cricrate: new cricket ratings website

[Dan]

Those fielding stats are utterly bizarre -- Kaushal #1 and Shingi #2? Warner, McCullum and Smith in the 'Worst' list?

I mean, good on you for having a go, but this certainly hasn't worked at all.

 

[Dan]

I think it unfairly penalises people who create chances but don't take them all, whereas there's no penalty for someone who can't create that chance and hence have no chance of dropping them. Limitation in the nature of parsing commentary I guess.

 

[viriya]

Those fielding stats are utterly bizarre -- Kaushal #1 and Shingi #2? Warner, McCullum and Smith in the 'Worst' list?

I mean, good on you for having a go, but this certainly hasn't worked at all.

I think it unfairly penalises people who create chances but don't take them all, whereas there's no penalty for someone who can't create that chance and hence have no chance of dropping them. Limitation in the nature of parsing commentary I guess.

You are looking at the wrong list. The current list is really just a reflection on what happened recently. Kaushal recently affected a direct hit, Warner, McCullum and Smith had recent dropped catches that affected their current rating.

What you want to look at is the career list. That would be more of a reflection of who's a better fielder:
http://www.cricrate.com/test/fielding/career.php
http://www.cricrate.com/odi/fielding/career.php

I try not to count catches that are tough as drops so that's not the reason.

 

[Dan]

You are looking at the wrong list. The current list is really just a reflection on what happened recently. Kaushal recently affected a direct hit, Warner, McCullum and Smith had recent dropped catches that affected their current rating.

What you want to look at is the career list. That would be more of a reflection of who's a better fielder:
cricrate | Best/Worst Test Fielding Careers
cricrate | Best/Worst ODI Fielding Careers

I try not to count catches that are tough as drops so that's not the reason.

Suggests its a little too short-term to me tbh.

Monty Panesar > Andrew Symonds as a fielder in Tests is ITSTL; I still think it's flawed.

Collingwood, Dravid and Jayawardene all rating high in the worst list is bizarre; Dravid has over 200 catches ffs, most of them in the slips!

 

[viriya]

Suggests its a little too short-term to me tbh.

Monty Panesar > Andrew Symonds as a fielder in Tests is ITSTL; I still think it's flawed.

Collingwood, Dravid and Jayawardene all rating high in the worst list is bizarre; Dravid has over 200 catches ffs, most of them in the slips!

Current fielding lists are going to be more short-term than batting or bowling just because the events are binary.. you either drop a catch and get a big negative or get a great catch and get a big positive. There's no real equivalent to getting 30 runs like in batting because taking regulation catches isn't counted for much.

The Panesar > Symonds one is a good call. Notice that Monty's drop rate is 40% compared to Symonds' 6.25% so it's not obvious why he's rated higher. Most likely he is benefiting from some highly rated great catches. I'll look into that - probably penalizing Symonds too much for not playing much (since data only goes back to 2006 or so).

Taking regulation catches isn't rated that highly - it's expected from the fielder and if I credit it too much then all the slip fielders would get overrated. The reason they are all high on the worst list is because they had decently long careers with high drop rates. Collingwood's case is a bit surprising since he's in the top 10 in ODI fielding but apparently not as impressive in Tests. I'll review that as well.

 

[cnerd123]

The problem is your rating system rates catches by the quality of the batsman dismissed and not the quality of the catch.

So if you take a dolly off Sanga's bat its worth more than taking a blinder off Murali's bat. And that's just stupid IMO.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The problem is your rating system rates catches by the quality of the batsman dismissed and not the quality of the catch.

So if you take a dolly off Sanga's bat its worth more than taking a blinder off Murali's bat. And that's just stupid IMO.

Innings are rated generally based on the quality of opposition and the bowling attack, not necessarily on the quality of the shots in the innings. A scrappy hundred against McWarne will always, rightly, be rated higher than a 200(170) against Bangladesh where you cream every other ball to the boundary. It's just how it is.

He's done the same for fielding, I guess.

 

[NUFAN]

Should take the fielding discussion to the fielding new approach thread or better yet read that thread..

 

[Dan]

Innings are rated generally based on the quality of opposition and the bowling attack, not necessarily on the quality of the shots in the innings. A scrappy hundred against McWarne will always, rightly, be rated higher than a 200(170) against Bangladesh where you cream every other ball to the boundary. It's just how it is.

He's done the same for fielding, I guess.

I don't think this makes much sense -- fielding is arguably the only skill where the quality of opposition doesn't affect the worth of the outcome. Fielding isn't diametrically opposed to the other team in the way batting and bowling are; a freakish diving catch off a tailender is far better (as an isolated incident) than a sitter when Ian Bell bops one to mid off while on 35.

The quality of the batsman isn't the defining thing in fielding, the difficulty of the chance is.

 

[Prince EWS]

Dravid was better than Sehwag but it definitely wasn't more difficult to catch a chance off Dravid than Sehwag.

Unlike some others I don't think this fielding rating exercise is a completely fruitless endeavour, but to factor in the quality of the batsman really makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[viriya]

The problem is your rating system rates catches by the quality of the batsman dismissed and not the quality of the catch.

So if you take a dolly off Sanga's bat its worth more than taking a blinder off Murali's bat. And that's just stupid IMO.

As NUFAN suggests, this discussion should go on the fielding thread especially since you guys are making judgment calls without even paying attention to how the ratings are calculated.

No - a regulation catch off Sanga is not rated higher than a blinder from Murali.

Regulation catch = +0.05 * current batsman rating
Great catch = +current batsman rating
Dropped catch = -current batsman rating
Dropped catch (tough chance) = 0 (considered non-event)

The reason the batsman's rating is involved is because catches/drops that impact the match are off the opposition's best batsmen.. Even then, great catches are scaled to be 20 times as important.

What would be rated higher than a blinder off Murali is a blinder off Sanga since that catch actually matters in the match while Murali will probably not last another over.

There is an argument for less weight on the batsman's rating, but at least check what I'm doing before going off people.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't think this makes much sense -- fielding is arguably the only skill where the quality of opposition doesn't affect the worth of the outcome. Fielding isn't diametrically opposed to the other team in the way batting and bowling are; a freakish diving catch off a tailender is far better (as an isolated incident) than a sitter when Ian Bell bops one to mid off while on 35.

The quality of the batsman isn't the defining thing in fielding, the difficulty of the chance is.

Dravid was better than Sehwag but it definitely wasn't more difficult to catch a chance off Dravid than Sehwag.

Unlike some others I don't think this fielding rating exercise is a completely fruitless endeavour, but factor in the quality of the batsman really makes absolutely no sense at all.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it makes much sense... I was just thinking what might've been viriya's thought process for taking the batsman's quality into account, that's all

 

[viriya]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it makes much sense... I was just thinking what might've been viriya's thought process for taking the batsman's quality into account, that's all

Except my ratings would agree that "a freakish diving catch off a tailender is better than a sitter when Ian Bell bops one to mid off while on 35". Not sure what the argument here is.

 

[cnerd123]

Why even bother with involving batsman's quality in the first place is what we have an issue with. Even to an absolutely minute amount. It's worthless.

 

[viriya]

Why even bother with involving batsman's quality in the first place is what we have an issue with. Even to an absolutely minute amount. It's worthless.

Why is it worthless when getting a great catch to get the opposition's best batsman out is probably the most impact a fielder can make? Or dropping him for that matter.

It's like when rating batting innings.. we rate innings that we remember highly. You remember great catches that affected the game. It's not just a rating of skill, it's a rating of impact + skill.

 

[cnerd123]

But a fielder cannot pick where he is put to field. The "impact" you make on a game by holding a catch off Sanga's bat at deep midwicket is as much down to your fielding ability as it is down to the captain who put you in that position.

All a fielder can do is hold a catch. Who's bat that comes off is completely irrelevant to the actual process of taking the catch. In your analysis, players who are lucky enough to be placed at the right place in the right time to hold the catch off a good batsman's bat will get more credit that one who gets to hold the catch off a tailender.

 

[viriya]

But a fielder cannot pick where he is put to field. The "impact" you make on a game by holding a catch off Sanga's bat at deep midwicket is as much down to your fielding ability as it is down to the captain who put you in that position.

All a fielder can do is hold a catch. Who's bat that comes off is completely irrelevant to the actual process of taking the catch. In your analysis, players who are lucky enough to be placed at the right place in the right time to hold the catch off a good batsman's bat will get more credit that one who gets to hold the catch off a tailender.

Yes, but the idea is that in the long run, every fielder gets a chances. Keepers/slips/point fielders might get more attempts, but that also means they have higher chances to mess up. I do agree that you would want to compare fielders of the same position, and for that you'd have to go by what's known.. Collingwood and Ponting would be a fair comparison for example.

It's a bit like saying SL don't get to play Aus enough to play highly rated innings when batting (say in the mid-2000s when they had the ATG bowling attack). In the long-run it generally evens out.

For fielding here since we only have data from 2005-, it's better to compare cricketers who played their entire careers during that time instead of someone like Ponting who just has 2 years or so worth of data.

 

[cnerd123]

If it evens out then why even bother factoring it in?

 

[viriya]

If it evens out then why even bother factoring it in?

Say there are two fielders and the entirety of catching chances they have got in their career are 5 tough ones off Sanga and 5 tough ones off Murali. Fielder 1 takes all 5 off Sanga, drops ones off Murali. Fielder 2 does the opposite. Who has more impact in the game? Who will be remembered for his fielding? Who should be differentiated by a higher rating?

 

[Dan]

But that has nothing to do with the quality of the player's fielding. It impacts the importance of the catch, sure, but has absolutely no relation to the fieldsman's ability to field (which is what you're trying to measure).

The importance of the catch doesn't factor into a player's fielding ability at all, only the difficulty of the chance does.