-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Peer rating - Value it or discard it?
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
shortpitched713
International Captain
Problem is that peer rating ends up valuing certain qualities for certain players and ignores those same qualities for other players because that player was unpopular, or kind of an asshole, or came from a low profile country, or any other number of reasons that are going to just randomly throw off analysis by adding noise in there.
I want to peer rating as little as possible, although "the eye test" will always come up for players from earlier eras where there is much less footage. Even then, I'll want to read the individual scorecards of these older players for myself, because it's amazing the kind of balderdash former players will say about even matches they've taken part in, which you'd think they'd be able to remember accurately.
I want to peer rating as little as possible, although "the eye test" will always come up for players from earlier eras where there is much less footage. Even then, I'll want to read the individual scorecards of these older players for myself, because it's amazing the kind of balderdash former players will say about even matches they've taken part in, which you'd think they'd be able to remember accurately.
shortpitched713
International Captain
There is literally nothing wrong with this.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
There is because he wasn't better but it isn't apparent through a surface reading of stats.
shortpitched713
International Captain
I watched both Donald and Wasim, and I think Donald is better.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
I've noticed that most autobiographies by top Test players include their ATG teams - be they teams they have played with/against or players from all eras. There are the occasional surprises in terms of both inclusions and exclusions but I value their opinions and discard few.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
That's what it spat out - but no, I don't follow it that blindly. Sometimes you have to take things into context.
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
What's the context? And tell me the methodology
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yes apparently you just look at raw average. Expected better from you.
Well if your stats method is giving such results than why do you question peer rating.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Raw average would've had Donald ahead of Wasim.
Given I openly decry analysis by checklist so much that I put it in my signature for like a decade you shouldn't be surprised I don't care about Record in X country.
Coronis
International Coach
Overrated longevity.
So the real top 5 (20th century+) is
McGrath
Barnes
Davidson
Marshall
O’Reilly
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
We are talking about peer rating and for me the fact that I have never seen a single batsman of that era rate Donald as the best bowler or better than Wasim tells me something.
shortpitched713
International Captain
False. Hoggard is better than Lillee. And real men have the balls to blindly shout it from the rooftops.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
It depends a bit what you mean by 'peer rating.' If you haven't followed someone's career as it's happened then raw averages leave out a lot of context - longevity, periods out of the team, different roles in the team, disproportionate games at home/away, disporportionate games in favourable/unfavourable conditions, disproportiate games against good/bad sides, support from catchers, support from lower order batsmen, etc etc.
My adjusted averages system attempts to standardised for some of those above factors. I think some things it does really well, some things it does only party, some things it does to an inconsistent stantdard and some things it just doesn't or can't take into account at all. Reading reports from people who did follow their career can help put a player's record into better context if you didn't follow it yourself. That sort of 'peer review' is extremely valuable, and I factor it in a lot on top of those results, as well as my own internal contemporary review for the players I've followed closely since I started following cricket.
But if you just mean some random player talking about how they found Wasim really hard to face or Martin Crowe really had to bowl to, I think that's basically horseshit. Firstly, I think it just creates a bit of a mythology, and secondly I'm not sure it really matters even if it's true. You can feel more uncomfortable facing Wasim than McGrath but still have the latter get you out regularly for fewer runs. When I played cricket I definitely felt more uncomfortable facing blokes who could bowl unplayable jaffas but also gave regularly scoring opportunities than blokes who bowled tight but averaged less, but the latter bowlers helped their teams more.
One of the ironies here for me is that I think this thread was started mostly because you were arguing with someone (Bolo?) about Kallis. You were saying people during Kallis's contemporary period didn't rate him as highly as the numbers showed so Bolo was effectively engaging of revisionist history of some type, which seems like a reasonable argument on the surface except I actually was following Kallis's career at the time and I did rate him that highly. If I disagreed with peer and contemporary views while I was following cricket then there's a good chance I'd have disagreed with them before I started as well.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
That one was definitely true.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I respect your opinions. I think there is a difference between one cricketer giving their take and a more general consensus developed on the greatness of a cricketer.
We all have our own measures to judge cricketers. But I am leery about ignoring completely the views of those who actually play the game involving said cricketers. It's not my main measure but it a factor.
But I don't get how you can diminish peer review but also hold it in regard for cricketers you didn't watch. Seems contradictory. If it's unreliable then it's unreliable.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Also because there is no real way any player ever played in the same conditions and circumstances. Even in a batting partnership, there is a reasonable amount of variation that would cast doubt on any sort of objectified metrics.