Cricketweb decides the best fielder ever

[jaideep]

AB deVilliers 5
Derek randill 3
Martin Guptill 1

Gibbs 5
Glenn Maxwell 3
Viv Richards 1

Mark Waugh 5
Bob Simpson 3
Dave Warner 1

 

[viriya]

Yeah, I'm sure you have every "very good" fielder to have ever played the game and all their catches, dropped catches, and attempts listed on your not weird at all cricket ratings.

I have data since 2005- and there have been "very good" fielders during that period.

 

[Red]

Randall
De Villiers
Guptill


Richards
Gibbs
Maxwell


M. Waugh
Simpson
Warner

 

[BigBrother]

I have data since 2005- and there have been "very good" fielders during that period.

So you are saying you have "data" on every single player that has fielded in a game since 2005 and have tracked their every catch made, dropped, and attempted in every single game they have played?

 

[viriya]

So you are saying you have "data" on every single player that has fielded in a game since 2005 and have tracked their every catch made, dropped, and attempted in every single game they have played?

Basically, with 90%+ accuracy.

 

[marc71178]

More like 9% accuracy.

Well if you can put in random numbers then so can I.

 

[viriya]

More like 9% accuracy.

Well if you can put in random numbers then so can I.

I use my eyes not spreadsheets though.

 

[marc71178]

I use my eyes not spreadsheets though.

Using your eyes thread to read flawed ball by ball commentary using a flawed method is only ever going to give a flawed result but then again it's just in line with the rest of your flawed website and rankings.

 

[BigBrother]

Basically, with 90%+ accuracy.

Just did a little bit of statsguru on this. Since 2005 there has been:

456 matches involving 577 players with 8,679 catches made in test cricket.

1,503 matches involving 1,103 players with 12,577 catches made in odi cricket.

460 matches involving 904 players with 3.354 catches made in t20i cricket.

And this is only international cricket...

So you just said you have all of that recorded, plus all the drops and attempts made throughout the whole game for each, with over a 90% accuracy on top of that? I'm finding this very hard to believe but if you say so....all I'll say is that everybody can hold you on this in the future.

 

[viriya]

Using your eyes thread to read flawed ball by ball commentary using a flawed method is only ever going to give a flawed result but then again it's just in line with the rest of your flawed website and rankings.

they say all geniuses are flawed.. looks like i'm flawed in many ways.

 

[viriya]

Just did a little bit of statsguru on this.

Since 2005 there has been:

456 matches involving 577 players with 8,679 catches made in test cricket.

1,503 matches involving 1,103 players with 12,577 catches made in odi cricket.

460 matches involving 904 players with 3.354 catches made in t20i cricket.

And this is only international cricket. So you just said you have all of that recorded, plus all the drops and attempts made throughout the whole game for each, with over a 90% accuracy on top of that? I'm finding this very hard to believe but if you say so....all I'll say is that everybody can hold you on this in the future.

Why do you think the actual # makes it hard? It's very easy to get data for every single match - there are scorecards for every single Test/ODI/T20I/FT20 played on the site already.

 

[BigBrother]

Why do you think the actual # makes it hard? It's very easy to get data for every single match - there are scorecards for every single Test/ODI/T20I/FT20 played on the site already.

That's all I needed to know.

 

[viriya]

That's all I needed to know.

I'm not sure you follow, but I get commentary data as well. That's why fielding data is only from 2005- since there are no reliable commentary feeds prior to that. Anyway, to avoid derailing this thread, please continue here:
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/65351-fielding-statistics-new-approach-15.html

and on the methodology used:
cricrate | Test Fielding Ratings

 

[BigBrother]

I'm not sure you follow, but I get commentary data as well. That's why fielding data is only from 2005- since there are no reliable commentary feeds prior to that. Anyway, to avoid derailing this thread, please continue here:
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/65351-fielding-statistics-new-approach-15.html

and on the methodology used:
cricrate | Test Fielding Ratings

You are very uneducated on the topic if you actually think all drops and attempts are kept track of on cricinfo commentary or whatever, and that it's all as simple as pretty much as typing "drop" on the find bar.

If it was really that easy, fielding stats would be kept already, if not by statsguru then by various other places.

It's not like you are the first genius to have thought of that idea. I've even tried it sometimes to refresh my memory.

 

[viriya]

You are very uneducated on the topic if you actually think all drops and attempts are kept track of on cricinfo commentary or whatever, and that it's all as simple as pretty much as typing "drop" on the find bar.

If it was really that easy, fielding stats would be kept already, if not by statsguru then by various other places.

It's not like you are the first genius to have thought of that idea. I've even tried it sometimes to refresh my memory.

No I don't think that, please actually go through the methodology before making assumptions.

I'm devastated to know that you have thought of the idea before me though.

 

[BigBrother]

No I don't think that, please actually go through the methodology before making assumptions.

I'm devastated to know that you have thought of the idea before me though.

Then by default, you have pretty much admitted that there are pretty big holes in you ratings, even for players only since 2005...

Some genius you are right?

 

[viriya]

Then by default, you have pretty much admitted that there are pretty big holes in you ratings, even for players only since 2005...

Some genius you are right?

Saying it's 100% is not admitting that it has pretty big holes. I was mainly referring to your "drop on the search bar" comment - that level of stupidity a genius like me cannot fathom.

 

[BigBrother]

Saying it's 100% is not admitting that it has pretty big holes. I was mainly referring to your "drop on the search bar" comment - that level of stupidity a genius like me cannot fathom.

And yet you still have about 5,000 posts full of it in this place.

 

[cnerd123]

And yet another thread derailed by a Cricrate debate...

I think Viv is getting overrated as a fielder. I watched a few clips of his fielding before voting, and while he was good, he's not in same league as Gibbs. Gibbs was exceptional, almost as good as Jonty.

 

[BigBrother]

And yet another thread derailed by a Cricrate debate...

So, how were things going with this thread?

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/68779-greatest-keeper-batsman-gilchrist-sangakkara.html