Player ratings guide

[Markkkkk]

Since we've started I've noticed that player ratings vary quite a lot across teams. I figured we should agree upon a standardized rating system (which will undoubtedly change as the game progresses) to ensure a realistic experience. As long as we have a rough guide for now it will be good enough. Once we have finished creating players I'm sure people will start working on the best ratings but for now this is what I propose:

92-87 will be the world class players. The players at the top of their game like Kohli, AB, Amla, Steyn, Ashwin etc.
86-84 will be for the players just out of that bracket. Boult, Philander, Rahane etc.
83-78 is for consistent international players who fullfil a role but aren't what you would call world class or outstanding. Elgar, Vijay, Morkel etc.
77-74 will be for inexperienced internationals or top domestic players. Kuhn, Rahul, Handscomb etc.
73-68 will be for the main domestic players. Van der Dussen, JJ Smuts, Cosgrove.
67-60 is for other decent domestic players
60> is for players that are in and out of domestic sides or just aren't very good.

Obviously that won't be the case for every side. West Indies main players won't be as high as England or South Africa but it's a good enough guide for now. Feel free to offer your opinion on ratings or if you think anything should be changed!

 

[Kiko_97]

Good idea, especially when you see Haseeb Hameed with a 50 OVR. Once we have all the teams out it'll be so much easier to determine a system

 

[Saeglopur]

I had a brief look through the teams when I first got the Academy, without downloading any of the new collaborative efforts or anything where things have been adjusted a bit.

By default, just looking through a few of the Test sides quickly, I found it was something like this...

~ 90+ - All-Time Great (Bradman, Lara, Warne, etc)
~ 85+ - World Class (Root, Kohli, Smith, etc)
~ 80+ - Excellent (Williamson, Guptil, McCullum, etc)
~ 75+ - Very Good (Cook, Stokes, Warner, etc)
~ 70+ - Fairly Good (Bairstow, Anderson, etc)

Then important county players were in the 60-65+ range, useful county players in the 50-55+ range, and anyone below that was kind of backup. The new teams with adjusted ratings by the guys here have thrown all that a bit out of sync so far, so I don't know exactly what it will look like when they're all done. Hopefully there's still the right balance between the international sides, the domestic sides, and the all-time best sides. I don't know if this is useful, but I just thought I'd share what I'd noticed at the time - it's not a precise account, and just a quick summary of what I saw on the default ratings, but I made a note of it for my own use anyway.

 

[Kiko_97]

I had a brief look through the teams when I first got the Academy, without downloading any of the new collaborative efforts or anything where things have been adjusted a bit.

By default, just looking through a few of the Test sides quickly, I found it was something like this...

~ 90+ - All-Time Great (Bradman, Lara, Warne, etc)
~ 85+ - World Class (Root, Kohli, Smith, etc)
~ 80+ - Excellent (Williamson, Guptil, McCullum, etc)
~ 75+ - Very Good (Cook, Stokes, Warner, etc)
~ 70+ - Fairly Good (Bairstow, Anderson, etc)

Then important county players were in the 60-65+ range, useful county players in the 50-55+ range, and anyone below that was kind of backup. The new teams with adjusted ratings by the guys here have thrown all that a bit out of sync so far, so I don't know exactly what it will look like when they're all done. Hopefully there's still the right balance between the international sides, the domestic sides, and the all-time best sides. I don't know if this is useful, but I just thought I'd share what I'd noticed at the time - it's not a precise account, and just a quick summary of what I saw on the default ratings, but I made a note of it for my own use anyway.

Anderson 70+? I hope that's Corey Anderson as Jimmy is an 80+ for sure.

 

[Saeglopur]

Anderson 70+? I hope that's Corey Anderson as Jimmy is an 80+ for sure.

It was Jimmy - by default, Anderson was rated 70-something while Broad was 89, I think, haha! I can only assume that they've had enough of Broad down under after some of his spells against them! The new version by the guys here puts Jimmy up to 80, but his bowling is still down at 66 from what I can see.

 

[Kiko_97]

I think Jimmy and Broad are around an 80-83 mark. They've both had spells at the top of the ICC Rankings in the past year and the only bowlers i'd probably rate above them these days are Steyn and Ashwin

 

[Snowy]

I had a brief look through the teams when I first got the Academy, without downloading any of the new collaborative efforts or anything where things have been adjusted a bit.

By default, just looking through a few of the Test sides quickly, I found it was something like this...

~ 90+ - All-Time Great (Bradman, Lara, Warne, etc)
~ 85+ - World Class (Root, Kohli, Smith, etc)
~ 80+ - Excellent (Williamson, Guptil, McCullum, etc)
~ 75+ - Very Good (Cook, Stokes, Warner, etc)
~ 70+ - Fairly Good (Bairstow, Anderson, etc)

Herein lies the problem, it's so massively subjective. Many would argue Warner and Cook are better than Guptill. I kept England ratings consistent with on-disc for the most part.

 

[passwordistaco]

I think the best way to do it is to keep the ratings that BA have given the players. Otherwise there would be too much arguing.

 

[Saeglopur]

Herein lies the problem, it's so massively subjective. Many would argue Warner and Cook are better than Guptill. I kept England ratings consistent with on-disc for the most part.

Yeah, I think it depends on how balanced the attributes are as well. For example, Cook's overall rating is probably harmed by his non-existent attacking rating, but that doesn't take anything away from his ability to do what he does best. I personally have no issues with you guys adjusting things to reflect a player's strengths and weaknesses, because I know you're fairly consistent with the ratings anyway.

The ratings themselves though seem to be a summary of everything, so I'd view them as more a guideline than anything - you have to look in more detail at a player's best stats to get the full picture. For example, I was messing around with player creation stuff, and I made a bowling all-rounder with 56 batting rating, and 63 bowling rating, with fielding at about 70 I think.

Their overall rating came up as 88 which would make them one of the best players on the game, but when you break it down into the different categories, it's more just that they're an all round player rather than being exceptional at anything in particular. I'd say if the player skills themselves are accurate, and the resulting ratings aren't too far off the mark, that's more than good enough for me.

 

[TekkogsSteve]

i'm working on a rating system using stats and although the current sample size is far to small to be conclusive, The numbers work out about right for Williamson and Smith

Control = Overall Average/0.6 because, excluding Bradman as an outlier, 60 is roughly the highest test average
Attacking = T20 Strike Rate x 0.75 (that's were the numbers checked out)
Defending = Average balls survived per Wicket (Test Average/Test Strike Rate x 100) x 0.75

I haven't found a formula for the footwork rating but I suppose you could bawesome them on a ratio of the other stats so it would be slightly less subjective. There is also modifiers for standard of cricket, County players would get their stats multiplied by 0.77 based on the brackets in the first post.

 

[Jerm]

i'm working on a rating system using stats and although the current sample size is far to small to be conclusive, The numbers work out about right for Williamson and Smith

Control = Overall Average/0.6 because, excluding Bradman as an outlier, 60 is roughly the highest test average
Attacking = T20 Strike Rate x 0.75 (that's were the numbers checked out)
Defending = Average balls survived per Wicket (Test Average/Test Strike Rate x 100) x 0.75

I haven't found a formula for the footwork rating but I suppose you could bawesome them on a ratio of the other stats so it would be slightly less subjective. There is also modifiers for standard of cricket, County players would get their stats multiplied by 0.77 based on the brackets in the first post.

Interesting stuff