cricrate: new cricket ratings website

[viriya]

Let me get this straight.

Laxman's innings gets devalued because Dravid scored a 180 from the other end.

However if five other batsmen had scored 36 each from the other end instead of a Dravid masterpiece, Laxman's innings would have hit the stratosphere, despite there being no change in the inherent quality of his innings - simply because the statistical model now sees a "lack of support".

Do you see the problem here, viriya?

It is generally agreed that run-scoring becomes easier when you have a partnership going. It's mutually beneficial for the two batsmen. When rating individual performances, more credit should be given to batsmen who make significant contributions without the benefit of a great support act. Instead, having to weather a collapse and farm the strike in tail-end partnerships should be given extra credit.

Dravid's support is only one reason the 281 is not in the top 100. One other is that VVS came in at 50 off for 1 - the new ball was seen through and the team wasn't in dire straits so he doesn't get "extra credit" for that either.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It is generally agreed that run-scoring becomes easier when you have a partnership going. It's mutually beneficial for the two batsmen. When rating individual performances, more credit should be given to batsmen who make significant contributions without the benefit of a great support act. Instead, having to weather a collapse and farm the strike in tail-end partnerships should be given extra credit.

Dravid's support is only one reason the 281 is not in the top 100. One other is that VVS came in at 50 off for 1 - the new ball was seen through and the team wasn't in dire straits so he doesn't get "extra credit" for that either.

The ****? He came in when India needed 225 runs just to avoid an innings defeat. Have no idea how much more dire a situation can even get.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If your system looks only at the current score at which VVS entered (ie) 50/1 and doesn't take into account how utterly hopeless the match situation was at the time, that's unbelievably stupid.

 

[viriya]

The ****? He came in when India needed 225 runs just to avoid an innings defeat. Have no idea how much more dire a situation can even get.

If your system looks only at the current score at which VVS entered (ie) 50/1 and doesn't take into account how utterly hopeless the match situation was at the time, that's unbelievably stupid.

He gets a lot of credit for the "follow-on -> victory" part through the match status factor. He doesn't get much credit for coming in at 50/1 in the "point of entry" factor since it could be much worse. Say he was batting at #5 and came in at 50/3 for example. A practical way to look at it is that the openers took care of the new ball for him.

 

[weldone]

Not having to face the 1st new ball isn't a huge advantage on an Eden Gardens pitch, especially when
1. The opposition had one of the best spin bowlers in history,
2. He had to counter the 2nd new ball.

Anyways, if Laxman's Eden Gardens knock isn't in your top 100 (!) then there's something seriously wrong with your ratings viriya. Conceding shortcomings is a requirement if one wants to improve.

 

[weldone]

In fact, both Laxman's and Dravid's knocks should be in the top 100.

Laxman's one somewhere in the top 10, and Dravid's one somehwhere in the last 25 maybe.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

It is generally agreed that run-scoring becomes easier when you have a partnership going. It's mutually beneficial for the two batsmen. When rating individual performances, more credit should be given to batsmen who make significant contributions without the benefit of a great support act.

The issue with this is that you're penalising them for something which is out of their control. Which is fine if it is used to separate innings which are pretty even. But in your analysis this factor is the sole reason that one of the greatest comeback innings in history can't even be inside the Top 100. What's the rating for Dravid's innings?

 

[viriya]

The issue with this is that you're penalising them for something which is out of their control. Which is fine if it is used to separate innings which are pretty even. But in your analysis this factor is the sole reason that one of the greatest comeback innings in history can't even be inside the Top 100. What's the rating for Dravid's innings?

No it's not the sole reason, it's one of the reasons.

 

[viriya]

In fact, both Laxman's and Dravid's knocks should be in the top 100.

Laxman's one somewhere in the top 10, and Dravid's one somehwhere in the last 25 maybe.

I realize that most people rate Laxman's 281 highly, but I'd like to know specific reasons that you think it should be up there aside from the obvious "follow on -> victory" part.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

He scored 281 in a follow on leading to a victory against a side which had won the past 16 of its Tests. Pretty good reason.

 

[viriya]

He scored 281 in a follow on leading to a victory against a side which had won the past 16 of its Tests. Pretty good reason.

Ok so of the factors considered for batting innings (http://www.cricrate.com/test/batting/index.php):
1. Runs scored: 281, big +ve
2. Not out: nil, minor factor either way
3. Percentage of total: 42% of total, good but not 50%+ as is the case for most great innings
4. Bowling quality: The 4 main bowlers were McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Kasprowicz. This was during Warne's mid-career low and only McGrath (with 872) had a very good rating. The average rating comes out to be ~600 which is good but not great
5. Point of entry: 52/1, openers set a decent platform, even if the new ball isn't deadly in Eden Gardens, McGrath is most effective then.
6. Wickets at crease: Laxman is 5th out, so he's there for 3 wickets - not significant
7. Support: Dravid makes 28% of the team's total, so Laxman doesn't get much from this factor because he had very good support
8. Strike rate: 62.17, very good but minor factor
9. Location: Home, no bonus
10. Match status: Follow-on under pressure, big +ve
11. Result: This ended Australia's 16 match win-streak, but it was also only the start of Australia's decade-long dominance. The team rating was 148 before the match which is similar to what SA and Australia are rated right now - very good but not the amazing levels (175-200) the Aussies reached in the mid-2000s.
12. Close match: It actually didn't end up being a close match, and this only really affects the 4th innings so irrelevant
13. Milestone: Double hundred, minor credit

So with all these factors, the innings is rated at 2631, which misses the top 100 by a small margin.

I'm curious if you guys think there are other factors that should be considered. IMO I do think Laxman's innings deserves a top 100 spot - just that it's not so clear cut. I think it's slightly overrated because of the fact that it ended a streak and winning after a follow-on rarely happens. For instance, if Harbhajan had not won them the game, would we still consider this such a great innings?

 

[BackFootPunch]

That all seems logical enough, though obviously it depends on your weightings for each aspect.

The real test, imo, is looking at some of the knocks you have ranked in the top 100. Like Gayle's 333 - how is that number 32? What makes that a better innings than Laxman's?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Yeah, we would. It would be like McCullum-Watling but against South Africa, which incidentally is ranked higher even though the only thing that makes it better is the point of entry. Another weird thing is that the innings is penalized for being not a close match. This should actually be in Laxman's favour because his knock was so good it batted Australia out of the game.

I really think your statistical methodology needs to be more complex than just factor*weighting if you want it to be taken seriously.

 

[Red]

I like your passion Viriya, but I reckon the flaw in these sort of methods are that there are SO MANY factors to be taken into account. Highlighting one factor that might be important might mask another equally important flaw or factor. In the end, a great innings is a great innings, and as much as I like rankings (because I like orderly lists) the only real way to "rank" innings is to watch them and make an individual decision. Looking at everything statistically or mathematically has serious limitations and always will.

 

[viriya]

I like your passion Viriya, but I reckon the flaw in these sort of methods are that there are SO MANY factors to be taken into account. Highlighting one factor that might be important might mask another equally important flaw or factor. In the end, a great innings is a great innings, and as much as I like rankings (because I like orderly lists) the only real way to "rank" innings is to watch them and make an individual decision. Looking at everything statistically or mathematically has serious limitations and always will.

This is a statistical exercise - it's not trying to gauge spectator sentiment but trying to be as "unbiased" based on the parameters as possible. When it comes to greatest ever innings - no two people agree, so by nature no two ratings lists do either. You shouldn't proceed if you think your opinion is the only valid one when it comes to this of course - most people have trouble with that.

 

[viriya]

Yeah, we would. It would be like McCullum-Watling but against South Africa, which incidentally is ranked higher even though the only thing that makes it better is the point of entry. Another weird thing is that the innings is penalized for being not a close match. This should actually be in Laxman's favour because his knock was so good it batted Australia out of the game.

I really think your statistical methodology needs to be more complex than just factor*weighting if you want it to be taken seriously.

Closeness is only a factor that matters for 4th innings run chases or defenses.. just because Laxman doesn't get that extra credit doesn't mean he's penalized for it.

 

[viriya]

That all seems logical enough, though obviously it depends on your weightings for each aspect.

The real test, imo, is looking at some of the knocks you have ranked in the top 100. Like Gayle's 333 - how is that number 32? What makes that a better innings than Laxman's?

Good spot. Let me try to break it down.

1. Runs scored: 333, big +ve
2. Not out: nil, minor factor either way
3. Percentage of total: 58% of total, very good, up there with the best
4. Bowling quality: 175 average rating, poor bowling attack
5. Point of entry: Opener, not a big positive or negative
6. Wickets at crease: 5 wickets, not significant
7. Support: Second highest score was just 11% of total with 64, so he didn't have much consistent support
8. Strike rate: 76, very good but minor factor
9. Location: Away, slight bonus
10. Match status: First innings, no bonus
11. Result: Draw, but SL was rated higher to start with so he gets some credit
12. Close match: Not a factor
13. Milestone: Triple hundred, minor credit

I think the main thing I'm surprised by here is that the bowling attack is so weak. I thought Murali was playing then and it's a little curious that this is rated so high considering that the bowling is poor.. Maybe a reason to increase the weight given to that factor.

 

[OverratedSanity]

.

I'm curious if you guys think there are other factors that should be considered. IMO I do think Laxman's innings deserves a top 100 spot - just that it's not so clear cut. I think it's slightly overrated because of the fact that it ended a streak and winning after a follow-on rarely happens. For instance, if Harbhajan had not won them the game, would we still consider this such a great innings?

Woah I didn't think you actually agreed with your methodology not rating it in the top 100.

Anyway, cbf explaining this because it's kind of obvious why the innings is great, but what makes it great that the innings spanned the whole journey from certain defeat->morale boosting but probably futile fightback -> genuine sliver of hope - > position of parity - > and finally batted Australia out of the match.

 

[viriya]

Woah I didn't think you actually agreed with your methodology not rating it in the top 100.

Anyway, cbf explaining this because it's kind of obvious why the innings is great, but what makes it great that the innings spanned the whole journey from certain defeat->morale boosting but probably futile fightback -> genuine sliver of hope - > position of parity - > and finally batted Australia out of the match.

My personal opinion can be different from what cricrate shows sometimes - it's usually due to the fact that "fixing" something might make me disagree with the rating change of something else even more.. it's a balancing act.

Anyway, your reasoning is pretty much what I expect - great innings vs great side, no hope -> victory etc, which is all captured to a big extent.

I'm thinking of increasing the weight given to bowling quality though.

 

[Dan]

Would it be better to consider Laxman's entry point as 1/-225, rather than 1/50?