LG Player Rankings

[Richard]

Could you say he was one of the world's best bowlers?

Well lots of people did but I was not one of them.

 

[adharcric]

Does it take account if the bowler has lost his father the day before and is making an effort to "take one for the team"?

Or if the bowler has a broken finger?

Are those situations common? No. Are these rankings perfect? No. Seriously, it's virtually impossible to create perfect rankings. Anyone sensible knows the limitations.

 

[Richard]

So IMO you'd do better not to try and create rankings at all.

 

[adharcric]

The rankings are simply a guide. If you don't have the control to prevent yourself from strictly obeying them, that's your problem (and not the rankings'). Just ignore them.

EDIT: you != Richard

 

[Richard]

Did someone delete a post?

 

[adharcric]

Did someone delete a post?

?

 

[Richard]

I'm the one asking the questions around here!

 

[adharcric]

Seriously, what the hell are you takling about?

 

[Richard]

Well...

You said "you != Richard". Which I'd interpret as "you are not Richard"; ie, "this post I've just edited was aimed at someone other than Richard".

And I then asked for clarification - you have, to date, not been forthcoming.

 

[adharcric]

Well...

You said "you != Richard". Which I'd interpret as "you are not Richard"; ie, "this post I've just edited was aimed at someone other than Richard".

And I then asked for clarification - you have, to date, not been forthcoming.

Crap, my bad. Let me explain ...

The rankings are simply a guide. If you don't have the control to prevent yourself from strictly obeying them, that's your problem (and not the rankings'). Just ignore them.

EDIT: you != Richard

Just pointing out that my statement wasn't directed specficially at you ...

 

[shortpitched713]

So IMO you'd do better not to try and create rankings at all.

So everything is useless unless its perfect.

 

[Smudge]

Are those situations common? No. Are these rankings perfect? No. Seriously, it's virtually impossible to create perfect rankings. Anyone sensible knows the limitations.

So IMO you'd do better not to try and create rankings at all.

Is it possible to create perfect first-chance averages, Richard?

 

[nightprowler10]

Is it possible to create perfect first-chance averages, Richard?

Dear God! Do you know the ramifications of that post?!

 

[Smudge]

Yep.

And I'm locking myself in for the long-haul.

 

[corza_nz]

Email David Kendix and ask him.

Having such a ridiculously complex formula that has been devised by one of The World's top mathematicians is absurd IMO.

who is david kendix and how can i get his email.

 

[Richard]

Crap, my bad. Let me explain ...

Just pointing out that my statement wasn't directed specficially at you ...

Aha... I gets it, I does.

 

[Richard]

Is it possible to create perfect first-chance averages, Richard?

IMO the flaws in the first-chance scheme are far less in number than those in the LG-I$C$C Ranking scheme.

 

[Richard]

So everything is useless unless its perfect.

No, not at all, just that that scheme is so poor we'd be better of without than with IMO.

 

[Richard]

who is david kendix and how can i get his email.

Don't have a clue how you could get his email, but he's the top mathematician who designed the fomulae for all I$C$C rankings (teams and players), and probably the only one to completely understand them.

 

[Smudge]

IMO the flaws in the first-chance scheme are far less in number than those in the LG-I$C$C Ranking scheme.

So the answer to my question is "no".