-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Any New Idea For Ranking?
- Thread starter weldone
- Start date
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
You could go to the Cricinfo Statsguru and dissect stats to death until they almost nearly but not quite half prove a point you're trying to make............no forget it, that's not new.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I have a couple that ranks spinners, fast bowlers, batsmen etc. I created threads for them a while ago.
chasingthedon
International Regular
The problem with rankings right now is that they rank batsmen against batsmen, bowlers against bowlers, all-rounders against all-rounders (and then how do you define an all-rounder?).
If you're going to rank players other than by the accepted methods (i.e. averages), then what's needed is a system that ranks all players based on everything they do with the bat, the ball and in the field, and takes into account the competition and strength of opposition.
If you're going to rank players other than by the accepted methods (i.e. averages), then what's needed is a system that ranks all players based on everything they do with the bat, the ball and in the field, and takes into account the competition and strength of opposition.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
No to make things simpler, we first can have a look at ranking batsmen and bowler differently... Say for example let's take ODI batting - The problem I always had with ranking systems is the fact that theyare always of the form of summing things up... They award some points for number of runs, some for number of centuries, some for remaining not outs, some for averages, some for strike rates etc. etc. and add them up... Not all rankings take all these factors; some rankings take less, some take much more like opposition quality, home/away etc....The problem I have always had is this adding the points up...Say for a very simple example, let's consider average and strike rate...The problem with rankings right now is that they rank batsmen against batsmen, bowlers against bowlers, all-rounders against all-rounders (and then how do you define an all-rounder?).
If you're going to rank players other than by the accepted methods (i.e. averages), then what's needed is a system that ranks all players based on everything they do with the bat, the ball and in the field, and takes into account the competition and strength of opposition.
A typical ranking will award some points for aerage, some for strike rate and add them up... I always felt that it gives a batsman chance to make up the losses for one in the other...Take a hypothetical rating which adds the average with half the strike rate and declare it as points...So a batsman with average 40 and strike rate 80 gets 80 points, a batsman with average 30 and strike rate 100 also gets 80 points...But what about a batsman with average 10 and strike rate 140, or a batsman with average 60 and strike rate 40? They also get 80 points... Although no such hypothetical rating exists, but the nature is the same; some don't take averages but take individual innings one by one, award points, weigh them and add them... Problem remains the same, in 'adding up'...
I propose something with multiplicatory effect...Think about it...more to come...
cricketfreaks
Cricket Spectator
I feel, the ranking should be based on match winning performance....
chasingthedon
International Regular
Then you would have to come up with an objective definition of what a match-winning performance is. Even though you can say that a particular individual was the difference in a match, deciding what proportion of the victory is down to him alone is difficult to do objectively.
chasingthedon
International Regular
Sounds like you've come up with something already?
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Yes I have an idea for rankings .... do away with them
chasingthedon
International Regular
Hi SJS, while I appreciate that not everyone is as into statistics as some of us on this forum, you seem to be saying that those of us who do get some enjoyment should desist forthwith - now I ask you, is that fair?
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I was just kidding mate.
However, I do think that rankings are taken far too seriously than they should.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
chasingthedon
International Regular
Howe_zat
Audio File
You've no evidence for that. Get with the times, homophobe.
Teja.
Global Moderator
Makes one wonder what she's doing spamming outside the Kitchen Champion Forums