cricrate: new cricket ratings website

[viriya]

I don't mind the rankings. Every ranking system tells us something as he cricketers and their careers.

Viriya - since you know the workings of the rating system, could you help us understand Bevan's lower ranking relative to where most fans would put him. Thanks.

He's already rated very high, but I think the one thing that brings him down in the overall standings is his relatively average SR (even for a player who played the majority of his career in the 90s).. For a finisher it's nothing to write home about.. I know people will bring up the fact that he's a man for the crisis, and yes he is - that's why he's rated #13.

One thing to note is that the difference between him and the #5 Dhoni is just 5% in points.. I don't really consider that much of a difference. IMO the ratings only shows clear differences in the 10% range. Smaller differences are really not significant enough to matter. If I really tried I could get Bevan in the top 10, but personally I think everyone above him deserves to be there.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah for me that Bevan rating is about right.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Afridi #24 of all time is absolutely absurd

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah for me that Bevan rating is about right.

You'd have to be a little ****ed in the head to rate Kallis a better ODI batsman than Bevan imo. The rest of the 12, though have an argument.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Marlon Samuels breaks into the ODI Batting top 10:
cricrate | Current Top ODI Batsmen

Jerome Taylor joins the ODI Bowling top 10:
cricrate | Current Top ODI Bowlers

Chris Gayle has ATG ODI Batting performance (#12):
cricrate | Best ODI Batting Performances

I've said this before, I;ll say it again... the formula seems to simplistic because it obviously places too much emphasis on the sheer quantity of the runs scored in an innings. The fact that the top 100 ODI Innings list has only 6 innings <100 is massively telling. You need to modify your formula in some way to make other factors surrounding the innings more important than just how many runs were scored. Tere are literally dozens of ATG ODI knocks which weren't hundreds.

It's a problem in your test list too.... it's filled with big double hundreds, and many many actually great test knocks are missing.

 

[viriya]

I've said this before, I;ll say it again... the formula seems to simplistic because it obviously places too much emphasis on the sheer quantity of the runs scored in an innings. The fact that the top 100 ODI Innings list has only 6 innings <100 is massively telling. You need to modify your formula in some way to make other factors surrounding the innings more important than just how many runs were scored. Tere are literally dozens of ATG ODI knocks which weren't hundreds.

It's a problem in your test list too.... it's filled with big double hundreds, and many many actually great test knocks are missing.

I would tend to agree if not for the issues with doing that when ratings overall careers with the same innings rating formula. If I made actual runs scored a lower factor than it is now, lower order players that make a quick 30 will get overrated in the career ratings. That said, I've heard this criticism before, and the weight given to runs isn't as big as it used to be. It still is the biggest factor though which I think it should stay as.

I can agree more with you in Tests, but in ODIs I think it's already about right - I really like the top 10 batting performances for example.

In Tests, I've discounted runs scored above 250 massively: 250-400 is shrunk to 250-300 runs in the ratings. You have to realize that I'm using the same formula to rate every single innings in history - the goal wasn't to get the undeniable top 100 innings but to build an ecosystem of innings, current and career ratings that feeds off each other.

That said, if you see specific innings that you think has no place in the list please let me know so I can check if there's some issue or an improvement that can be made.

 

[marc71178]

Afridi #24 of all time is absolutely absurd

Not as absurd as him being number 11 on current rankings.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not as absurd as him being number 11 on current rankings.

They're both ludicrous.

I never knew Afridi was a better batsman than Mark Waugh and Gordon Greenidge. Thanks Cricrate.

 

[hendrix]

They're both ludicrous.

I never knew Afridi was a better batsman than Mark Waugh and Gordon Greenidge. Thanks Cricrate.

There's no need to be so obtuse about it.

There are limitations. It's a work in progress. It's never going to be as accurate as manually rating every innings/player in comparison with each other but that's an impossible task.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There's no need to be so obtuse about it.

There are limitations. It's a work in progress. It's never going to be as accurate as manually rating every innings/player in comparison with each other but that's an impossible task.

Twas a joke. Even you have to admit it's ridiculous Afridi is rated that high.

In a way though him changing the methodology just to push Afridi down the list to satisfy us would defeat the purpose of the exercise anyway. But it's still flawed as ****.

 

[viriya]

Couple issues I have from looking at yesterday's results:

1) Kane Williamson's rating tanking after playing a not out innings at the end of a game (surely it should have little bearing on his ranking at all?)

2) These ratings from the game:

Southee 9-33-7 2311
Woakes 3-8-2 2192

Is too much emphasis placed on runs conceded or something? I think we can all agree Woakes' bowling wasn't on the same planet as Southee's yesterday.

1) Thanks for pointing this out. Turns out there's a bug in the scraping process for the WC games and it's not parsing dismissal info properly:
cricrate | ODI #3607

The Baz dismissal is assigned to Kane cos of that and it's not considered a not out as it should be.

2) This is also an issue that I noticed recently for shorter ODI bowling performances (in terms of overs). Steven Finn's atrocious display was considered an "incomplete performance". Need to revisit that.

Thanks for pointing out the issues - appreciate it.

Fixed issue #1. Southee's performance jumps into the ATG ODI bowling performances at #48 (I was wondering why it didn't before) and #3 in the current ratings, Kane doesn't drop after the not out.

#2 will take a bit more time and a complete rerun of ODI ratings historically afterwards so I want to get it right before.

Fixed issue #2. The issue here was that shorter bowling performances were overrated when the bowler got a few quick wickets and didn't bowl the whole quota. Now a bowler who bowls <5 overs but has great figures has his rating discounted somewhat - this is because his performance was either not impactful (Woakes' 2/8 in the NZ game), or he was 2nd fiddle to another great performance and benefited. Woakes' performance shouldn't be rated as high as 95% of Southee's at 2311, now it's rated a more understandable 1006.

The other issue was I was considering shorter performances "incomplete", and if the rating was less than the bowler's current rating I was replacing the rating for that innings with the current rating. This led to atrocious bowling performances like Finn's vs NZ recently to be ignored and replaced by his current rating, so instead I've implemented something to take into account even the shorter performance rating to a certain extent by doing (rating * balls + currentRating * (30-balls))/30. This way if a bowler just bowls one over and goes for runs he's not penalized as much, but it still affects his rating somewhat. Finn's 0/49 performance over 2 overs is rated 460 instead of being completed replaced by his current rating of 720 at the time.

Just opened the site and probably this has been discussed, but Stuart Binny at #1 in ODI bowling performances! :o

One of the unintended consequences of this change was that Binny's <5 over performance was discounted somewhat and he has dropped from #1 to #55 - still great but not right up there.

 

[viriya]

They're both ludicrous.

I never knew Afridi was a better batsman than Mark Waugh and Gordon Greenidge. Thanks Cricrate.

Afridi is a tough one. While I would personally rate those two players above him as well, I think Afridi is a bit underrated.

If you value SR in ODI cricket, you can appreciate what Afridi brings to the game. He played most of his career during a time when having a SR of 90 was considered exceptional (say a player like Jayasuriya), and he strikes at 117! Sure, he fails more often than not, but when he does get 30+, it's usually match-turning or match-winning. That's a big reason why he is rated so high - when he does come off, his innings are more impactful. He gets runs at 117 while most of his teammates were going at ~70.

That said, he also benefits from almost 20 years in career length as well.

I think SR is valued in the right ballpark already when considering other players, it's only when you look at someone like Afridi do you start questioning it. Look at it this way, ignoring everything else, what's 25 @ 115 in the 90s equivalent to? 30 @ 90 (Jayasuriya-like)? 35 @ 80 (Aravinda-like)? That question makes me think that that it's not so ludicrous to rate Afridi that high. Another thing to consider is that he's just 1% higher than Mark Waugh and 6% higher than Greenidge - it's not a significant enough difference to talk about.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Afridi is a tough one. While I would personally rate those two players above him as well, I think Afridi is a bit underrated.

If you value SR in ODI cricket, you can appreciate what Afridi brings to the game. He played most of his career during a time when having a SR of 90 was considered exceptional (say a player like Jayasuriya), and he strikes at 117! Sure, he fails more often than not, but when he does get 30+, it's usually match-turning or match-winning. That's a big reason why he is rated so high - when he does come off, his innings are more impactful. He gets runs at 117 while most of his teammates were going at ~70.

That said, he also benefits from almost 20 years in career length as well.

I think SR is valued in the right ballpark already when considering other players, it's only when you look at someone like Afridi do you start questioning it. Look at it this way, ignoring everything else, what's 25 @ 115 in the 90s equivalent to? 30 @ 90 (Jayasuriya-like)? 35 @ 80 (Aravinda-like)? That question makes me think that that it's not so ludicrous to rate Afridi that high. Another thing to consider is that he's just 1% higher than Mark Waugh and 6% higher than Greenidge - it's not a significant enough difference to talk about.

Do you do any sort of era adjustment, because a SR of 65-70 in Greenidge's era is definitely not even close to 65-70 in this era.

Makes Viv even more ridiculous.

 

[cnerd123]

The thing with Afridi was that he wasn't consistently producing 25 @ 115, he was going 0 15 0 10* 20 75* 0 15 0 20*. Maybe 1 match winning in 10, most probably a lot less.

A lot of his 'Impact' innings have also come in lost causes - whacking 64* in 30 balls when the side is 180/8 chasing 300 isn't really of much use unless NRR is on the line.

IDK if your rating factors in consistency and match situation/result, but it should.

 

[viriya]

Do you do any sort of era adjustment, because a SR of 65-70 in Greenidge's era is definitely not even close to 65-70 in this era.

Makes Viv even more ridiculous.

Yes it does, that's partly why Viv is still rated #1. Greenidge's SR is not the reason he is lower - it's most likely that he hasn't played that many matches/missed a bunch (he played from 1975-91 like Viv, but played 40 less games).

 

[viriya]

The thing with Afridi was that he wasn't consistently producing 25 @ 115, he was going 0 15 0 10* 20 75* 0 15 0 20*. Maybe 1 match winning in 10, most probably a lot less.

A lot of his 'Impact' innings have also come in lost causes - whacking 64* in 30 balls when the side is 180/8 chasing 300 isn't really of much use unless NRR is on the line.

IDK if your rating factors in consistency and match situation/result, but it should.

Of his 27 batting performances rated 1500+, 20 have come in winning causes (74%) - I'd say he's more of a match-winner when he comes off than not.
http://www.cricrate.com/player.php?playerId=85281

Also, winning you a match on his own 10% of the time (I realize it's a guess but just saying) is something most teams would be happy with - I doubt the same could be said about Mark Waugh or Greenidge. Also Pak during his playing days weren't as good a team as Mark Waugh's Australia and Greenidge's WI, so looking at win rates is probably not the way to go either way.

 

[cnerd123]

How does 74% compare to the others in the list? Take the first 30 names or so.

 

[viriya]

How does 74% compare to the others in the list? Take the first 30 names or so.

Greenidge's WI and M. Waugh's Aus are probably not fair comparisons with Afridi's Pak when it comes to win rates. Still, for 1500+ rated innings Mark's win rate is 83% (23 games) and Greenidge's is 71% (7 games).

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Try doing the same comparison with Younis Khan and Misbah.

 

[cnerd123]

I'm interested in comparing Afridi vs Sehwag, Mahela, Gayle, Anwar, Azharuddin, Symonds, Yuvraj, Crowe, Dravid...all of whom are ranked below him.