Adam Voges average watch

[Zinzan]

All of these factors are taken into account in proper rating systems.
cricrate | Methodology - Test Batting

Damn, I kind of walked into that one. Well done in not missing the opportunity, legitimately.

I like my rating system, I tend to get things perfectly right.

I said that cricket fans can agree upon.

 

[Blocky]

viriya has rating system for fielders even... atleast applaud the man even though flawed doesn't matter. Someone had to say sun moves around the earth first

It's a statistical approach to building a ratings system, from that aspect, congratulations.

But anyone with even an incidental background in statistics understands that variable selection and how to derive variables when there isn't always an answer (i.e true pitch condition, or form, or match situation) is highly essential. I'd say based on his ranking systems, some of the weightings and variable selection is demonstrably wrong. Voges is a great example of that.

 

[viriya]

Yet you/cricrate has Voges a clear #1 in Test cricket and #4 all time... go figure.

This is pre-SA series (in the process of updating atm). And #4 all-time is peak current rating, which is very understandable. Actual all-time career ratings are separate and he doesn't even feature in the top 300.

 

[Blocky]

This is pre-SA series. And #4 all-time is peak current rating, which is very understandable. Actual all-time career ratings are separate and he doesn't even feature in the top 300.

Even on peak ratings, the abundance of runs against three opposition in conditions that were highly conducive to run scoring would tell me that something isn't quite right there.

Even a cursory glance at his true compiled statistics - he's a gun when his team gets to select what they want to do first, he's mediocre when they don't. His average is high, however his actual runs per test can only be considered reasonable amongst those that have averaged near 50, which indicates not outs and the position his side was in when he had a not out isn't taken into account, etcetera.

 

[viriya]

Even on peak ratings, the abundance of runs against three opposition in conditions that were highly conducive to run scoring would tell me that something isn't quite right there.

All his big tons are adjusted much lower because of those factors. But at a certain point you have to give a decent value to a 269*, 106*, 239 run of scores. Even with a lower adjustment (especially the first two vs WI) that run is incredible.

 

[viriya]

To add to this, Voges career trajectory is very rare. I think good comparisons are Sanjay Manjrekar and Asanka Gurusinha - both of them started exceptionally and faded.

http://www.cricrate.com/player.php?playerId=61871&matchFormat=Test&disc=Batting
http://www.cricrate.com/player.php?playerId=98013&matchFormat=Test&disc=Batting

 

[Blocky]

All his big tons are adjusted much lower because of those factors. But at a certain point you have to give a decent value to a 269*, 106*, 239 run of scores. Even with a lower adjustment (especially the first two vs WI) that run is incredible.

But in that case, you're penalising other players who have been on similar if not better runs, because he doesn't have a history built up prior to going on that run.

Ross Taylor had a run of 54*, 53, 217*, 129, 131
Jacques Kallis had multiple runs that would be similar to Taylor including a 91, 28, 51, 155, 100*, 59, 107*, 29, 186, 131

etcetera...

Which you've just confirmed by admitting that players who start on a blinder are given much more favorable rankings than people who have built a history, even if those with history have had much greater runs of performances.

 

[viriya]

But in that case, you're penalising other players who have been on similar if not better runs, because he doesn't have a history built up prior to going on that run.

Ross Taylor had a run of 54*, 53, 217*, 129, 131
Jacques Kallis had multiple runs that would be similar to Taylor including a 91, 28, 51, 155, 100*, 59, 107*, 29, 186, 131

etcetera...

Which you've just confirmed by admitting that players who start on a blinder are given much more favorable rankings than people who have built a history, even if those with history have had much greater runs of performances.

No they are not, the first 40 innings of a player are heavily adjusted lower for current ratings.

 

[Blocky]

No they are not, the first 40 innings of a player are heavily adjusted lower for current ratings.

Yet obviously not enough when a person in their first 20 tests can become #4 highest ranked of all time....

I'd also point out the lack of Bevan in your ODI "all time greats" would indicate that match position and match result isn't weighted correctly either.

 

[viriya]

Yet obviously not enough when a person in their first 20 tests can become #4 highest ranked of all time....

I'd also point out the lack of Bevan in your ODI "all time greats" would indicate that match position and match result isn't weighted correctly either.

It's peak rating - it doesn't mean anything significant. You are overthinking what being #4 all-time peak rating means. It's a blip in a career. It only matters if a player sustains those levels (in which case he will show up high in the career ratings).

Bevan is ranked #13. Dhoni is ranked #4 who is basically a better version of Bevan.

 

[Blocky]

It's peak rating - it doesn't mean anything significant. You are overthinking what being #4 all-time peak rating means. It's a blip in a career. It only matters if a player sustains those levels (in which case he will show up high in the career ratings).

Bevan is ranked #13. Dhoni is ranked #4 who is basically a better version of Bevan.

The context of Bevan being worse than Dhoni is only due to the difference in the game, in strike rates, etcetera...

Rolling averages also favour people who play more matches during their peak, so you're penalising players of yesteryear who perhaps didn't play as many games during their peak scoring years.

 

[viriya]

The context of Bevan being worse than Dhoni is only due to the difference in the game, in strike rates, etcetera...

Rolling averages also favour people who play more matches during their peak, so you're penalising players of yesteryear who perhaps didn't play as many games during their peak scoring years.

I don't want to go into a Dhoni vs Bevan debate but I think most people would consider Dhoni > Bevan clearly, even accounting for era. Bevan's record would be more comparable to Dhoni's if he played in the 80s imo.

The more matches argument works both ways - players going through a bad patch would play more matches now compared to earlier eras too. Also if you look at the top 20-30 of the peak all-time ratings there is a good distribution of eras.

 

[Blocky]

Depends what part of the world, most around these parts wouldn't consider Dhoni > Bevan. Bevan was the pioneer of closing matches from all positions and had a ridiculous run of winning matches almost single handedly.

I'd just argue the weightings, variable selection and rolling average format makes your ratings as subjective as most.

 

[viriya]

Depends what part of the world, most around these parts wouldn't consider Dhoni > Bevan. Bevan was the pioneer of closing matches from all positions and had a ridiculous run of winning matches almost single handedly.

I'd just argue the weightings, variable selection and rolling average format makes your ratings as subjective as most.

You're right - Dhoni vs Bevan isn't a clear selection. My pick is Dhoni but just the fact that they are only 5% ratings points apart in the career ratings (1039 vs 1097) shows that it really is personal opinion separating them. I don't consider any difference below 150-200 points significant.

 

[viriya]

Just updated the Test ratings, and Voges drops to #7:
cricrate | Current Ratings - Test Batting

de Kock jumping to #1 is a good example of quality of innings being rated highly. For example his 84 at Perth is rated higher than Voges' 269* (2201 vs 2094).

 

[viriya]

Voges still tracking Gurusinha's career:
cricrate | Adam Voges vs Asanka Gurusinha - Test Batting

 

[marc71178]

Just updated the Test ratings, and Voges drops to #7:
cricrate | Current Ratings - Test Batting

de Kock jumping to #1 is a good example of quality of innings being rated highly. For example his 84 at Perth is rated higher than Voges' 269* (2201 vs 2094).

No, de Kock being ranked number 1 is a clear example of a knee-jerk based system that pays little or no attention to career history.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Jesus. People gotta get their shots in for some reason.

 

[mr_mister]

Voges 269 gets unfairly **** on lol

 

[vcs]

Voges or Rohit - who's the better Test batsman? Would be an interesting debate since both have done their best work against a listless WI team.