cricrate: new cricket ratings website

[OverratedSanity]

Hmmm, percentage of high rated innings in wins isn't a good metric for me. Partly why the performance is highly rated would be because it came in a win anyway. Maybe the reason why Afridi doesn't have highly rated performances in losses is because he slogged a full toss to mid off and lost the game for Pakistan when they needed a sensible innings, which let's be honest, has happened a lot.

That's why percentage stats of those kind are wildly misleading. A batsman who delivers more consistently (regardless of whether the team eventually wins or looses) would probably have a lower percentage of highly rated innings in wins. He'd have several innings where he played brilliantly but because of maybe, lack of support, it ended up on a lost cause. It ends up punishing consistent performers and makes hacks like Afridi look better than they actually are.

 

[viriya]

Hmmm, percentage of high rated innings in wins isn't a good metric for me. Partly why the performance is highly rated would be because it came in a win anyway. Maybe the reason why Afridi doesn't have highly rated performances in losses is because he slogged a full toss to mid off and lost the game for Pakistan when they needed a sensible innings, which let's be honest, has happened a lot.

That's why percentage stats of those kind are wildly misleading. A batsman who delivers more consistently (regardless of whether the team eventually wins or looses) would probably have a lower percentage of highly rated innings in wins. He'd have several innings where he played brilliantly but because of maybe, lack of support, it ended up on a lost cause. It ends up punishing consistent performers and makes hacks like Afridi look better than they actually are.

I only brought it up because ***** claimed that Afridi made runs in losing causes more often than not. It's not like I ignore his failures - all his ducks get valued a big fat 0 in terms of innings rating.

I do think he's slightly overrated (some of the batsmen below him deserve to be above him imo), there is a possibility that his shorter high SR innings are overrated, or it might be that he's getting through due to the longevity factor. I'll dig a little deeper.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I only brought it up because ***** claimed that Afridi made runs in losing causes more often than not. It's not like I ignore his failures - all his ducks get valued a big fat 0 in terms of innings rating.

I do think he's slightly overrated (some of the batsmen below him deserve to be above him imo), there is a possibility that his shorter high SR innings are overrated, or it might be that he's getting through due to the longevity factor. I'll dig a little deeper.

Yeah but is 'percentage of innings rated over 1500' a metric you're using in the formula? I don't think it's something that should be used at all, personally.

 

[viriya]

Yeah but is 'percentage of innings rated over 1500' a metric you're using in the formula? I don't think it's something that should be used at all, personally.

Not at all - it was just a quick way to check just the highly rated innings.

The career rating is just average innings rating + longevity factor

 

[OverratedSanity]

Fair enough then.

 

[viriya]

Tillakaratne Dilshan returns to the ODI All-round top 5:
cricrate | Current Top ODI All-Rounders

 

[viriya]

I only brought it up because ***** claimed that Afridi made runs in losing causes more often than not. It's not like I ignore his failures - all his ducks get valued a big fat 0 in terms of innings rating.

I do think he's slightly overrated (some of the batsmen below him deserve to be above him imo), there is a possibility that his shorter high SR innings are overrated, or it might be that he's getting through due to the longevity factor. I'll dig a little deeper.

I made a change to lower the weight of SR for <25 run innings. The idea behind this is that a quick 10 runs is not impactful even if made very quickly, SR only really becomes impressive if it is maintained for a longer time (25+ runs now).

Players like Afridi are affected more by this change, he is still rated highly though (moves from #24 to #27).

 

[cnerd123]

I'm interested in comparing Afridi vs Sehwag, Mahela, Gayle, Anwar, Azharuddin, Symonds, Yuvraj, Crowe, Dravid...all of whom are ranked below him.

Still interested in this BTW.

Do you ever score an innings negatively? OS made a good point about Afridi throwing away his wicket when he shouldn't have. Dravid nicking off to McGrath in the 3rd over chasing 250 shouldn't be considered an equal failure to Afridi hitting a part-timer to midwicket with 60 needed off 60 balls with only the tailenders to come.

 

[viriya]

Do you ever score an innings negatively? OS made a good point about Afridi throwing away his wicket when he shouldn't have. Dravid nicking off to McGrath in the 3rd over chasing 250 shouldn't be considered an equal failure to Afridi hitting a part-timer to midwicket with 60 needed off 60 balls with only the tailenders to come.

Minimum is 0. I disagree that Afridi should be penalized more in that case. He's just playing his game.

 

[cnerd123]

Why is Dravid rewarded less than Afridi for scoring slower and being more consistent and less impactful? He's just playing his game too.

 

[viriya]

Why is Dravid rewarded less than Afridi for scoring slower and being more consistent and less impactful? He's just playing his game too.

Scoring slower = bad
Consistent = good
Less impactful = bad

Depends on whether that game is good for ODIs or not.

 

[Dan]

Just shows the flaws of comparing across roles tbh.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea no that doesn't make sense IMO. The 'style' that Afridi has lets him pull off more impactful match-winning knocks, which get rated highly, but also means he pulls off brain dead dismissals that could cost his side the game, and those don't get negative rating.

The 'style' Dravid has means less single-handed game changing knocks, but consistently building a platform for the team to score on. He doesn't get bonus rating for this, but still gets the same rating as Afridi when he fails in a situation that won't lose his side a game.

It's so flawed.

 

[viriya]

Yea no that doesn't make sense IMO. The 'style' that Afridi has lets him pull off more impactful match-winning knocks, which get rated highly, but also means he pulls off brain dead dismissals that could cost his side the game, and those don't get negative rating.

The 'style' Dravid has means less single-handed game changing knocks, but consistently building a platform for the team to score on. He doesn't get bonus rating for this, but still gets the same rating as Afridi when he fails in a situation that won't lose his side a game.

It's so flawed.

Consistency is not ignored.. say
Dravid had 10 innings in his career rated: 700, 700, 700, 700, 700, 700, 700, 700, 700, 700
Afridi had 10 innings in his career rated: 0, 0, 0, 2000, 0, 2000, 0, 0, 0, 2000

Dravid would have a career rating of 700, Afridi would get 600.

You act like it's obvious that Afridi lost games for Pak from winning positions more often than Dravid failing affected Ind. I'm not trying to convince you that Afridi was a better ODI batsman than Dravid - it's really just personal opinion. They have a <3% difference in career rating and Afridi benefits from playing for almost 20 years compared to Dravid's <15.

 

[viriya]

Just shows the flaws of comparing across roles tbh.

Agreed, Kallis is a good comparison for Dravid - with both of them playing the same role for their teams and batting at #3/#4.. I think it's clear that Kallis had a better ODI career.

 

[cnerd123]

The problem is that they are even within 3% of each other. Dravid is miles above Afridi as an ODI batsman. Surely the rankings need to be tweaked to reflect that better?

If the longevity is such a big factor, then you need a way to tie that into their roles. Afridi as a bowler deserves a lot of credit for his 20 years, but not as a batsman, since he wasn't being selected on that skill for atleast a decade, if not more.

 

[viriya]

Dravid is miles above Afridi as an ODI batsman.

Even considering the longevity factor, imo it's hard to claim Dravid was miles ahead of Afridi as an ODI batsman. He was more consistent yes, but Afridi was more impactful. Look at it this way:

Dravid:
Innings rated 2000+: 4 of 318 (1%)
Innings rated 1500+: 20 of 318 (6%)
Innings rated 1000+: 90 of 318 (28%)

Afridi:
Innings rated 2000+: 13 of 365 (4%)
Innings rated 1500+: 27 of 365 (7%)
Innings rated 1000+: 93 of 365 (25%)

This agrees with that view. Dravid was more consistent, but Afridi was much more likely to give you a high impact innings. Even then, Afridi is only slightly above Dravid in the rankings, partly because he has played a full 5 years more than Dravid.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Even considering the longevity factor, imo it's hard to claim Dravid was miles ahead of Afridi as an ODI batsman. He was more consistent yes, but Afridi was more impactful. Look at it this way:

Dravid:
Innings rated 2000+: 4 of 318 (1%)
Innings rated 1500+: 20 of 318 (6%)
Innings rated 1000+: 90 of 318 (28%)

Afridi:
Innings rated 2000+: 13 of 365 (4%)
Innings rated 1500+: 27 of 365 (7%)
Innings rated 1000+: 93 of 365 (25%)

This agrees with that view. Dravid was more consistent, but Afridi was much more likely to give you a high impact innings. Even then, Afridi is only slightly above Dravid in the rankings, partly because he has played a full 5 years more than Dravid.

You can argue about the system being flawed all you want, but if you're actually going to argue that Afridi wasn't a much worse batsman, I have to vehemently disagree. Dravid in his 1999-2005 played the anchor role superbly. You can argue about "impact" all you want. It's a completely meaningless term because Afridi comes in at no. 7 and basically starts slogging from ball 1. His impact is severely overrated because for every "impact innings", he loses the team 20 matches.

What about Mark Waugh? Do you think Afridi wasn't much worse than him too?

 

[viriya]

You can argue about the system being flawed all you want, but if you're actually going to argue that Afridi wasn't a much worse batsman, I have to vehemently disagree. Dravid in his 1999-2005 played the anchor role superbly. You can argue about "impact" all you want. It's a completely meaningless term because Afridi comes in at no. 7 and basically starts slogging from ball 1. His impact is severely overrated because for every "impact innings", he loses the team 20 matches.

What about Mark Waugh? Do you think Afridi wasn't much worse than him too?

Afridi opened a lot in the 90s as I recall. Actually he has opened in the majority of his innings, averaging 26 @ 102 in 126 innings - Jayasuriya-esque to a certain extent.

Overall, I agree that Dravid is a way better batsman, but in ODIs specifically, he wasn't as effective at his role as some of his contemporaries (Kallis, Ponting, Sanga). Afridi and Dravid is not a good comparison because their roles are so different, and I can understand if you think Dravid wins hands down, but I'm not rating batting ability - I'm valuing innings and then rating their careers using that.

The only thing I would disagree with is that Afridi "lost 20 games for you for every one he won". He played a certain role, and he wasn't expected to come off everytime. Pakistan didn't expect him to come off every time so it's unfair to say he "lost them the game".

 

[cnerd123]

Jayasuriya averaged 34.6 opening the batting WTF how is 26 @ 102 close to that.

If you are genuinely just 'valuing innings and then rating their career using that' then a) Longevity shouldn't be a factor and b) You need to give -ve rating for dismissals that cost the side the game. Afridi has played enough dumb shots and fallen at enough crucial hurdles to cancel out the matches he has won IMO.