Assume you're too busy to run the above. Anyway I would like to make a couple of comments following on from the discussions between yourself and Goughy.
Rankings are either 100% objective or they're not - most rankings are not, including the ICC ratings which, though based entirely on the scorecard, incorporate some algorithm which weights innings differently. I try to make all of my rankings based on 100% objectivity and in 100% of cases I'm not 100% happy with them - one or more players may be ranked too high, one or more players too low, but if I have faith in the system I go with whatever it throws up. Masterly Batting, for which I was responsible for the ratings system, was a mix of objective and subjective inputs. - what I did there was, once we had decided on the parameters to be measured and collected the data, both objective and subjective, I stripped off as many identifying aspects as possible, save the era, to reduce the amount of favouritism. At the end of the day though, as the system incorporates subjective aspects like "Intangibles", coupled with the fact that the choice of weightings is inherently subjective, it still amounts to being a subjective list.
Your system is not 100% objective either, as it incorporates weightings which you have modified over time and, once you get away from 100% objectivity it becomes impossible to defend the final list. You made a comment earlier to the effect that you had a list which "looks about right", and therein lies the danger - if you modify weightings to get a list which looks right, or to offset those innings which are not ranked where you think they should be, you may as well just do a subjective list. This is unfortunate, as you have put in a tremendous amount of work to this system for it to be dismissed as just subjective.
It is more apparent when grading individual innings, as many criteria which impact individual performances, such as pressure, conditions, etc. can be evened out over a full career.
At the end of the day though, your list, subjective though it is, is as valid as anyone else's and, with the consideration and time behind it, more valid than most.
