Have IPL subs actually made an impact?
Plus other tournament data as it approaches the halfway point...
For my latest Substack, I wanted to focus on the effect of impact players so far in the IPL, plus I’ll go into a bit of other data also to start with.
87.5% of teams who won the match in this year’s tournament had a higher or the same boundary percentage. This is pretty much in line with the 85% benchmark which I’ve discussed for a long time.
The chart above shows the net boundary percentage for teams so far in this tournament (batting boundary % - bowling boundary %). The top two teams in the table match the net boundary percentage table above. PBKS and Lucknow are also in the numerous teams clustering on eight points so far in the tournament. Sunrisers, Delhi and KKR dwell towards the bottom of the points table and their outcomes are similarly replicated here. Interestingly, both RCB and Gujarat have history for outperforming net boundary percentage figures and this has again been the case so far in IPL 2023.
Winning teams have hit 20.48% boundaries, with losing teams at 17.32%. So winning teams have been able to hit 3.79 more boundaries per 120 balls than losing teams, which is quite a considerable margin of around 16 runs extra boundary production.
Achieving a lower dot ball percentage has historically been less of a driver towards winning the match. This has again been the case so far in this year’s tournament, with a lower 75% of teams winning the match having the lower dot ball percentage.
Winning teams have faced 35.26% dots with the bat, compared to 38.73% for losing teams. This equates to 4.16 more dot balls per 120 balls, which is far less of an impact than the 16 or so extra boundary runs for winning teams - this is why there is a greater correlation between boundary percentage and winning matches than dot percentage and winning matches.
Four teams who have won the match have used an overseas player as an impact sub. This compares to six losing teams using an overseas player as an impact sub. Not really enough evidence to have a conclusive point of view, but my initial thoughts that teams are making mistakes using overseas players as impact subs certainly hasn’t been disproven.
Subjectively, it felt that the phrase ‘impact player’ was something of an oxymoron in the tournament so far, with few having much of the required impact.
Thinking about it further, this probably was always going to be likely. With an overseas player only being able to be used as an impact player if their team didn’t start with the full four overseas permitted, the vast majority of impact players were always going to be domestic. The ‘next best’ batch of domestic players, who would have been unlikely to get much game time in the past given the absence of the impact sub rule, should have lower performance expectations than the average player.
Going through the list of performances from impact players, with the bat, Venkatesh Iyer’s 83(40) stands out, as does Prabhsimran Singh’s 46(30) to a lesser extent, plus Dhruv Jurel’s 32*(15). They were the only heavily positive impact innings though, with the likes of Anuj Rawat 15*(22), Abdul Samad 32*(32) and 9(12), and Devdutt Padikkal 26(25) and 26(21) hardly creating much of an impact.
With the ball, Suyash Sharma (3-30 and 2-27) has had an impact for sure, although Tushar Deshpande (2-45 and 1-51 from a total of 44 balls) hasn’t had CSK’s desired impact. Akash Singh has been used by CSK more of late as an impact sub, but has only fared slightly better. Only eight times has an impact sub taken 2+ wickets for their team.
Bowling impact subs have really struggled, which again isn’t a huge surprise given that they are often their team’s 6th or 7th best bowling option. Winning teams impact subs have taken 14 wickets at a cost of 31.29, at an economy rate of 9.52. Losing teams have had their bowling impact subs averaging 30.33, at an economy rate of 8.98. So, based on this, there appears to be little relationship between the performance of a bowling impact sub and winning the match.
However, batting impact subs have generally been positive for winning teams, averaging a shade over 32 at a strike rate of 134. For losing teams, there was a complete difference - averaging 21.67 at a strike rate of 118. Could this be a learning here - that it is vital to have high quality extra batting depth to take a team out of a difficult situation, and if that batter has low expectation (primarily focusing on boundary hitting and strike rate), then there should be different options considered by their team.
It is clear that, as predicted pre-tournament, teams are still trying to get their heads around the best usage of their impact subs. As with most new rules in T20, there is an opportunity for competitive advantages, and those who can get to grips with it quicker will undoubtedly benefit.
I wouldn’t be shocked to see an additional overseas player be permitted as an impact sub next season or in the future, and this is eventually where we might well see the impact sub living up to its name to a greater extent.