cricrate: new cricket ratings website

[sledger]

But that has nothing to do with the quality of the player's fielding. It impacts the importance of the catch, sure, but has absolutely no relation to the fieldsman's ability to field (which is what you're trying to measure).

The importance of the catch doesn't factor into a player's fielding ability at all, only the difficulty of the chance does.

Tbf it might do. Composure is a big part of fielding, and if a fielder X knows that the chance that comes his way is likely to be a "big one" he might be more likely to bottle it than fielder Y.

 

[viriya]

But that has nothing to do with the quality of the player's fielding. It impacts the importance of the catch, sure, but has absolutely no relation to the fieldsman's ability to field (which is what you're trying to measure).

No I'm not trying to measure merely fielding ability. It's not possible to do that with numbers. I'm measuring a combination of skill and impact. The same applies to batting and bowling.

Ability != Results != Impact

 

[Dan]

Tbf it might do. Composure is a big part of fielding, and if a fielder X knows that the chance that comes his way is likely to be a "big one" he might be more likely to bottle it than fielder Y.

Yeah, certainly -- which is played out in the ratings when Fielder X does bottle it more often than Fielder Y and thus drops a higher percentage of catches.

Overall I agree with PEWS though (quelle suprise).

 

[sledger]

Yeah, certainly -- which is played out in the ratings when Fielder X does bottle it more often than Fielder Y and thus drops a higher percentage of catches.

Overall I agree with PEWS though (quelle suprise).

Yeah, tbf I've not read most of the thread. The whole idea strikes me as a way of removing any element of fun from the game, so I cbf.

 

[cnerd123]

Say there are two fielders and the entirety of catching chances they have got in their career are 5 tough ones off Sanga and 5 tough ones off Murali. Fielder 1 takes all 5 off Sanga, drops ones off Murali. Fielder 2 does the opposite. Who has more impact in the game? Who will be remembered for his fielding? Who should be differentiated by a higher rating?

NO DIFFERENCE

They both get rated equally.

That's my point.

 

[cnerd123]

No I'm not trying to measure merely fielding ability. It's not possible to do that with numbers. I'm measuring a combination of skill and impact. The same applies to batting and bowling.

Ability != Results != Impact

That's so stupid tho. A fielder can't do anything to be more 'impactful'. Where he stands in the field and the batsmen he gets chances off are completely out of his control.

In your analysis you are basically finding fielders who have been lucky enough to get chances off better batsmen across their career. That's not something to reward a fielder for.

 

[ajit888]

BCCI say no to wife and girlfriends........???????? ?? ?????? ?????, ????? ?? ???????????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? - No to girlfriends during world cup 2015 till India books ticket to quarter-final, says BCCI -Patrika.com

 

[Daemon]

yeah the quality of the batsmen should have no bearing on the catch taken. you might as well start factoring in pitch conditions, the current score, the score the batsmen is on, which over it is or a hundred other different factors which would affect the impact the catch taken has on the match.

besides, you say you're measuring impact but why? so what if the catch happened to affect the result of the match. it doesn't mean the fielder did anything differently.

in batting and bowling it's obvious why the quality of the batsmen/bowler should be taken into account, because you have to play better cricket to get better players out. you don't do that when fielding.

 

[viriya]

Tim Southee breaks into ODI bowling top 5: cricrate | Current Top ODI Bowlers

 

[IKWT]

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.

 

[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.

 

[IKWT]

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.

No probs. I should mention that I think the website is awesome and I'm sure you'll continue to improve it.

 

[viriya]

No probs. I should mention that I think the website is awesome and I'm sure you'll continue to improve 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.

 

[viriya]

Andre Russell breaks into the ODI All-round top 5 with his performance against Pak:
cricrate | Current Top ODI All-Rounders

 

[Days of Grace]

By the way, is the icc player ratings site not loading for anyone else?

 

[ankitj]

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

 

[viriya]

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

He took 6 wickets in 28 balls giving away 4 runs, in the process defending a total of 105. That performance is downplayed in everyone's eyes because of the opposition being Bangladesh, and while that lowers its rating by quite a bit, everything else is in Binny's favor. To be clear, I'm not saying that it was undoubtedly the greatest ODI performance, just that it was great enough to be up there - you could argue for a different one I'm sure.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah, if that performance was put in by Dale Steyn we would rate it I suppose. Fair play.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah, if that performance was put in by Dale Steyn we would rate it I suppose. Fair play.

Nah. No one rates McGrath 7/15 in the 2003 WC because it came against Namibia.

A cheap 6 fer vs BD in a meaningless ODI shouldn't count for much either.

 

[viriya]

Nah. No one rates McGrath 7/15 in the 2003 WC because it came against Namibia.

A cheap 6 fer vs BD in a meaningless ODI shouldn't count for much either.

McGrath wasn't defending a paltry total and the batsmen were way worse (even by Bangladesh's standards).