LG Player Rankings

[Richard]

So the answer to my question is "no".

Well we already knew that...

 

[silentstriker]

So then whats the issue? It's a good guide. If you're ranked #1, then your bowling at the time is among the best in the world, and arguably the best in the world.

 

[Richard]

IMO it's no good guide. For a start, "being the best in The World" is a misnomer. No-one can ever be conclusively that, and for a ranking which allows Stephen Harmison to be dubbed such a thing, well...

If they were called "The LG ICC Form Guides" I'd have less of an issue, it's the fact that they're called "Rankings" that annoys the **** out of me.

 

[nightprowler10]

Haha. Its their rankings. Why would they call them guides?

 

[Richard]

Because they're a form-guide, not a ranking of who's best and who's 67th-best.

That's been near enough universally agreed on this forum (even by those who still make the "Harmison was the best in The World" claim).

 

[nightprowler10]

Because they're a form-guide, not a ranking of who's best and who's 67th-best.

That's been near enough universally agreed on this forum (even by those who still make the "Harmison was the best in The World" claim).

But the rankings are not supposed to represent who's the best, period. Rather they show what sort of run of form the player has had. I think the ICC rankings portray that quite accurately.

 

[Richard]

They do, but their name is an inaccurate reflection of their function.

 

[nightprowler10]

They do, but their name is an inaccurate reflection of their function.

I see what you mean now. The thing is that anyone actually looking at the rankings would understand what exactly they represent.

Besides what else can they represent in terms of players still playing.

 

[Richard]

I see what you mean now. The thing is that anyone actually looking at the rankings would understand what exactly they represent.

Except when it's convenient for them to say "the Rankings are official, they're called Rankings not Form Guides, and so THEREFORE HARMISON WAS THE BEST BOWLER IN THE WORLD".

Which is extremely annoying.

 

[pup11]

Are factors like whether the player is playing at home or away, the importance of the game, the situation in which he is scoring runs or taking wickets are also considered in the LG player rankings.

 

[Swervy]

No, not at all, just that that scheme is so poor we'd be better of without than with IMO.

there have ALWAYS been rankings in cricket, its just that they have tended to be one bloke chatting to another in a pub about what his opinion on who he would consider to be currently the number one player.

The LG ratings at least offer an objective method (despite its flaws, whatever they might be) to at least start a less biased approach to rating a players play at any particular time.

 

[Swervy]

What, it rates them on the exact number of balls faced from the each bowler?

Does it take account if the bowler has lost his father the day before and is making an effort to "take one for the team"?

Or if the bowler has a broken finger?

joker

 

[Richard]

there have ALWAYS been rankings in cricket, its just that they have tended to be one bloke chatting to another in a pub about what his opinion on who he would consider to be currently the number one player.

The LG ratings at least offer an objective method (despite its flaws, whatever they might be) to at least start a less biased approach to rating a players play at any particular time.

Why bother?

You've always been one for "completely ignore statistics and form your own subjective opinion based on what you see".

Why the change of mind here?

Is it for the sake of contradicting me?

 

[Swervy]

IMO the flaws in the first-chance scheme are far less in number than those in the LG-I$C$C Ranking scheme.

What are the flaws in the LG rankings then..if you dont understand how it works, how do you know what the flaws are???

Re: your first chance averages.... when will you actually post some of these on here. You talk about them, but we see no evidence that you have actually done any work/research on this.

 

[Richard]

I did one on a whole career, you just weren't here. And I've posted a series \ short-term thing many times, given that short-term averages usually tell you more than longer-term ones.

And I do understand the basics of the Ranking formulae, just not as completely as David Kendix.

 

[Swervy]

Why bother?

You've always been one for "completely ignore statistics and form your own subjective opinion based on what you see".

Why the change of mind here?

Is it for the sake of contradicting me?

I enjoy looking at the ratings becaus it triggers debate (even if its only in my own mind), simple as. I dont always agree with them, but I understand that they arent really that important, and so I dont get wound up about them.

I have never been a 'completely ignore stats' man in fact, they need to be used in conjunction with context, and knowledge of the workings of the game.

hence your rather typical ' Dodemaide was a poor bowler' post on another thread just didnt wash with a number of us, you simply went from the stats, without (and it was pretty obvious despite your protestations) you actually really knowing what you were talking about. you made an off the cuff remark, which had no real basis in reality

 

[Swervy]

I did one on a whole career, you just weren't here. And I've posted a series \ short-term thing many times, given that short-term averages usually tell you more than longer-term ones.

And I do understand the basics of the Ranking formulae, just not as completely as David Kendix.

could you post a link to the thread..I genuinely would like to read it


So what do you see as being the flaws in the LG rating system then?

 

[Richard]

I enjoy looking at the ratings becaus it triggers debate (even if its only in my own mind), simple as. I dont always agree with them, but I understand that they arent really that important, and so I dont get wound up about them.

I don't, either, except when people use them to argue nonsense like "Harmison was The World's best bowler".

I have never been a 'completely ignore stats' man in fact, they need to be used in conjunction with context, and knowledge of the workings of the game.

Ha! You've done a pretty damn good impression of it.

hence your rather typical ' Dodemaide was a poor bowler' post on another thread just didnt wash with a number of us, you simply went from the stats, without (and it was pretty obvious despite your protestations) you actually really knowing what you were talking about. you made an off the cuff remark, which had no real basis in reality

Dodemaide's stats are pretty decent.

I did not go by stats - and I got attacked by don't-judge-on-stats Swervy.

You'd think I'd just called David Gilbert a good Test bowler...

 

[Richard]

could you post a link to the thread..I genuinely would like to read it

I'll just attach it again here - it's not actually an average, it's a list of innings.

So what do you see as being the flaws in the LG rating system then?

The fact that it simply presumes "bowler X has performed like Z in Y games previously. Therefore he will beyond question bowl like it in this game".

Which is patently not true. The best bowlers can bowl a heap of crap on any given day. Similarly, getting the best batsmen out isn't always anything whatsoever to do with good bowling - simply put, batsmen do have poor innings, poor series, poor multiple series even.

So therefore it's best to judge each case on it's own merits, truths and non-falseties - not make assumptions based on past or even, with hindsight, future.

EG: Australia were good in 2004\05 and 2005\06 so therefore they had to be good in 2005, too.

 

[Swervy]

I'll just attach it again here - it's not actually an average, it's a list of innings.

The fact that it simply presumes "bowler X has performed like Z in Y games previously. Therefore he will beyond question bowl like it in this game".

Which is patently not true. The best bowlers can bowl a heap of crap on any given day. Similarly, getting the best batsmen out isn't always anything whatsoever to do with good bowling - simply put, batsmen do have poor innings, poor series, poor multiple series even.

So therefore it's best to judge each case on it's own merits, truths and non-falseties - not make assumptions based on past or even, with hindsight, future.

EG: Australia were good in 2004\05 and 2005\06 so therefore they had to be good in 2005, too.

damn..I cant open up the attachment

I dont think the rating do in anyway try and predict the future in any way. That might be your interpreation of them, but for me it is simply a method of bringing together the performance results of players in the two disciplines of batting and bowling as a way of measuring that players recent play. That simple really, its just measuring the results gained by a performance, no matter how poorly or how well a bowler or batsman played. Ultimately, its the result that counts. So, nope, its not a predictive tool, and if you expect it to be, then that explains why you are disappointed by them.

I do have to pull you up on this oddity:
'So therefore it's best to judge each case on it's own merits, truths and non-falseties - not make assumptions based on past or even, with hindsight, future'

How can you make a assumptions based on the future????