Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
His rating is 3.6 against Waugh’s 2.09..Interesting that according to these metrics, which favour strike rate (Tendulkar's strength), Tendulkar doesn't even come out that far ahead of Waugh.
His rating is 3.6 against Waugh’s 2.09..Interesting that according to these metrics, which favour strike rate (Tendulkar's strength), Tendulkar doesn't even come out that far ahead of Waugh.
Yeah but only a moderate country mileGive it up stephen, Waugh is a country mile behind Tendulkar.
Better known as a New Zealand mileYeah but only a moderate country mile
Which is almost the exact same difference between de Villiers and Sangakkara in that same rating system.His rating is 3.6 against Waugh’s 2.09..
I loathe to tell people what they should care about, but seriously this is such a mundane thing to feel so strongly about as to drag it across several threads. The debate over whether Tendulkar was 32% better than Waugh or instead more like 18% should not dominate every ODI debate thread.But my point has always been that the gap between Waugh and Tendulkar is not quite as large as many people make out.
This while thread was started to ask that very question though and I didn't start it. It's obviously something that interests people. Maybe not that specific case, but there are other cases like how does one rate Symonds vs Ponting or Afridi vs anyone else.I loathe to tell people what they should care about, but seriously this is such a mundane thing to feel so strongly about as to drag it across several threads. The debate over whether Tendulkar was 32% better than Waugh or instead more like 18% should not dominate every ODI debate thread.
only because there’s only so much a player can influence his sideWhich is almost the exact same difference between de Villiers and Sangakkara in that same rating system.
And I disagree with that system of rating, mostly because it makes the assumption that all batsmen are equal and therefore under values the number of balls a batsman should face. It definitely rewards strike rate more than average (Which is why Bevan is rated behind a host of others).
I mean any system that ranks Jayasuriya higher than Ponting based entirely on their ODI batting is flawed in my book.
But my point has always been that the gap between Waugh and Tendulkar is not quite as large as many people make out. I'm not arguing that he's better, everyone agrees with that. The point is that a side with Tendulkar will beat the same side with Waugh most of the time, but not all the time and the results would be a lot closer to 50/50 than 100/0.
As it's a definitions thing it's really hard to argue. All you need to do is define "moderate" to mean what you want it to mean and we're in agreement.only because there’s only so much a player can influence his side
I thought you’d accepted that you were wrong about the moderate upgrade thing earlier? Why bring up a ranking that you don’t agree with to push your point again then?
When like 95% of the forum disagrees with you it might help to sit back and rethink your stance lol
It's ATVG all over againBecause Kohli is a moderate upgrade over Maxwell.
And ahead of everyone by a massive margin in his longevityAs it's a definitions thing it's really hard to argue. All you need to do is define "moderate" to mean what you want it to mean and we're in agreement.
Majority opinions mean nothing really. Otherwise every Indian player ever would be better than every other player. And T20 cricket would be on a par with tests.
I think some people were butt hurt that I didn't fall down and worship at the Tendulkar idol, as if he was orders of magnitude better than everyone else. He wasn't. He was a bit better in one aspect of his batting than other openers - ahead of Gilly/Jayasuriya in hiss average and ahead of Hayden/Waugh/Greenidge in his strike rate.
I used to think this too, but I think it probably places slightly too much emphasis on strike rate. Perhaps the average could be taken to a power greater than 1 or the strike rate could be taken to a power less than 1 before the final multiplication.Multiplying average with SR followed by normalization for era seems like a useful enough approach too me. This is what they did at ESPNCricinfo some time back: Stats from the Past: The best ODI batsmen from across eras | Cricket | ESPNcricinfo.com
Possibly. There is sometimes a trade-off between making a model more precise vs. preserving its simplicity. Knowing the amount of subjectivity often involved in judging which model is better I tend to tilt towards the latter.I used to think this too, but I think it probably places slightly too much emphasis on strike rate. Perhaps the average could be taken to a power greater than 1 or the strike rate could be taken to a power less than 1 before the final multiplication.
I just make my own models for my own curiosity and dgaf what others think of them and so just strive purely for precision, but fair point.Possibly. There is sometimes a trade-off between making a model more precise vs. preserving its simplicity. Knowing the amount of subjectivity often involved in judging which model is better I tend to tilt towards the latter.
Please share them anyway.I just make my own models for my own curiosity and dgaf what others think of them and so just strive purely for precision, but fair point.