cricrate: new cricket ratings website

[viriya]

Also, does the formula take into account both the point of entry (ie) 232/4 and the match situation (ie) -45/4 as a modifier? Imo, it should only consider the match situation. Point of entry in the second innings is meaningless without context and shouldn;t be a factor in the calculation.

They are considered separately. Dravid coming in at 232/4 is relevant - it means he had a platform to build on and the Aussies were tiring.

 

[OverratedSanity]

They are considered separately. Dravid coming in at 232/4 is relevant - it means he had a platform to build on and the Aussies were tiring.

Hm , that's fair although I do think the match situation should take precedence.

Interested in how the bowling attack ratings were calculated. You're right that Akhtar was in crazy good form back then and was as good as any ATG on form, but as much as I like Kaneria I don't remember him ever being as good as Warne even in a slump. How many of the previous matches coming into that game does it consider to calculate that bowler's "current" rating?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Oh and one more thing, Akhtar got injured halfway through the innings when Dravid got that 270, so is that taken into account somehow? Afte he went off, Pak were left with a pace attack of Sami and Fazl e Akbar.

Apologies if I seem a bit tedious, I'm just genuinely interested.

 

[viriya]

Hm , that's fair although I do think the match situation should take precedence.

Interested in how the bowling attack ratings were calculated. You're right that Akhtar was in crazy good form back then and was as good as any ATG on form, but as much as I like Kaneria I don't remember him ever being as good as Warne even in a slump. How many of the previous matches coming into that game does it consider to calculate that bowler's "current" rating?

Every past match is considered with diminishing returns. Warne was rated 654 coming into the Kolkata match (2001) with Kaneria at 637 for Rawalpindi (2014). Warne's past performances are considered but his more recent average performances (33+ average in the 3 years prior) take precedence. If Warne didn't even have those past heroics his current rating would've been even lower.

 

[viriya]

Oh and one more thing, Akhtar got injured halfway through the innings when Dravid got that 270, so is that taken into account somehow? Afte he went off, Pak were left with a pace attack of Sami and Fazl e Akbar.

Apologies if I seem a bit tedious, I'm just genuinely interested.

It is in a way because he bowled only 21 overs of a total of 177. The bowling rating is weighted by proportion of team overs bowled so that Pak attack was actually pretty bad.

On Dravid's 180, I do think it's slightly underrated partly because even though I give credit for comebacks, I calculate it based on the % difference between the two first innings scores, which ignores the magnitude of the runs deficit.
Aus made 445 and India made 171 (38%)

Hypothetically if in another match Aus makes 250 and India gets bowled out for 95 (38%), I consider both situations as similar. The reason is for ratings purposes ratios are much safer to work with than raw differences to avoid edge cases giving too much credit (say two first innings scores of 700 and 150 - the comeback factor would outweigh the whole formula if I used raw difference here).

Anyway, I do think the actual run difference matters, so going to make some changes to include it to a certain degree. This will incidentally also help Laxman's 281 rating.

 

[NUFAN]

The current setup is:

Every player gets to play a decider match in a series. So for example consider a 3 match series SL vs NZ:
If SL wins match 1, match 2 is a decider for both teams.
If SL then wins match 2, match 3 is a dead rubber for both teams
If NZ wins match 2, match 3 is a decider for both teams.

So if NZ gets to match 3, they get 2 decider games vs if they had won all their games they get a decider and a dead rubber.

I knew about this issue, and to avoid undeservedly giving credit to bad teams I have decider value credited lower (75% of the absolute value) than the dead rubber value discredited .

I'll tinker with 50% of value which is probably more appropriate. I do think some credit has to be given to deciders though, because by definition they are higher pressure games.

Interesting but I don't love it. When there are 3 (4) results possible, I don't think you can call Test 2 a decider when there are more results possible ( NZ win, draw or tie) that would make it a non-decider. This basically rewards those who improve as the series goes on and play in smaller 2 or 3 test series then the countries who play more 4 or 5 Tests Series.

 

[viriya]

Interesting but I don't love it. When there are 3 (4) results possible, I don't think you can call Test 2 a decider when there are more results possible ( NZ win, draw or tie) that would make it a non-decider. This basically rewards those who improve as the series goes on and play in smaller 2 or 3 test series then the countries who play more 4 or 5 Tests Series.

True, that's why I'm looking to reduce the credit I give for deciders. It's already a very minor factor.

 

[NUFAN]

That was a quick reply. Started making any coin for all your hard work yet?

 

[viriya]

That was a quick reply. Started making any coin for all your hard work yet?

Hell no.. I'm just bored with other projects so I got time for this. I have nothing on it to make any $ anyway.

Motivation is just to make the best site I can and work on it as a hobby and nothing more.

 

[vcs]

You must be a very good at programming and statistics.

 

[indiaholic]

Some kudos for being willing to discuss it here in spite of all the hate you got earlier.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I genuinely think he's one of the best posters on here. His website produces results which I sometimes find really absurd but viriya gets way too much ridiculous hate on here, some of which has been pretty ******. And despite that, he's never responded back with any personal attacks.Kudos. Tons of posters can learn from him imo.

Wish I had his thick skin tbh.

 

[indiaholic]

Oh yeah his temperament is excellent. I don't agree with a lot of his results or his tendency to give too much credence to the numbers but I would have been banned if I was involved in some of those arguments.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Let's not suck his dick too much though. Dravid's 180 not being in the top 1000 is definitely laughable

 

[indiaholic]

Yeah cricrate sucks but viriya is okay.

 

[viriya]

You must be a very good at programming and statistics.

Working on cricrate literally inspired me to change my field to data science (which is pretty much computer science + statistics) a couple years ago.

 

[viriya]

Some kudos for being willing to discuss it here in spite of all the hate you got earlier.

I genuinely think he's one of the best posters on here. His website produces results which I sometimes find really absurd but viriya gets way too much ridiculous hate on here, some of which has been pretty ******. And despite that, he's never responded back with any personal attacks.Kudos. Tons of posters can learn from him imo.

Wish I had his thick skin tbh.

Oh yeah his temperament is excellent. I don't agree with a lot of his results or his tendency to give too much credence to the numbers but I would have been banned if I was involved in some of those arguments.

Thanks guys - appreciate it.

I made a conscious decision early on to not get too worked up on here especially since I'm just playing with numbers. I also knew how emotional people get about their favorite players since I used to be a lot like that a decade ago. I also wanted to get feedback from everyone and even the most pissed off poster usually has some point.

 

[vcs]

Working on cricrate literally inspired me to change my field to data science (which is pretty much computer science + statistics) a couple years ago.

Great! What were you working on earlier?

 

[viriya]

Great! What were you working on earlier?

Financial engineering

 

[smash84]

Financial engineering

lol, almost feels like you moved from a more rigorous to a less rigorous field