Page 4 of 53 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 786
Like Tree179Likes

Thread: cricrate: new cricket ratings website

  1. #46
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,078
    The difference between their ratings is miniscule, and Faf will jump past as soon as the current test is done.

    There is a tendency to completely discount performances vs minnow nations but it's somewhat unfair. The innings ratings are discounted because of the relatively low quality bowling attacks (although with shakib bowling a lot of the overs I would argue that the Ban attack isn't completely hopeless), but those runs still matter.

    Another thing to note is that since Hamilton has barely any history of good performances, his current rating is more precarious than say Cook's for example.. Cook has had a whole year of poor performances and he is still rated just below Hamilton.

    Hope that gives some explanation of the reasoning.

    On whether I consider Faf's career to date to be better than Hamilton's - just check the Best Test Batting Careers list.. He's already made the top 100.
    Last edited by viriya; 03-01-2015 at 04:10 AM.
    cricrate - follow twitter and facebook for updates

  2. #47
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    21,663
    Kohli gained 182 points for scoring 115,141,19,1,169,54 against Australia.

    Masakadza gained 151 points for scoring 158,61,81 and 38 against Bangladesh

  3. #48
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Littlecote Island
    Posts
    16,476
    How can it be that Graham Gooch's 154* at Headingley in 1991 doesn't figure in the top 100 innings?

  4. #49
    International Coach weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    11,730
    The look of the website is good. But the methodology needs so much refining that I don't know where to start. Don't take it personally viriya, but I think the criticism you're getting is completely justified.
    kingkallis likes this.
    "Cricket is an art. Like all arts it has a technical foundation. To enjoy it does not require technical knowledge, but analysis that is not technically based is mere impressionism."
    - C.L.R. James


  5. #50
    International Coach weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    11,730
    The all-time ranking methodologies need a complete overhaul. For a start, I think you should see Prince EWS' thread for all-time rankings.
    Last edited by weldone; 03-01-2015 at 12:22 PM.

  6. #51
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Elton Chicken Burrah
    Posts
    22,454
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    How can it be that Graham Gooch's 154* at Headingley in 1991 doesn't figure in the top 100 innings?
    The methodology places a very high weightage on the sheer quantity of runs scored. The smallest innings in the list is 153, and the majority are doubles and triples. The formula needs several more modifiers to make it a good one, imo. The base value of runs just overpowers the other criteria and makes it more a list of big, long innings.

    I mean, any list of great knocks which puts ABdV's 278 on Dubai pancake in a draw at no.8 all time, and doesn't even feature Gooch's 154, Kim Hughes 100, VVS Laxman's 281, etc needs a lot more work.

  7. #52
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    43,006
    I mean, any list of great knocks which puts ABdV's 278 on Dubai pancake in a draw at no.8 all time
    I don't remember a single thing about that innings. I mean, I watched it, but it all seems to have vanished into the aether.
    do you think people will be allowed to make violins?
    who's going to make the violins?

    forever 63*

  8. #53
    International Coach Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    10,845
    What's the point when we already have DoG's ranking.
    Days of Grace likes this.

  9. #54
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    51,561
    Quote Originally Posted by BackFootPunch View Post
    Yeah but even if he's in the form of his life he's still a much, much worse batsman than someone like Faf, who's hardly a newbie anymore. I'd imagine Faf's played more games than Masakadza recently so surely his ability can be more consistently gauged?

    I just don't see the point in showing the current form of someone if they're quite obviously not that good and their current form isn't that amazing. Averaging 52 against Bangladesh is hardly something to write home about.
    As someone who dabbles in a lot of this stuff myself, the problem you get with Masakadza is not just that he played mostly against Bangladesh in 2014, but that Bangladesh played a lot of their cricket against Zimbabwe in 2014. In determining the quality of Masakadza's opposition, one must look at how their bowlers fared around the time he played them, and their stats won't be that bad for the very fact that they played Zimbabwe. For example, Bangladesh at home in 2014 didn't have markedly different overall bowling stats than South Africa at home in 2014:
    Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

    So in fact, whenever Masakadza plays against anyone, that team's team stats for around the period he played them will be inflated by playing against his own poor side, so any such system will tend to slightly (or not so slightly) over-rate players from weak teams. This problem caused me to rejig the entire way I determined the quality of opposition batting lineups and bowling attacks when standardising performances, and it took me longer than anything else in the entire system. so I can see why it's a problem for viriya.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 03-01-2015 at 12:15 PM.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    People go into politics to change the world. That's a bad idea. The only good reason to go into politics is to sweep government away so that the world can change itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Freddie is the greatest cricketer ever so the fact these comparisons are being made means three things:

    1. Stokes is pretty good
    2. Jono is a ****
    3. Taxation is theft

  10. #55
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,078
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Kohli gained 182 points for scoring 115,141,19,1,169,54 against Australia.

    Masakadza gained 151 points for scoring 158,61,81 and 38 against Bangladesh
    Although it seems that Hamilton gained a similar number of points for performances vs Bangladesh, that's actually not the case.

    Kohli went from 445 to 627.
    Hamilton went from 385 to 511.

    Since Hamilton was rated lower to start with, he can gain points easier than Kohli, who has to perform at a higher level to gain the same number of points. Even then, Kohli gained more points because as we know, his Australia performances have been up there.
    NUFAN likes this.

  11. #56
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,078
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    How can it be that Graham Gooch's 154* at Headingley in 1991 doesn't figure in the top 100 innings?
    Quote Originally Posted by OverratedSanity View Post
    The methodology places a very high weightage on the sheer quantity of runs scored. The smallest innings in the list is 153, and the majority are doubles and triples. The formula needs several more modifiers to make it a good one, imo. The base value of runs just overpowers the other criteria and makes it more a list of big, long innings.

    I mean, any list of great knocks which puts ABdV's 278 on Dubai pancake in a draw at no.8 all time, and doesn't even feature Gooch's 154, Kim Hughes 100, VVS Laxman's 281, etc needs a lot more work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    I don't remember a single thing about that innings. I mean, I watched it, but it all seems to have vanished into the aether.
    It just misses out with a rating of 2657.

    I hear the criticism here and I've been attempting to solve this issue myself. Just because I have certain innings up there doesn't mean I'm tied to them btw - I just want to get it right.

    I agree that the runs weight seems too high when you look at the greatest innings compilation, but the reason that is the case is because if I lower it any more significantly, players like Jack Hobbs will drop lower below #24 in the Career rankings. This is because even though he made a lot of runs, the quality of his opposition wasn't that high.

    I myself believe that Lara's 153 and Gooch's 154 should be rated higher, so I think I will tweak the base runs factor slightly for that reason.

  12. #57
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,078
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    The look of the website is good. But the methodology needs so much refining that I don't know where to start. Don't take it personally viriya, but I think the criticism you're getting is completely justified.
    Thanks for the comments. I really appreciate any feedback - what I hate is none. Feel free to skewer the website as long as you have workable suggestions

  13. #58
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux View Post
    What's the point when we already have DoG's ranking.
    DoG's ratings works very well when rating ATG innings, but I'm willing to bet that it would be impossible to implement as a standard formula for all innings ever played and then for rating careers as mine does. I'm fairly certain that you would get batsmen who made useful runs when the team was in strife rated a lot higher in the ATG rankings (say lower order bat that averages 35 over a 50 average batsman)..

    His ratings formula is impressive though - I stole a couple of ideas for mine (support and closeness factors).
    Days of Grace likes this.

  14. #59
    Global Moderator harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    10,766
    It's a bit weird about AbdV. Great batsman, great to watch, but not as memorable as many other greats, or even Amla for that matter.
    ~ Do you think I care for you so little that betraying me would make a difference ~

  15. #60
    International Captain viriya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    6,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    So in fact, whenever Masakadza plays against anyone, that team's team stats for around the period he played them will be inflated by playing against his own poor side, so any such system will tend to slightly (or not so slightly) over-rate players from weak teams. This problem caused me to rejig the entire way I determined the quality of opposition batting lineups and bowling attacks when standardising performances, and it took me longer than anything else in the entire system. so I can see why it's a problem for viriya.
    Good point, but that effect should be relatively minor. The Bangladesh bowlers (aside from Shakib) would be rated pretty low to start with that 1-2 tests of good performances (against inferior opposition, so those performances would be discounted as well) won't make much of a difference going into a third test. Interesting to think about though.

    The way the current form of a player is determined is by an exponential smoothing method where more recent performances are given more weight than older performances. Even still, a player's debut test is still part of the calculation, just very minor compared to his most recent performance. This way, great players don't drop like stones when they have a patch of bad form, and inferior players don't maintain their ratings jumps easily.
    Last edited by viriya; 03-01-2015 at 01:09 PM.

Page 4 of 53 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •