I think I can agree when it comes to great catches cos usually there's no time to think. But for drops, I'm certain it goes through their minds when getting under a catch the magnitude of the situation. It shows in their faces after they drop it. It's not the same face when they drop a tail-ender.
A slip catch is different. But the point is, his drop was significant. On another day he would take a great catch to get Williamson out and get credit for that. It's about the affect on the match at the end of the day.
It's incomplete because you haven't seen the catches yourself, you're going on second-hand information. Catches are more of a discrete event than a batting innings, which is why we can use averages and strike rates as a fairly good measure. I don't know why you can't just calculate a simple drop ratio with the assumption that the catch difficulties average out, rather than trying to fit in a bunch of other variables that are far more difficult to establish.
And I think it's meaningless.
I'm not claiming the commentary is perfect - just that they usually get it right. It's not like they get it wrong more often than not (I've followed commentary while watching matches live and it's generally inline. Yes, they do mess up sometimes but it's not the norm.
There is a simple drop % that you can look at. Why is it such a bad idea to ignore cases that are described as tough chances? The drop % already tell you a story - that good fielders tend to drop <10% of the catches they attempt.
I agree, results are the only thing that matters. So why do you care about the quality of the batsman.
Even if he doesn't have time to think of it, in terms of the match a drop or a catch matters more if it's off a top batsman. That's what matters. Not how good the fielder's technique was.
I'm saying you shouldn't ignore tough chances, but you should ignore trying to model whether a chance was tough or not. That's what I mean by making the assumption that the difficulty distribution is constant for everyone.
The quality of the batsman affects the result of the match. A great catch is a great catch regardless of the batsman (in terms of technique), but if it's off a top batsman it has more value and impacts the match more. That increases the "quality" of the catch.
Clearly they don't though if these "rankings" are anything to go by.
You're assuming that I can't parse whether a catch was tough or not. Why would you think that when it's possible to parse without a lot of issues. There's no reason to ignore that information if it's readily available. If your argument is that the commentary gets it wrong sometimes, I agree, but it gets it right more often than not.
Dude I get that you don't like numbers - why do you keep bringing it up if you don't have anything concrete to say? Say something specific like "I think Dilshan should not be rated that low" or just say "I hate numbers" and move on with your life. Clearly statistical exercises are not your cup of tea.
The ironic thing is I use a lot of spreadsheets and numbers every day but I know that you cannot rate things without watching them, and this just goes to prove it even moreso than some of your other ratings.
And what if a better batsman's chances are overall more difficult because they hit the ball harder/more cleanly than an inferior player?
It has nothing to do with being a good fielder though. Mendis catching a sitter from Anderson shouldn't contribute to him being a good fielder, but dropping it should affect his rating negatively because it's an unexpected event (sort of like information theory I guess). At best you can say that the catch of a good batsmen is influential in the context of the game, but you shouldn't extrapolate this to an individual's general fielding ability.
You can't objectively know the difficulty of the chance without watching the matches. How do you know if a tough chance was made tough only because the fielder was good (or bad) enough to make it one in the first place? What is the average ratio of "tough" to "easy" chances, and is this ratio related to the ranking? One of the problems you have from a statistical perspective is trying to wedge in every variable you have. Simplicity and understandability is far more important.
You should trust your eyes and not spreadsheets though.
In general as an informed viewer I can usually make a judgment call on whether a catch was regulation or tough just by watching the game. I'm assuming that the commentator has a similar skill level which isn't a stretch. I'm sure he gets it wrong sometimes but that would be an exception especially since he has tens of thousands of people scrutinizing his comments.
