cricrate: new cricket ratings website

[TNT]

The short answer to this is that Afridi has been around for almost twice the time as Symonds was.. 18 years+ to <10. Ignoring longevity, Symonds has a rating of 751 compared to Afridi's 661. It's better but not significantly better to override the longevity aspect. Afridi, while known to throw it away a lot, has a lot of significant innings (12 2k+ rated innings vs Symond's 5), and his strike rate is untouched by anyone who has played a decent amount of cricket - in that way he is slightly underrated.

Longevity is not a skill, it relates to the quality of the team and other factors. You have a huge flaw in your rankings if Afridi ranks higher than Symonds.

 

[viriya]

Longevity is not a skill, it relates to the quality of the team and other factors. You have a huge flaw in your rankings if Afridi ranks higher than Symonds.

That's why the list says "Best ODI Batting Careers". It's not a skill rating, it's a career rating.

 

[TNT]

That's why the list says "Best ODI Batting Careers". It's not a skill rating, it's a career rating.

Well that only exposes the flaw in your system, if a player like Afridi gains longevity through his bowling then you increase his batting rating. If your rating suggests that Afridi had a better ODI batting career than Symonds then you have a flawed system.

 

[Riggins]

Well that only exposes the flaw in your system, if a player like Afridi gains longevity through his bowling then you increase his batting rating. If your rating suggests that Afridi had a better ODI batting career than Symonds then you have a flawed system.

Yeah that's a good point actually.

 

[viriya]

Well that only exposes the flaw in your system, if a player like Afridi gains longevity through his bowling then you increase his batting rating. If your rating suggests that Afridi had a better ODI batting career than Symonds then you have a flawed system.

He wouldnt've eclipsed Symonds just by hanging around, he does because his average innings rating is only 12% lower than Symond's. Also, like I said, he has more great performances even scaled by number of matches played than Symonds even though his overall stats are inferior. The point here is that while Symond's average + strike rate is excellent, Afridi's inferior average hides that he makes more contributions when it matters. The longevity comes into play after that.

Even considering all this, Afridi's overall career rating is only 2% higher than Symonds - so there is really nothing between them career-wise. I personally don't think Afridi necessarily has had a better career than Symonds, but I don't think Symonds did either. I can understand you thinking otherwise. If you can point other cases where you think the longevity factor plays too much of a role, I'll probably be more swayed to tweak it lower.

Take the case of AB de Villiers for example - even with the longevity factor being as it is, he has a better career rating than Tendulkar. He has great numbers but Tendulkar has a 23 year career vs AB's 9 years. Even then, his average innings rating is high enough to slightly eclipse Tendulkar's record at this point. I have a feeling most people wouldn't pick AB over Tendulkar in ODI all-time career-wise yet.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah I think the longevity thing is difficult to properly iimplement for all-rounders

 

[viriya]

Yeah that's a good point actually.

Yeah I think the longevity thing is difficult to properly iimplement for all-rounders

The thing is, even if Afridi extended his career because of his bowling, the longevity factor is scaled by his average innings rating, so just playing a lot of matches but being poor as a batsman would not be as helpful as you might think. A better argument might be that the innings rating rewards strike rate too heavily - since his low average is partially offset by the best strike rate of all time.

 

[Prince EWS]

I've long thought that perahps longevity should only keep counting for as long as you're actually justifying your spot as a batsman (or bowler as the case may be), but then you'd have to forgo the pretense of it being able to accurately compare lower order players against each other as well. Having a specialist batsman who averages 40 for one game is more valuable than having one who averages 22 for a thousand years because a specialist batsman who averages 22 is realistically contributing absolutely nothing. That's how I actually view it when I'm rating players manually, but it's hard to work into a proper algorithm that would also attempt to show that Siddle is better batsman than Martin, for example.

 

[smash84]

Fair enough. Guess part of it also has to do with lone wolf vs supportive bowlers. Something I noticed - Grimmett played 37 tests, not 36. Think all the bowlers in the 10 deserve to be up there, not necessarily in that order, except Kumble, but he'd be up there due to his longevity.

No, Kumble definitely doesn't deserve to be in the top 10.

 

[viriya]

The thing about Afridi is that his average is poor (23.5) but his SR is just mind-boggling (116+) considering the ~20 years of cricket he has played.. At a certain point the SR stops mattering as much because the average is low, but what would an equivalent average-strike rate be for him? 25/110? 27.5/100? 30/95?

I feel like it's hard to rate Afridi the ODI batsman because there is really no one to compare him with. No one with anything remotely similar with a decently long career.

 

[Goughy]

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.

Like EWS, I also dabble in this type of stuff and I think it is a really interesting and fun endeavour. However, I do think that I have concluded that it is a thought exercise and all efforts are flawed (though some more flawed than others.)

The danger, of course, is to tweak the methodology to fit the established wisdom. The process and system then loses its integrity.

The value of these exercises isnt to provide a definitive list but define the parameters and why they are important, input the data, roll the dice and see what is spat out. If it doesnt fit our expectations then it challenges our establish thought and is a conversation piece even if eventually dismissed.

 

[viriya]

Like EWS, I also dabble in this type of stuff and I think it is a really interesting and fun endeavour. However, I do think that I have concluded that it is a thought exercise and all efforts are flawed (though some more flawed than others.)

The danger, of course, is to tweak the methodology to fit the established wisdom. The process and system then loses its integrity.

The value of these exercises isnt to provide a definitive list but define the parameters and why they are important, input the data, roll the dice and see what is spat out. If it doesnt fit our expectations then it challenges our establish thought and is a conversation piece even if eventually dismissed.

That's my quest, the least "flawed" system.

The thing is, the established wisdom is what governs the process regardless, if there are innings that should be rated high, and the reason for it can be captured in the data, that's what guides the process.

Of course it's a lost cause if you're trying to please everyone's ideas of what things should be though.

 

[Prince EWS]

Like EWS, I also dabble in this type of stuff and I think it is a really interesting and fun endeavour. However, I do think that I have concluded that it is a thought exercise and all efforts are flawed (though some more flawed than others.)

The danger, of course, is to tweak the methodology to fit the established wisdom. The process and system then loses its integrity.

The value of these exercises isnt to provide a definitive list but define the parameters and why they are important, input the data, roll the dice and see what is spat out. If it doesnt fit our expectations then it challenges our establish thought and is a conversation piece even if eventually dismissed.

Yeah I couldn't agree more with this. If you want to make a list in an order that looks 'right', you're better off just making a list off the top of your head. The fun in this lies in deciding what data you think is important and how important it is, and then seeing what sort of list that combination provides.

 

[TNT]

He wouldnt've eclipsed Symonds just by hanging around, he does because his average innings rating is only 12% lower than Symond's. Also, like I said, he has more great performances even scaled by number of matches played than Symonds even though his overall stats are inferior. The point here is that while Symond's average + strike rate is excellent, Afridi's inferior average hides that he makes more contributions when it matters. The longevity comes into play after that.

Even considering all this, Afridi's overall career rating is only 2% higher than Symond's - so there is really nothing between them career-wise. I personally don't think Afridi necessarily has had a better career than Symond's, but I don't think Symond's did either. I can understand you thinking otherwise. If you can point other cases where you think the longevity factor plays too much of a role, I'll probably be more swayed to tweak it lower.

Take the case of AB de Villiers for example - even with the longevity factor being as it is, he has a better career rating than Tendulkar. He has great numbers but Tendulkar has a 23 year career vs AB's 9 years. Even then, his average innings rating is high enough to slightly eclipse Tendulkar's record at this point. I have a feeling most people wouldn't pick AB over Tendulkar in ODI all-time career-wise yet.

I don't think that longevity can be tweaked to be more accurate, it is completely irrelevant to the value, ability and skill when comparing batsmen. M Waugh had Gilchrist vying for his position so his ranking is affected much more than other players due to longevity. A player who plays for a stronger team is going to be unfairly ranked to longevity.

 

[viriya]

I don't think that longevity can be tweaked to be more accurate, it is completely irrelevant to the value, ability and skill when comparing batsmen. M Waugh had Gilchrist vying for his position so his ranking is affected much more than other players due to longevity. A player who plays for a stronger team is going to be unfairly ranked to longevity.

With Symonds the stronger team argument would hold more ground if he didn't tail off a bit at the end of his career. In the last 2 years he averaged 27 with a 82 SR - well below his peak career standards. I think that's why longevity has to be given some value when considering careers.

 

[TNT]

With Symonds the stronger team argument would hold more ground if he didn't tail off a bit at the end of his career. In the last 2 years he averaged 27 with a 82 SR - well below his peak career standards. I think that's why longevity has to be given some value when considering careers.

The thing you are missing with longevity is the strength of teams and the requirements to be in that team. It will be much easier for a player to maintain his spot in a team that has weaker bench strength than a team that has quality players on the bench. Had Symonds played for NZ his career would have started earlier and finished later. Australian players had shorter careers in ODI's because they had to maintain a higher standard to keep their positions in the late 90's early 00's. Longevity is skewed towards the weaker countries with lower standards.

 

[viriya]

The thing you are missing with longevity is the strength of teams and the requirements to be in that team. It will be much easier for a player to maintain his spot in a team that has weaker bench strength than a team that has quality players on the bench. Had Symonds played for NZ his career would have started earlier and finished later. Australian players had shorter careers in ODI's because they had to maintain a higher standard to keep their positions in the late 90's early 00's. Longevity is skewed towards the weaker countries with lower standards.

Fair point, but I'm not sure there's much that's statistically doable to handle this though. In general it shouldn't be a major issue, and there is a flip side to this in that generally weaker teams tend not to play as many Tests as more established teams. But the way longevity is calculated now tries to minimize that effect.

In Symonds' case, was there a better replacement waiting in the wings? I seem to remember feeling like he got hard done by and deserved a longer run even if he was going through a bad patch.

 

[weldone]

Fair enough. Guess part of it also has to do with lone wolf vs supportive bowlers. Something I noticed - Grimmett played 37 tests, not 36. Think all the bowlers in the 10 deserve to be up there, not necessarily in that order, except Kumble, but he'd be up there due to his longevity.

Nah, Kumble shouldn't be in top 10 even after considering his longevity. Top 25? Maybe. Top 10? No way.

 

[weldone]

Well that only exposes the flaw in your system, if a player like Afridi gains longevity through his bowling then you increase his batting rating. If your rating suggests that Afridi had a better ODI batting career than Symonds then you have a flawed system.

That's exactly the point I raised about all-rounders' longevity. It's also a flaw in PEWS' system. But it's a tricky question, and we haven't found an easy way out.

 

[weldone]

I've long thought that perahps longevity should only keep counting for as long as you're actually justifying your spot as a batsman (or bowler as the case may be), but then you'd have to forgo the pretense of it being able to accurately compare lower order players against each other as well.

That's a very good point, and I've recently been thinking about this. Why can't we just take the batting longevity of lower order players as 0? [or in our case 1 or some other small value, considering how we implement longevity in our formula] Chris Martin was never in his career selected or should have been selected as a batsman. So, his batting longevity should be minimum. It will hopefully also take those 7(?) players ranked below him higher.