• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Peer rating - Value it or discard it?

Adorable Asshole

Adorable Asshole

International Regular
Burgey said:
There is no objectivity in these things. People will ascribe their own weight to the variables and get results accordingly.

Surely peer rating is something to take into account like anything else? More so if there's some broad peer consistency. But it's no more or less a relevant factor than how a player went in a given country as a metric. And we all use that to some extent or another in rating players. TBH the idea people "objectively" rate players because they use the same criteria across all players and eras is laughable, because the criteria you choose are themselves variable.
Click to expand...
Post modernist nonsense
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
CricAddict said:
Peer value is biased towards the bigger nations of that period. Just like history written by historians and poems by the poets are biased towards the emperors of that time. It is all about money.

Peer value can be may be 5% of your evaluation. Rest should be objectivity.
Click to expand...
If by peer review we mean contemporary team mates and opponents I don't think this is true. It has a tendency to overvalue players they liked watching / wanted to emulate but I wouldn't write it off entirely. Cricket stats aren't advanced enough at the moment to completely over ride the eye test or opinions of opponents on the ground facing them during games. It is impossible at times to parse the biased takes from the sensible ones though.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
OverratedSanity said:
If by peer review we mean contemporary team mates and opponents I don't think this is true. It has a tendency to overvalue players they liked watching / wanted to emulate but I wouldn't write it off entirely. Cricket stats aren't advanced enough at the moment to completely over ride the eye test or opinions of opponents on the ground facing them during games. It is impossible at times to parse the biased takes from the sensible ones though.
Click to expand...
Opponents rate who is the most difficult to face all the time, and I find their views valuable as they are the ones engaged in the game.
 
Q

Qlder

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
If it wasn't for peer rating, we would end up rating Donald ahead of Wasim, Lillee and Trueman.
Click to expand...
If not for peer rating and eye test from actually watching the players bowl we would have the CW stupidity of Hoggard >>> Lillee 😉
 
S

Socerer 01

International Captain
peer rating is stupid 90% of time

for eg Wasim and Lee both wanted Umran Malik in our world cup squad for last year on the back of one ipl season and because he bowled really fast and had potential. check now and the same guy got dropped by his ipl team and plays like **** whenever he does for India
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Socerer 01 said:
peer rating is stupid 90% of time

for eg Wasim and Lee both wanted Umran Malik in our world cup squad for last year on the back of one ipl season and because he bowled really fast and had potential. check now and the same guy got dropped by his ipl team and plays like **** whenever he does for India
Click to expand...
I mean, you have stupid applications of peer rating and stupid applications of stats too. Doesn't disqualify the entire method.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Socerer 01 said:
peer rating is stupid 90% of time

for eg Wasim and Lee both wanted Umran Malik in our world cup squad for last year on the back of one ipl season and because he bowled really fast and had potential. check now and the same guy got dropped by his ipl team and plays like **** whenever he does for India
Click to expand...
How are they peers of his? They both retired ages ago
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Doesn't it get more standardized as more cricketers play each other more often?
Click to expand...
No.

subshakerz said:
Opponents rate who is the most difficult to face all the time, and I find their views valuable as they are the ones engaged in the game.
Click to expand...
And thus will always rate certain players disproportionately, just because they personally struggled against them due to a particular deficiency or mental block.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Everyone's view on everything is disproportionate to some extent ffs. Personal views are necessarily disproportionately affected by a person's experience, whether watching, playing, reading about, or whatever.

The idea of a "completely objective" view is completely imaginary. There is no such thing. So we may as well completely do away with this as an idea whenever discussing the impartiality of any opinion tbh. Literally everyone's opinions on anything are shaped and influenced by their experiences and external environment, and how they perceive them.

The key issue when evaluating the worth of an opinion (aside from its substantive content of course) is not whether it is free from bias (because it will never be), but whether the amount of bias exceeds a certain threshold that prevents it from having any objective value.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top