How were the weightings decided? How is it worked out that strike rate, for example, is worth only 10% of a players value or what is the rationale for 9% being for 100s per innings?
Yeah, that's the main problem.
Were the weightings decided blindly and then player data inputted to produce the results or was the weighting revised slightly after a few looks to produces results closer to those desired.
Pretty much the same question as above. To take both questions at once, I took (last year, used existing formula modified this year) a cross-section of different types of players (e.g. Tendulkar, Atapattu, Pietersen, Vaughan, Dhoni, Kallis, Dravid, Ganguly, can't remember exactly who) and then came up with a rough formula that ranked them accordingly. The formula was then altered more carefully once I had put all the data on there. Obviously this makes it subjective - it is artificial, I have roughly ranked the batsmen according to my own views, then changed the formula to suit it. This is the biggest drawback. Therefore, like you said, the weightings are also subjective - mathematically there is no evidence for 10% to be based on SR rather than 15%, for example. Which raises the question, can a statistical formula be subjective? Ideally I could use this in 10, 15 years time (assuming the game doesn't change as it has done in the last 10-15 years, which makes this hypothetical) on a 'new' bunch of players.
How would the formula value a theoretical player that averaged 60 at a strike rate of 40? Obviously such a player would be a liability in reallife, and I was wondering if the formula would recognise this
Theoretical player: 100 innings, averaging 60 at a strike rate of 40, with 8 hundreds and 20 fifties (not sure if the number of 100s/50s really corresponds with such a big average but it wouldn't deflate/inflate dramatically).
TBV of 25.05, which places the batsman below Brett Lee and above Mohammad Hafees. So the TBV is still appropriate in this case.
Jamee999 said:
Gotta question innings played - in OPS, batting average in baseball and cricket, it doesn't matter whether you do it off 1 PA or 162 PAs, 1 innings or 200 innings, the average is worked out similairly. If you know what I mean.
To remove anomalies - in last year's version, for example, Pietersen and Dhoni were miles clear of the rest; obviously this isn't the case as much now. I did try removing it last night and it was a bit skewed still. However, I think the experience factor is key and it does settle it down a bit. The ICC rankings use thresholds whereby maximum points cannot be gained until a certain figure is reached, so it's not too artificial.
Thanks for getting back to me guys, this thing won't improve unless it's criticised.
