cricrate: new cricket ratings website

[viriya]

Well Fleming wasn't that far ahead of his peers, compared to the other examples anyway. He on occasion played spectacular innings and was very consistent in getting a score (though had a terrible 50-100 conversion rate).

He also benefits a lot from having terrible openers for most of his career. He was constantly at the crease at <10/1 similar to Sangakkara.

 

[viriya]

I've never noticed just how highly cricrate has Fleming placed. What are the reasons for that?

Well Fleming wasn't that far ahead of his peers, compared to the other examples anyway. He on occasion played spectacular innings and was very consistent in getting a score (though had a terrible 50-100 conversion rate).

I made an adjustment to the Point of Entry factor where you only start getting credit at a certain threshold (30 runs or so). Just this change made Fleming go from #36 to #46:
http://www.cricrate.com/career.php?matchFormat=Test&disc=Batting

 

[Athlai]

I made an adjustment to the Point of Entry factor where you only start getting credit at a certain threshold (30 runs or so). Just this change made Fleming go from #36 to #46.

Boooooo

 

[viriya]

Boooooo

Sorry

The change made sense and I agreed with the changes. Not something against Fleming I'm a big fan. I always thought he never fulfilled his potential especially after this match vs a close-to-prime Murali:
cricrate | Test #1641

 

[Spark]

I changed the dismissed batsmen rating factor for bowling performances to adjust based on how many runs the batsman had scored already (If Tendulkar has already hit a ton, getting him out is not as impressive as getting him for a duck). Details here:
cricrate | Methodology - Test Batting

Never thought about this, excellent idea.

 

[viriya]

Never thought about this, excellent idea.

Yea I had thought it was more complicated to do than it was.

I ended up reviewing all factors and tweaking most.. most changes I've made to the formula for 2 years probably.

 

[indiaholic]

viriya, you mentioned that you added a negative factor for a dead rubber and a positive one for a deciding test, correct? While I have no issues with the former, the latter seems a bit wrong. If the batsman/bowler had played well in the earlier games they might not have had to play that decider (i.e the decider would have been a dead rubber)

It benefits the equivalent of the 4th innings heroes whose heroics would not have been needed if they batted better in the first innings.

 

[OverratedSanity]

viriya, you mentioned that you added a negative factor for a dead rubber and a positive one for a deciding test, correct? While I have no issues with the former, the latter seems a bit wrong. If the batsman/bowler had played well in the earlier games they might not have had to play that decider (i.e the decider would have been a dead rubber)

awta. Discounting dead rubbers is fair since they're less important. But giving more importance to decider doesn't make sense. Every game in a live series is eqaully vital.

 

[viriya]

viriya, you mentioned that you added a negative factor for a dead rubber and a positive one for a deciding test, correct? While I have no issues with the former, the latter seems a bit wrong. If the batsman/bowler had played well in the earlier games they might not have had to play that decider (i.e the decider would have been a dead rubber)

It benefits the equivalent of the 4th innings heroes whose heroics would not have been needed if they batted better in the first innings.

The current setup is:

Every player gets to play a decider match in a series. So for example consider a 3 match series SL vs NZ:
If SL wins match 1, match 2 is a decider for both teams.
If SL then wins match 2, match 3 is a dead rubber for both teams
If NZ wins match 2, match 3 is a decider for both teams.

So if NZ gets to match 3, they get 2 decider games vs if they had won all their games they get a decider and a dead rubber.

I knew about this issue, and to avoid undeservedly giving credit to bad teams I have decider value credited lower (75% of the absolute value) than the dead rubber value discredited .

I'll tinker with 50% of value which is probably more appropriate. I do think some credit has to be given to deciders though, because by definition they are higher pressure games.

 

[smash84]

I modified the Match status factor to adjust to how good the comeback was in the 3rd innings, also for 4th innings chases/defenses (applies to bowlers as well).
cricrate | Performance Ratings - Test Batting
Laxman's 281 #267 to #76
McCullum's 302 #84 to #19



I added a Pitch quality factor for Tests which takes other innings of the Test into account as well as the innings of the match (the later the harder run scoring is).

I changed the dismissed batsmen rating factor for bowling performances to adjust based on how many runs the batsman had scored already (If Tendulkar has already hit a ton, getting him out is not as impressive as getting him for a duck). Details here:
cricrate | Methodology - Test Batting

Also adjusted the weights of all factors to make more sense.

Some of the major changes from this update (pretty significant):

Batting performances:
cricrate | Performance Ratings - Test Batting
Kim Hughes's 100* jumps 39 places to #65
VVS Laxman's 281*jumps 190 places to #71
Graham Gooch's 154* jumps 57 places to #27
Donald Bradman's 270*jumps 33 places to #7
Brendon McCullum's 302*jumps 65 places to #19
Dinesh Chandimal's 162* jumps 157 places to #48
Hanif Mohammad's 337*jumps 56 places to #11
AB de Villiers's 278* drops 32 places to #45
Brian Lara's 153* jumps 11 places to #6
Derek Randall's 174*jumps 422 places to #49
Mark Waugh's 116*jumps 69 places to #9
Andrew Stoddart's 173*jumps 376 places to #56
Gordon Greenidge's 134*jumps 97 places to #16
Michael Clarke's 151*jumps 82 places to #14
Donald Bradman's 334*drops 25 places to #30
Donald Bradman's 299* drops 33 places to #40
Damien Martyn's 161*jumps 8 places to #2
Sunil Gavaskar's 221*jumps 47 places to #12
Dudley Nourse's 231*jumps 141 places to #37
Kusal Mendis's 176*jumps 15 places to #4
Kane Williamson's 161* drops 72 places to #93
Saeed Anwar's 188* jumps 27 places to #8
Kumar Sangakkara's 211*jumps 101 places to #32
Ian Redpath's 159* jumps 144 places to #46

Bowling performances:
cricrate | Performance Ratings - Test Bowling
Jermaine Lawson's 6/3 jumps 21 places to #4
Bert Ironmonger's 6/18 jumps 168 places to #33
J.J. Ferris's 7/37 jumps 212 places to #57
Imran Khan's 8/60 jumps 80 places to #24
Clarrie Grimmett's 7/40 jumps 142 places to #47

Career ratings changes:
cricrate | Career Ratings - Test Batting
cricrate | Career Ratings - Test Bowling

Viv Richards jumps 3 places to #6
Yasir Shah drops 45 places to #88
Bishan Bedi drops 27 places to #54
Shane Warne drops 3 places to #7
Imran Khan jumps 4 places to #6
Anil Kumble drops 5 places to #13
Hugh Tayfield drops 13 places to #34
Andy Roberts jumps 18 places to #32
Hugh Trumble drops 24 places to #71
Lance Gibbs drops 14 places to #42

I really like how the performance ratings looks now (especially for batting).

Appreciate any feedback!

I like it. The ratings seem to be getting better, better in the sense that they are a lot closer to what I would expect having seen some cricket myself. You've come a long way since you started. Kudos.

 

[viriya]

I like it. The ratings seem to be getting better, better in the sense that they are a lot closer to what I would expect having seen some cricket myself. You've come a long way since you started. Kudos.

Thanks - I think this update fixed a lot of the latent issues plaguing the system that I ignored to explore other stuff (fielding, win shares, odds) in the last couple of years.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Any idea why Rahul Dravid's 180 at Kolkata isn't even in the top 1000 innings?

 

[viriya]

Any idea why Rahul Dravid's 180 at Kolkata isn't even in the top 1000 innings?

Two major reasons:
- He came into bat at 232/4 - the platform was already set for him unlike for Laxman
- Since he played second fiddle to Laxman, he gets no points in the support factor (arguably unfair, but system focuses credit on the top score of an innings)

Not being in the top 1000 is probably harsh, it's rated 2209 with #1000 rated 2235.

 

[indiaholic]

Don't have the data to support this, but I believe winning the first match in a series might be very valuable, especially for touring teams. Any way to verify that?

I am thinking that guys like Ponting are being slightly undervalued in the current system.

 

[viriya]

Don't have the data to support this, but I believe winning the first match in a series might be very valuable, especially for touring teams. Any way to verify that?

I am thinking that guys like Ponting are being slightly undervalued in the current system.

I agree that Ponting is probably slightly undervalued. I also think Chanderpaul, Flower, Aravinda are slightly overvalued still.

Working on some more minor tweaks.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Two major reasons:
- He came into bat at 232/4 - the platform was already set for him unlike for Laxman

It's negative 45/4 in the context of the match though.

His 270 vs Pak is ranked way way higher, which doesn't seem right. It was against a much weaker bowling attack and the match situation for the 180 was so much more critical.

 

[viriya]

It's negative 45/4 in the context of the match though.

He gets credit for that in the match status factor.

His 270 vs Pak is ranked way way higher, which doesn't seem right. It was against a much weaker bowling attack and the match situation for the 180 was so much more critical.

Actually even though that Pak bowling attack was weaker, it wasn't much weaker because Akhtar was in great form and Kanera had a decent rating. The Aus attack seems ATG in hindsight but only McGrath and Gillespie were in great form - Warne was in his mid-career slump (actually had a current rating similar to Kaneria).

Other reasons why 270 is higher:
- Much higher score
- Higher % of team total
- Pak got bowled out for 224 which suggested that pitch wasn't easy (pitch quality)
- Next highest score was 77 (tougher since no steady partner)
- Came into bat at 0/1 and hung around almost to end
- Series decider (1-1 going into the match)
- Away

 

[OverratedSanity]

- Series decider (1-1 going into the match)

This is definitely a flaw then. In the Kolkata game, India are 1-0 down and following on and effectively -45/4. Just because it's not the "decider"(ie) not the third match, it shouldn't get weighted lower, because for all intents and purposes, it's a must win game for India if they want to keep the series alive.

Also, you can't penalise an innings because there was a great partnership involved. It's the essence of test cricket. If the runs from the other end when Dravid was at the crease were distributed evenly among the other 11 batsmen, does that make it a better innings? No imo.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Also, does the formula take into account both the point of entry (ie) 232/4 and the match situation (ie) -45/4 as a modifier? Imo, it should only consider the match situation. Point of entry in the second innings is meaningless without context and shouldn;t be a factor in the calculation.

 

[viriya]

This is definitely a flaw then. In the Kolkata game, India are 1-0 down and following on and effectively -45/4. Just because it's not the "decider"(ie) not the third match, it shouldn't get weighted lower, because for all intents and purposes, it's a must win game for India if they want to keep the series alive.

Also, you can't penalise an innings because there was a great partnership involved. It's the essence of test cricket. If the runs from the other runs when Dravid was at the crease were distributed evenly among the other 11 batsmen, does that make it a better innings? No imo.

The series status factor is minor - I'll probably lower the credit for deciders too.

It's the way you look at it. Giving credit for not having steady support doesn't mean I'm penalizing great partnerships, but I guess you could look at it that way. Run making for Dravid was so much easier coming into bat 232/4 with a set Laxman - the bowlers were tiring and he just had to get to the other end and feed off Laxman. IMO it's fair to give credit to innings that got little steady support. Everytime someone gets out you have to rebuild a new partnership which is much harder.