Scorecard Draft

[G.I.Joe]

didn't know that.. still think touching upon what is already present is only gonna be like opening a can of worms.. We did the test draft of Marc with no adjusted averages and it went just fine...

How is it opening up a can of worms? Batsmen with low averages due to uncovered wickets will have their averages go up. Bowlers with superhuman averages in that era will have them brought up to more realistic levels. Batsmen and bowlers in flat track eras will see their averages corrected. What's the opposition? Could it be that some people would prefer to run a sim with Lohmann averaging 10 and Barnes averaging 16? Is it fair on the person with Grace in his team to see him reduced to a nobody because he would have the stats of a present day bits and pieces player in a non-adjusted sim?

 

[honestbharani]

How is it opening up a can of worms? Batsmen with low averages due to uncovered wickets will have their averages go up. Bowlers with superhuman averages in that era will have them brought up to more realistic levels. Batsmen and bowlers in flat track eras will see their averages corrected. What's the opposition? Could it be that some people would prefer to run a sim with Lohmann averaging 10 and Barnes averaging 16? Is it fair on the person with Grace in his team to see him reduced to a nobody because he would have the stats of a present day bits and pieces player in a non-adjusted sim?

Let us see the adjusted averages of each player before I comment on that.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Depends on what Forumla Pskov is using.

If he takes into account the number of balls/Overs bowled as well ,as the number of innings batted then this could also be adjusted.

Yeah, as far as I know, both ITC and VC4 take overs/match and number of innings played into account. So for example, if the sim sees Boucher average 6 with the ball, it'll also see that he's bowled perhaps just 8 balls in his entire career, and will recognise that he's actually not even a part timer. He'll probably not even get a bowl. Similarly if it sees a batsman with 10 tests and an average of 60, and another batsman with 75 tests and an average of 50, it'll treat the latter as the better batsman. The sims are coded to make these evaluations. pskov doesn't actually need to bother with those aspects.

 

[Jarquis]

FMD< if people are going to moan we might as well not have the sim. It's meant to be a bit of fun AFAIC, to run after the draft so we can see our teams "in action" and have a little bit of a giggle over the results. The real "winner" can be decided by poll or whatever, don't take the sim too seriously IMO.

 

[kingkallis]

Yeah, as far as I know, both ITC and VC4 take overs/match and number of innings played into account. So for example, if the sim sees Boucher average 6 with the ball, it'll also see that he's bowled perhaps just 8 balls in his entire career, and will recognise that he's actually not even a part timer. He'll probably not even get a bowl. Similarly if it sees a batsman with 10 tests and an average of 60, and another batsman with 75 tests and an average of 50, it'll treat the latter as the better batsman. The sims are coded to make these evaluations. pskov doesn't actually need to bother with those aspects.

Sounds good, lets see what pskov comes up with!

 

[weldone]

Similarly if it sees a batsman with 10 tests and an average of 60, and another batsman with 75 tests and an average of 50, it'll treat the latter as the better batsman.

In that case, it's going to be very very unfair if to the first batsman if he's a batsman from the 1930s and if the 2nd batsman is one from the 2000s.

 

[honestbharani]

The thing, Himannv, is that messing with cricket stats is often a pointless and futile exercise.. There are so many variables involved that there is NO WAY a single RELIABLE formula could be hit upon to put everything in context... It is just impossible. And that is why any type of new way to rank cricketers gets more ridicule than plaudits.. STats in cricket, beyond a point, are almost ALWAYS unreliable..



EDIT: Itis not about taking it seriously. But even in a voting thread, people are gonna vote more on names than on anything else and once again, the guys who had to pick more in the 19th century will be at a disadvantage.. Which is why I felt an extra pick for those is the best way..

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'd treat the second as superior even if the first batsman averaged 100 over 10 tests from any era you choose to pick.

 

[Jarquis]

Some of the people in this thread.

 

[honestbharani]

I'd treat the second as superior even if the first batsman averaged 100 over 10 tests from any era you choose to pick.

Maybe.. But the fact is there is an EQUAL chance that the first guy was better than the second. IF he only got to play 10 tests in his lifetime, that is not his fault... Which is why altering stats for me, is stupid. If, as you say, the sims take into account such stuff then that's that...

 

[Jarquis]

EDIT: Itis not about taking it seriously. But even in a voting thread, people are gonna vote more on names than on anything else and once again, the guys who had to pick more in the 19th century will be at a disadvantage.. Which is why I felt an extra pick for those is the best way..

Which is why I'd be much more willing to be involved in a discussion about the merits of having a 12thh round, rather than one about how futile the sim is

 

[honestbharani]

Some of the people in this thread.

well, my whinge was about stats in cricket in general.. so

 

[honestbharani]

Which is why I'd be much more willing to be involved in a discussion about the merits of having a 12thh round, rather than one about how futile the sim is

yep... completely agree with that line of thought. But it seems we are gonna have a sim and not a 12th round, then it is only fair we have it with the straight stats coz most of us have picked bowlers from that era.

 

[Jarquis]

yep... completely agree with that line of thought. But it seems we are gonna have a sim and not a 12th round, then it is only fair we have it with the straight stats coz most of us have picked bowlers from that era.

But you'll never get the stats right. They'll never be perfect, adjusted averages is glorified guess work.
Leave them as they are, or settle for a basic adjustment IMO, and take the sim for what it is.

Come the thread and poll, you'll have an opportunity to make a case for your side.

 

[NUFAN]

Could my batsmans adjusted averages be based on how they performed in the batting positions I am giving them?

Oh, and can my bowlers adjusted average be based solely on the balls that they take wickets on.

I'm only half serious btw!

I'll take more notice of the voting but of course will welcome and appreciate anyone making a SIM. I'm really in favour of going like say 3 points, 2 points and 1 point for the top 3 rather than just voting on the best team too.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Maybe.. But the fact is there is an EQUAL chance that the first guy was better than the second. IF he only got to play 10 tests in his lifetime, that is not his fault... Which is why altering stats for me, is stupid. If, as you say, the sims take into account such stuff then that's that...

How is that related to adjusted averages??????????????

That is an issue with the sim itself, not the adjustment of averages.


The sim will treat the second batsman as the better one whether you adjust the averages or not. Adjusted averages only alter the averages, they do not alter the number of games played. And the number of games played is the statistic that enables the sim to reach that conclusion.

If it bothers you that the sim will see the second batsman as the superior one, then scrap the sim itself because that's the one at fault, being coded that way by its maker. Don't pin the blame on the adjustment of averages.

 

[Himannv]

The thing, Himannv, is that messing with cricket stats is often a pointless and futile exercise.. There are so many variables involved that there is NO WAY a single RELIABLE formula could be hit upon to put everything in context... It is just impossible. And that is why any type of new way to rank cricketers gets more ridicule than plaudits.. STats in cricket, beyond a point, are almost ALWAYS unreliable..



EDIT: Itis not about taking it seriously. But even in a voting thread, people are gonna vote more on names than on anything else and once again, the guys who had to pick more in the 19th century will be at a disadvantage.. Which is why I felt an extra pick for those is the best way..

I think you got me mixed up with someone else mate. Didn't say anything on the matter. In fact, I somewhat agree with you.

 

[G.I.Joe]

yep... completely agree with that line of thought. But it seems we are gonna have a sim and not a 12th round, then it is only fair we have it with the straight stats coz most of us have picked bowlers from that era.

Most of you have also picked batsmen from that era. So you want to enjoy the benefits of having a bowler from that era while penalising the other guy for having a batsman from that era? That seems pretty selfish.

 

[Himannv]

IMO Dick Barlow is both the best batsman and best bowler ever to have played the game. Require video footage to be proved otherwise.

 

[NUFAN]

IMO Dick Barlow is both the best batsman and best bowler ever to have played the game. Require video footage to be proved otherwise.

volunteer project and the equipment and film were provided by Dick Barlow