Page 2 of 53 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 789
Like Tree179Likes

Thread: cricrate: new cricket ratings website

  1. #16
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    10,054
    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    I'm not using statsguru, and I'd like it if you could explain your opinion in more detail

    Please realize that this is a statistical exercise. I'm attempting to rate players based solely on scorecards - I might think that X is better than Y because of A, B and C, but if I can't make it plain from the numbers it's not useful.

    Also, I'm not claiming that this list is some be-all and end-all of course, actionable feedback that makes sense will be used to improve on the system constantly.
    I like the site set up, but I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusions. How can Shakib Al Hasan be ranked as a greater all rounder than Imran Khan? It doesn't make sense statistically, or logically….

  2. #17
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    10,054
    You have Chris Cairns listed as a better all rounder than Imran. Imran played more tests, and has a significantly better batting average and significantly better bowling average. It just doesn't make sense.

  3. #18
    Cricketer Of The Year
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    8,283
    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    I'm not using statsguru, and I'd like it if you could explain your opinion in more detail
    Utter garbage is all you deserve and is all you're getting.

  4. #19
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    You have Chris Cairns listed as a better all rounder than Imran. Imran played more tests, and has a significantly better batting average and significantly better bowling average. It just doesn't make sense.
    Did you see my post above, the reason Imran is rated lower than them is because his career was mostly solely as a bowler early on and then more as a batsmen later. During later years there were times when he didn't bowl and just batted. I agree that he ended up with a great all-round record, but he didn't have consistent all-round performances because of this. If he gets a 100 and doesn't bowl in a match, his all-round rating for that match is 0, because it wasn't an all-round performance. Likewise if he barely bats and just bowls, same thing happens.

    This rating system is bottom-up, so the overall averages do not figure in the rating system - it takes into account each match on its own.
    The reason why Shakib and Cairns are figured higher is basically for the opposite reason - for most of their careers they were genuine all-rounders.

    This method of multiplying batting and bowling ratings for a match works very well in general - since all the top all-rounders (except for Imran) figure at the top. That Imran is penalized was not planned but I think the reasoning is not entirely unfair.

    This is not to say that I think Imran is an inferior all-rounder - just that his career was not full of all-round performances but separate bowling and batting brilliant periods. I am aware though that there was a period where he was dominant with both, but that did not nullify the effect of his career being disjointed.

    This is still a good argument to add a factor like batting average/bowling average in addition to the average all-round performance though - so a player like Imran (who was obviously a great all-rounder), is not penalized excessively for starring in one discipline a match frequently.
    Last edited by viriya; 27-04-2014 at 01:43 PM.


  5. #20
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Normal service resumed
    Posts
    17,215
    Mike Procter the 89th greatest all-rounder?

    Darren Sammy above Trevor Bailey?

    I can see where LT is coming from tbh

  6. #21
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Normal service resumed
    Posts
    17,215
    Have a read of this viriya

  7. #22
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    10,054
    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    Did you see my post above, the reason Imran is rated lower than them is because his career was mostly solely as a bowler early on and then more as a batsmen later. During later years there were times when he didn't bowl and just batted. I agree that he ended up with a great all-round record, but he didn't have consistent all-round performances because of this. If he gets a 100 and doesn't bowl in a match, his all-round rating for that match is 0, because it wasn't an all-round performance. Likewise if he barely bats and just bowls, same thing happens.

    This rating system is bottom-up, so the overall averages do not figure in the rating system - it takes into account each match on its own.
    The reason why Shakib and Cairns are figured higher is basically for the opposite reason - for most of their careers they were genuine all-rounders.

    This method of multiplying batting and bowling ratings for a match works very well in general - since all the top all-rounders (except for Imran) figure at the top. That Imran is penalized was not planned but I think the reasoning is not entirely unfair.

    This is not to say that I think Imran is an inferior all-rounder - just that his career was not full of all-round performances but separate bowling and batting brilliant periods. I am aware though that there was a period where he was dominant with both, but that did not nullify the effect of his career being disjointed.

    This is still a good argument to add a factor like batting average/bowling average in addition to the average all-round performance though - so a player like Imran (who was obviously a great all-rounder), is not penalized excessively for starring in one discipline a match frequently.
    Ok. That makes more sense then.

    I do think that you need to make that very clear on the page. Because people are going to look at that list and go "wtf?"
    Quote Originally Posted by G.I.Joe View Post
    Red Hill is the best philosopher the great on the forum.

  8. #23
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    Ok. That makes more sense then.

    I do think that you need to make that very clear on the page. Because people are going to look at that list and go "wtf?"
    That's why there's a Methodology link right on the top of the page
    cricrate | Test All-Round Ratings

  9. #24
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,117
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    Mike Procter the 89th greatest all-rounder?

    Darren Sammy above Trevor Bailey?

    I can see where LT is coming from tbh
    The reason Mike Proctor is not rated higher is obvious - he only played 7 matches. Even though we know he was a great all-rounder he suffered from SA being excluded from international cricket and unfortunately there is no way to resolve this statistically (same goes to Barry Richards).

    Sammy vs Trevor is not obvious to me either. Just from a quick overview I think Trevor's career is affected by batting during a weak bowling period (check Hobbs/Hutton discussion above), and also his great bowling performances not coinciding with adequate batting performances (and hence not all-round performances - similar to the reason Imran isn't rated higher).

  10. #25
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,117
    More in-depth on Bailey's career:
    cricrate | Trevor Bailey

    In his three best bowling performances according to the rankings:
    7/34 vs WI
    7/44 vs WI
    5/20 vs SA

    he didn't really feature with the bat - his highest score of those 3 matches was 23. So all three of these matches are not considered great all-round performances even though they were great bowling performances.
    Similarly, in his 3 best batting performances:
    138* vs NZ
    88 vs AUS
    82 vs WI

    his best bowling figures were 3/140. So looks like he went through the "Imran effect" as well.
    You can check the match scorecards from the innings lists.

  11. #26
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,117
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    Have a read of this viriya
    interesting - i'll take a look.

  12. #27
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Normal service resumed
    Posts
    17,215
    Quote Originally Posted by viriya View Post
    More in-depth on Bailey's career:
    cricrate | Trevor Bailey

    In his three best bowling performances according to the rankings:
    7/34 vs WI
    7/44 vs WI
    5/20 vs SA

    he didn't really feature with the bat - his highest score of those 3 matches was 23. So all three of these matches are not considered great all-round performances even though they were great bowling performances.
    Similarly, in his 3 best batting performances:
    138* vs NZ
    88 vs AUS
    82 vs WI

    his best bowling figures were 3/140. So looks like he went through the "Imran effect" as well.
    You can check the match scorecards from the innings lists.
    I see what you mean now - but not a atatistic that I can see is of any use

  13. #28
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,117
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    I see what you mean now - but not a atatistic that I can see is of any use
    I see your point though - I think I'm probably gonna add a separate factor when calculating all-round career rankings based on the battingAvg/bowlingAvg ratio which would tweak the ratings a bit.

  14. #29
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    10,054
    I think the combined performance in particular matches is an interesting stat, but not a very comprehensive one.

    I'd be very interested in who's combined runs and wickets most successfully over a series or over a 12 month period.

  15. #30
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    I think the combined performance in particular matches is an interesting stat, but not a very comprehensive one.

    I'd be very interested in who's combined runs and wickets most successfully over a series or over a 12 month period.
    most likely it was imran khan - he had a period (something like 10-15 tests) where he averaged 50+ with the bat and <25 with the ball.

Page 2 of 53 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. My One-Day International Cricket Ratings to the end of 2007
    By Days of Grace in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 01-08-2008, 07:19 AM
  2. My Test Cricket Ratings to the end of 2007
    By Days of Grace in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 24-03-2008, 10:22 PM
  3. Jamee's County Cricket Ratings 2004
    By Jamee999 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 25-04-2005, 08:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •