cricrate: new cricket ratings website

[viriya]

I agree maybe the relative gaps in ratings aren't exactly accurate on the website, but having Hadlee ranked where he is in comparison to other bowlers/other pace bowlers is not overrating him.

Talking about the gaps. As a kiwi it's pretty much sacrilege to suggest Hadlee isn't far and away the second best bowler of all time.

I look at Hadlee as a mini-fast bowling version of Murali, not as devastating in terms of getting wickets, but carried his team almost single-handedly similarly.

 

[weldone]

I think number of balls per innings can be a more accurate factor than WPM to achieve what you're trying to achieve.

A bowler who averages 30 bowling 30 overs per innings is better than a bowler who averages 30 bowling 15 overs per innings (slightly better, not 2 times better of course). You are trying to measure that factor with WPM. But number of balls will be a more direct way.

 

[viriya]

I think number of balls per innings can be a more accurate factor than WPM to achieve what you're trying to achieve.

A bowler who averages 30 bowling 30 overs per innings is better than a bowler who averages 30 bowling 15 overs per innings (slightly better, not 2 times better of course). You are trying to measure that factor with WPM. But number of balls will be a more direct way.

Not necessarily.. In Tests econ doesn't really matter - striking fast makes more impact. The reason WPM is important is because otherwise spinners would be undervalued. The natural advantage that spinners have by being able to bowl more is usually countered by having a lower strike rate, but at the end of the day wickets are wickets so WPM matters.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think number of balls per innings can be a more accurate factor than WPM to achieve what you're trying to achieve.

A bowler who averages 30 bowling 30 overs per innings is better than a bowler who averages 30 bowling 15 overs per innings (slightly better, not 2 times better of course). You are trying to measure that factor with WPM. But number of balls will be a more direct way.

I've always thought percentage of overs might be interesting. Bowlers might end up with lots of overs per innings if they're in crap teams that take ages to bowl the opposition out as opposed to bowling the lion's share, but bowling 28% of the overs makes you more valuable than bowling 20% of the overs and it's a measure that isn't set of by the quality of one's team-mates like WPM and BPI. It's something I'd incorporate into my rankings if I actually had that data.

 

[weldone]

Not necessarily.. In Tests econ doesn't really matter - striking fast makes more impact. The reason WPM is important is because otherwise spinners would be undervalued. The natural advantage that spinners have by being able to bowl more is usually countered by having a lower strike rate, but at the end of the day wickets are wickets so WPM matters.

It's dangerous if you say er doesn't matter at all, and only sr matters. Theoretically you're saying if a bowler gives 20 runs per over that's fine as long as he gets a wicket every 4 overs.

Also, my measure will serve the exact purpose you're looking for - spinners bowl more number of deliveries per innings than pacers in general

I've always thought percentage of overs might be interesting. Bowlers might end up with lots of overs per innings if they're in crap teams that take ages to bowl the opposition out as opposed to bowling the lion's share, but bowling 28% of the overs makes you more valuable than bowling 20% of the overs and it's a measure that isn't set of by the quality of one's team-mates like WPM and BPI. It's something I'd incorporate into my rankings if I actually had that data.

I think it's a safe assumption to say the more a bowler bowls the more his performance deteriorates due to various reasons. I'd still argue that a bowler who bowls 30 overs per innings with same performance is 'slightly' better than a bowler who bowls 15 overs per innings even if they bowl the same %age of team overs - just because bowling those last 15 overs with fatigue is more difficult than bowling the first 15 overs

 

[viriya]

It's dangerous if you say er doesn't matter at all, and only sr matters. Theoretically you're saying if a bowler gives 20 runs per over that's fine as long as he gets a wicket every 4 overs.

Also, my measure will serve the exact purpose you're looking for - spinners bowl more number of deliveries per innings than pacers in general



I think it's a safe assumption to say the more a bowler bowls the more his performance deteriorates due to various reasons. I'd still argue that a bowler who bowls 30 overs per innings with same performance is 'slightly' better than a bowler who bowls 15 overs per innings even if they bowl the same %age of team overs - just because bowling those last 15 overs with fatigue is more difficult than bowling the first 15 overs

I misunderstood your post - thought you were talking a bowler who gave away 30 runs not 30 average.. makes more sense now.

Also I'm not saying Econ doesn't matter, just that in Tests a high strike rate is higher value especially if you can keep that strike rate over a period of time. That's why spinners that have "fast-bowler-level" strike rates are so high impact.

 

[viriya]

Update after T20I WC:

Batting:
- Kohli breaks his own highest ever current rating level with 1438. +200 above the 2nd highest ever, Buttler reaches #3: cricrate | Current Ratings - T20I Batting
- Simmons with #6 rated innings, Kohli with #20, Samuels with #29, Roy with #49, Root with #55: cricrate | Performance Ratings - T20I Batting

Bowling:
- Badree with highest ever current rating level, Ashwin drops to #6: cricrate | Current Ratings - T20I Bowling
- Badree breaks top 10 of career ratings (#8): cricrate | Career Ratings - T20I Bowling
- Willey with #30 rated performance: cricrate | Performance Ratings - T20I Bowling

All-Round:
- Nabi pips Shakib for top spot in current ratings: cricrate | Current Ratings - T20I All-Round
- Bravo reaches top 10 in career ratings (#7): cricrate | Career Ratings - T20I All-Round
- Brathwaite with #2 rated performance, Root with #3, Willey with #9 (all 3 in same match!), Kohli with #12: cricrate | Performance Ratings - T20I All-Round

 

[viriya]

Would say that for players lower down the order wickets at the crease factor should be almost nothing (say after over 15 for e.g).

Yeah I'd almost think about getting rid of that factor altogether in T20. Maybe just making it count for much less would be wise though.

@91JMay good point - I think it would make sense to have decreasing values for wickets at crease the further down the order you are. So a #5 doesn't get the same credit for the wickets that fall when he's at crease as an opener would.

I revisited the "Wickets at crease" factor for all formats. Removed it entirely for T20Is and FT20s and gave decreasing credit based on batting position for Tests and ODIs. So a #6 batsman doesn't get too much credit for hanging around while the tail got out around him. In terms of numbers, the #3 batsman gets almost 3 times the wickets worth as the #10 batsman.

Also made a change so that all-rounders are not penalized for not batting in an innings since that is outside their control.

cricrate | Cricket Ratings and Analytics

 

[weldone]

Why is Harbhajan Singh at no. 4 in FT20 bowling ranking? I don't think he should be anywhere near top 20 now.

In fact, Malinga at 1, Starc at 3 and Dhawal Kulkarni at 5 - all look seriously laughable atm.

 

[91Jmay]

I've absolutely loved following your rankings thread and love the continual changes, think your rankings will be much more accurate for the aforementioned change above. Simmons innings that high feels odd because we know he got two huge slices of luck however I realise we can't put that into a statistical weighted ranking tool.

 

[viriya]

Why is Harbhajan Singh at no. 4 in FT20 bowling ranking? I don't think he should be anywhere near top 20 now.

In fact, Malinga at 1, Starc at 3 and Dhawal Kulkarni at 5 - all look seriously laughable atm.

Who do you think should be up there instead of them? That will help me figure out whether I'm missing something or not.

 

[weldone]

Who do you think should be up there instead of them? That will help me figure out whether I'm missing something or not.

Players who aren't injured (unlike Malinga, Starc) and regularly bowl 4 overs for their teams (unlike Harbhajan, Kulkarni).

Ashwin, Bravo, Watson, Jadeja, Mustafizzur to name a few

 

[viriya]

Players who aren't injured (unlike Malinga, Starc) and regularly bowl 4 overs for their teams (unlike Harbhajan, Kulkarni).

Ashwin, Bravo, Watson, Jadeja, Mustafizzur to name a few

I think the main issue here is that I consider anyone who's played a franchise match in the past year as "current". I just changed it to 6 months and Malinga + Starc disappear from the list. Almost all the names you mentioned are in the top 20, and based on what they've done in the IPL so far + their recent FT20 record I think the rankings are fair. Keep in mind things change fast in FT20 - if they keep it up for another 4-5 matches they will easily make the top 10.

cricrate | Current Ratings - FT20 Bowling

 

[Daemon]

Hasn't updated for me. The current ones are so incredibly off atm.

 

[viriya]

Hasn't updated for me. The current ones are so incredibly off atm.

You still see Malinga + Starc? Maybe you need a hard refresh.

Also, keep in mind the ratings aren't just factoring in the current IPL. It's a combination of IPL, BBL and CPL with increasing weight to more recent matches.

 

[viriya]

Also - I haven't updated FT20s since 04/17. Will do tomorrow (weekly from then on during IPL if there is enough interest).

 

[Daemon]

My bad, I thought it was T20s and not FT20s. Carry on.

Actually don't carry on. Wth have Zak and Bhajj done to be there?

 

[viriya]

Actually don't carry on. Wth have Zak and Bhajj done to be there?

Done well enough in the last IPL and not much wrong in this one so far.

 

[viriya]

FT20 update:

- Warner claims top spot:
cricrate | Current Ratings - FT20 Batting
- Bhuvnesh and Mishra jump to top 5:
cricrate | Current Ratings - FT20 Bowling

 

[viriya]

Been busy lately. Late update.

FT20
Batting
- Kohli reaches highest ever current rating, Steve Smith jumps to top 5: cricrate | Current Ratings - FT20 Batting
- Kohli jumps to #3: cricrate | Career Ratings - FT20 Batting
- AB with #7, Chris Morris with #16, Kohli with #41: cricrate | Performance Ratings - FT20 Batting

Bowling
- New top 3 - Zampa, Chahal and Morris: cricrate | Current Ratings - FT20 Bowling
- Sandeep and Chahal reach top 5: cricrate | Career Ratings - FT20 Bowling
- Zampa with #17, Jordan with #46, Bumrah with #48: cricrate | Performance Ratings - FT20 Bowling

All-Round
- Morris jumps to #2: cricrate | Current Ratings - FT20 All-Round
- Andre Russell reaches the top, Shakib at #5: cricrate | Career Ratings - FT20 All-Round
- Watson with #6, Morris with #8 and #30, Pandya with #18, Brathwaite with #41, Bhuvnesh with #42: cricrate | Performance Ratings - FT20 All-Round

Fielding
- Andre reaches top: cricrate | Career Ratings - FT20 Fielding

Win Shares
- Kohli reaches top, Pollard and Pathan reach top 10: cricrate | Current Ratings - FT20 Win Shares