!

Mr C was right about Mags deuptising for Blakey ... the worst was one Sunday match when it had been decided to hold something of an open day. They had the tea-lady of the year & told us all about what had been prepared etc ... but the important stuff ... such as the teams was never mentioned ... we thought Blakey had been dropped or something when Mags came out with the pads on ... it was well into the game before the truth (& Blakey) came out

I have calculated that if there is a WRF thread related to statistics, there is a 95.12% chance of Steve C chipping in with a suggestion to the effect that we're all a bit sad and/or statistics are meaningless.

Did you notice that our bowler with the best average in 2009 was Joe Sayers?

I made it 98.74%.

Dare i suggest that the very fact that Joe Sayers topped the bowling averages goes to prove my point that statistics - taken in isolation - can be (at best) misleading or (at worst) a complete waste of time.......
QED.

(I'm hoping Alex is still asleep...)

almost as bizarre as Mags having the best England bowling figures of any Yorkshireman who has played for England in the last 30 years.

whats the probability of Steve posting and making reference to some latin three letter acronym?

I only actually know one three letter Latin acronym...

Wicket-keeping statistics are among the most misleading numbers in cricket (or any sport for that matter). Not only are they inaccurate in that catches made while a wicket-keeper may be fielding at another position are generally counted in the wicket keeper's records, but no allowance is made for other aspects of a wicketkeeper performance - namely in preventing byes.

If baseball statisticians were called in, wicketkeepers would no doubt be rated by their "average" - namely byes allowed per wicket taken. A sort of cricket equivalent of a baseball player's "fielding average."

Of course, many of the catches wicket keepers take are very easy, and are really a measure of the bowlers' ability to find the edge.

Collingwood and Morgan have recently stepped in to replace Prior, and have been just about as good.

The only true way to rate a wicket keeper is by the number of byes conceded.

Now Alex is involved. This one could run and run....
Did St Geoff of Fitzwilliam ever keep wicket?
Someone told me recently that his batting average doesn't feature in a list of the first 55 leading Test batsmen. I told my friend that i was sure this couldn't be true but i promised to check...

Sir Geoff never kept wicket. And I'll check where his Test batting average puts him on England's all-time list - but your "friend" is probably wrong if only England players are considered; and correct if all Test players are considered.

But I do know that Boycott's first class average of 56.83 per innings is the highest of any batsmen IN HISTORY who scored at least 35,000 runs. Class over the long run always gets my vote.

And I bet you didn't even have to look that up!
Wiki informs me that Boyc's Test Average was 47.72 while Hutton's was 56.67.

Also - most interestingly - Hutton's career bowling average was 29.31 while Boycott's was 32.42....

You might have mentioned Hutton's career first class batting average which is 55.51. Statistically speaking, there is not much to choose between the two gentlemen.

Byes are a subjective extra .... some umpires give byes when the keeper has no chance of getting to a ball because its so wide down the leg side or over his head.

But surely the whole essence of statistics is in choosing which one you prefer to use.....
The correct statistic can be used to prove anything. ..

Going back to the original question,there was an overlap of six seasons when both David Bairstow and Richard Blakey played for Yorkshire [ 1985-90]. In that time there were 57 matches in which Bairstow was wicketkeeper and Blakey fielded - and also 57 catches that Blakey seemingly took as a fielder, though I accept that if Bairstow was off the field Blakey may have taken the gloves.

There was just one match in that period when both men played, and when Blakey was the designated wicketkeeper - in 1988 against Northants.

After Bairstow retired Blakey was first choice wicketkeeper until he retired in 2003. There were, I think, 16 first class Yorkshire matches in that period when he did not play and was replaced by either Colin Chapman or Simon Guy. There were a further two matches in 2003 when both he and Guy played and Guy was designated as wicketkeeper. In neither of those matches did Blakey take any catches.

Sometimes the Yorkshire Yearbook was silent as to who was the designated wicketkeeper, and the information I give comes from Wisden.

Accordingly Blakey who played 339 matches for Yorkshire was designated 'keeper in 280 of those games and 767 of his 824 dismissals may have been taken whilst he was behind the stumps. That puts his average dismissal rate as wicketkeeper per match up to 2.74. There still remains some air of speculaton in all of this!!

thanks Anthony. I gather a chap by the name of Brown needs some help with some statistical numbers to find out how he can reduce the country's level of borrowing so based on your analysis and research above I am sure you can expect a call!

Sorry to bring this up again, Alex, but it seems to me that if you're comparing different types of batting averages (e.g. Test vs. First-class), surely the greater weight is due the tougher of these two arenas -- i.e., playing against, not county trundlers, but the world's finest bowlers.

And on that basis, I think we have to face the fact that, among Yorkshire Test batsmen, Herbert Sutcliffe, Len Hutton (about whom you'll recall your Shakespeare: "Look how I am bewitch'd; behold mine arm Is, like a blasted sapling, withered up"), and Stanley Jackson all come in ahead of Geoffrey Boycott. Then if you consider England batsmen, Boycott comes no higher than 14th. And if you look at all the world's Test players, you have to go down to no. 57 to find Boycott (a bit behind Douglas Jardine).

In other words, please beware of comparisons between (say) playing against the bowling of Eric Bedser and Peter Sainsbury, and against that of Ray Lindwall and Michael Holding. Because that's apples and oranges.

Hope we're still friends after all that!

Can I just point out that it wasn't me who said that!

Can I also suggest that if Boycott had played all the Tests he could have done, it's likely his average might have been lower again. He did tend to pick and choose his opponents at times. Hutton played every Test for which he was fit and available.

Over to you Mr Roberts....?

We'll always be friends, Revan - your statistical proclivities nothwithstanding.

And point taken. Besides, I'm from the old school of statistical analysis, whereby "if you torture the data long enough, it will confess," and "get the fact first and then you can distort them as much as you please."

-@R

Nice one Alex.