NSSports Cricket Discussion Thread (OOC)

[The Grearish Union]

Thanks all, and thanks Liventia for a wonderfully conducted test season! Congratulations to Graint for a wonderful run with multiple teams, too, while I struggle to keep up with my single nation, haha!

Apologies for the lack of scorecards at the end of the season, though, will try and fill in all the remaining scorecards in the future.

Looking forward to the next one!

[Swaithlying]

Glad there's someone else here who loves a bit of cricket! Swaithlying is well known for producing vicious pace attacks from the hard tracks in the warm North-West in particular.

OOP Is this like a thing I can get into or like?

[Starblaydia]

Glad there's someone else here who loves a bit of cricket! Swaithlying is well known for producing vicious pace attacks from the hard tracks in the warm North-West in particular.

OOP Is this like a thing I can get into or like?

Towed from the Bag of Stones thread to here, where it's more appropriate.

[Liventia]

Hi all, popping in for a quick update on where we stand with GCF tournaments at the moment. I know traditionally we have one Test season a year, but there will probably not be one this year in exchange for the 2023 Test season coming at the start of the calendar year. (We might even have two if needed.)
The next event will likely be the ODI World Trophy. I'll look into signups before the end of the month, and we'll see where we go with host bids.
Assuming that runs across June/July, that gives us some downtime for domestic/regionals until October, when I intend to start the World T20 signups to coincide with the real-life T20 World Cup to capitalise on hopefully increased interest. The NS World T20 will be held across November and December to finish the year.
Based on this plan, the next GCF Test season will likely be in March 2023.

[The Plough Islands]

Hi all, popping in for a quick update on where we stand with GCF tournaments at the moment. I know traditionally we have one Test season a year, but there will probably not be one this year in exchange for the 2023 Test season coming at the start of the calendar year. (We might even have two if needed.)
The next event will likely be the ODI World Trophy. I'll look into signups before the end of the month, and we'll see where we go with host bids.
Assuming that runs across June/July, that gives us some downtime for domestic/regionals until October, when I intend to start the World T20 signups to coincide with the real-life T20 World Cup to capitalise on hopefully increased interest. The NS World T20 will be held across November and December to finish the year.
Based on this plan, the next GCF Test season will likely be in March 2023.

This all sounds unobjectionable; it gives some time for regional cricket tournaments as well since we now have two of those running (not that I'm biased in my view of those or anything :P) and I appreciate the clarity this far in advance. I'll be in America at the end of this month - trying to spread the good word of cricket in the wilderness of New Hampshire - so I might be a bit slow to sign up to the World Trophy, but the Foxes will definitely be there...

[Gruenberg]

I'm OK with that plan but don't know that I want to wait a year to play Tests, so I might see if I can arrange some series (that obviously won't count towards rankings points) on a bilateral basis.

[Liventia]

Hi all, popping in for a quick update on where we stand with GCF tournaments at the moment. I know traditionally we have one Test season a year, but there will probably not be one this year in exchange for the 2023 Test season coming at the start of the calendar year. (We might even have two if needed.)
The next event will likely be the ODI World Trophy. I'll look into signups before the end of the month, and we'll see where we go with host bids.
Assuming that runs across June/July, that gives us some downtime for domestic/regionals until October, when I intend to start the World T20 signups to coincide with the real-life T20 World Cup to capitalise on hopefully increased interest. The NS World T20 will be held across November and December to finish the year.
Based on this plan, the next GCF Test season will likely be in March 2023.

Signups for the ODI World Trophy are open.

[Milchama]

I'm OK with that plan but don't know that I want to wait a year to play Tests, so I might see if I can arrange some series (that obviously won't count towards rankings points) on a bilateral basis.

Always down for a good bilateral series.

[Gruenberg]

No reflection on Ko or Brookstation as hosts.

Just from one half of today's results:

Kimi-Suomi 278/8 (50 overs)
Krytenia 282/9 (31.2 overs)

The Plough Islands 259/9 (31.2 overs)
West Barack and East Obama 256/5 (50 overs)

Anyone know how we might fix the xkoranate formula in future to prevent these kinds of scores which seem to happen with startling regularity?

[Darmen]

I suspect that xkoranate applies the meanWicketRate to the chasing team as if the chasing team bats the full fifty overs regardless of whether or not it actually does so. As for how to fix that, I have no idea.

EDIT: Upon closer examination, the answer may lie in editing the Howzzat paradigm (github link), but that's much more complicated than simply editing the sport file and would likely require someone with far more coding experience than me to handle it.

[The Sarian]

Another xkoronate quirk I wish wouldn’t happen is chasing teams getting low run totals with many wickets in hand. I have absolutely no coding knowledge whatsoever so I don’t know if it would be possible to change, but I thought I’d raise it nonetheless!

[Ko-oren]

I also don't know how the scorinator works exactly but the above points sound plausible.

One way around it is by posting scores only as runs (Ko-oren 259-254 Plough Islands, for example) and leaving wickets and overs up to the RPers. That would mean that NRR is no longer viable as a tiebreaker, though - for that reason I'm not a fan of this solution.

Reworking the scorinator so that the second innings takes the target into account is the best solution, but we'd have to find someone to rework it.

[The Plough Islands]

The first one (which I believe was brought up by Ko-oren) would be to deal with the wacky run rates for the group stage (something that we would have to do anyway, especially if net run rate is a tiebreaker), but only post the run scores for the knockout stage, once NRR is no longer a factor? That would avoid most of the controversy surrounding weird over/wicket counts, particularly in the latter stages of a tournament.

My other suggestion, which could tie into the first, would be to use the scorelines we have right now, but make it clear that if both RPers feel as though the wicket counts require adjusting (and over counts in knockout matches, or in games where NRR is not a factor), then with host approval, they may change the required values to a more suitable number? The main issue with this would be if you're playing a completely or relatively inactive nation, but then I guess hosts could grant an exception depending on circumstance?

Going a little further than that: because it only matters to NRR if you went all out or not, we could post runs and overs only for every match ("Plough Islands 190 (50 overs) -Ko-oren 301 (32.1 overs)"), even in the group stage, and only include "(all out)" when xkoranate said so ("Ko-oren 451 (50 overs) - Kryentia 120 (ao 18.4 overs)"). It's not a perfect system and only deals with the symptoms, but it allows for NRR to be a tiebreaker (because you need runs, overs, and all-outs) and gives some extra freedom to the scorecard fanatics out there. It does mean a little extra work for hosts.

Continued from the tournament discussion thread; I can't get on board with this as a viable option, unfortunately - we need a new formula rather than working around the existing one. I don't think we should go down the road of ignoring some of the scorinator output, particularly since then a fairly vital part of the match scores becomes reliant on establishing a consensus with someone who might not be checking NS as often as you are, or may have no rosters or roleplays to go on at all. It also makes cricket harder to roleplay for people new to the sport when we're giving them essentially incomplete results - I don't know of any other sport that does this. I appreciate that this is a suggestion made in good faith, but it will make the experience worse and not better :(

(In addition, speaking as a scorecard fanatic, the absolute last thing I want is less material to go on - this may be just me, but the more information I have to work with the better, and the thought of having to compile a scorecard from '190 - 301' just fills me with dread)

[Gruenberg]

Hosts should always post the results as outputted by the scorinator, that has to be absolute.

I'd be OK with players individually agreeing to change the wicket count as that doesn't affect NRR equations, though.

[Sarzonia]

Hosts should always post the results as outputted by the scorinator, that has to be absolute.

I'd be OK with players individually agreeing to change the wicket count as that doesn't affect NRR equations, though.

This reminds me a bit of the brouhaha surrounding the baseball scorinators spitting out line scores with runs scored by innings.

So many of us (myself included) were outraged about feeling like we'd be forced to RP with those specific runs scored. Then I ended up following the line scores included in the scorination.

The results are absolute. You can't say you won a game 2-1 when the scorinator says you lost 8-3. But how you get there is up for interpretation until the first player RPs it.

[Ko-oren]

The results are absolute. You can't say you won a game 2-1 when the scorinator says you lost 8-3. But how you get there is up for interpretation until the first player RPs it.

Nobody here is suggesting we change the outcome. As you say: how you get there is up for interpretation, and I think this discussion is more about how far that interpretation may stretch. Ideally we'd get a new scorinator, but I have no idea how to get there. Until then, we have to come up with an agreement on how to deal with what we're given.

[Sarzonia]

Do you then limit the output of the scorinator to merely a final score rather than, say, a score and a specific number of overs?

Would this have a similar effect to a baseball scorinator spitting out just a final score (like 2-1, 5-4 in 11 innings, etc.) as opposed to a line score with runs by inning?

Experience has shown that you can be very creative in baseball whether you stick strictly with the scorinator-provided line scores or you do your own.

About the only thing I could see as a concern that I'd want to address is the extreme randomness of some of the scores. Losing to Graintfjall by a lot for an unranked team isn't at all surprising. An unranked team blowing out the second ranked team is something that seems like there's very little RL precedent for. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I'd let people with more sport-specific knowledge answer that one.

[Ko-oren]

Do you then limit the output of the scorinator to merely a final score rather than, say, a score and a specific number of overs?

Would this have a similar effect to a baseball scorinator spitting out just a final score (like 2-1, 5-4 in 11 innings, etc.) as opposed to a line score with runs by inning?

Experience has shown that you can be very creative in baseball whether you stick strictly with the scorinator-provided line scores or you do your own.

About the only thing I could see as a concern that I'd want to address is the extreme randomness of some of the scores. Losing to Graintfjall by a lot for an unranked team isn't at all surprising. An unranked team blowing out the second ranked team is something that seems like there's very little RL precedent for. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I'd let people with more sport-specific knowledge answer that one.

Breaking it down from my point of view:
the scorinator outputs three things in limited over cricket (ODI, T20). Overs, runs, and wickets. Runs are the big one: they decide a winner. So imo you can never change that. Overs are important for NRR calculations, so when that matters, you cannot decide to RP the overs differently - however, in knockouts, you could work with only the run score. Wickets are not super important in limited overs on the scorination and NRR side of things - except if a team goes all out (10 wickets falling), so you could say that you only include wicket information if a team goes all out.

As Plough later said, if you omit all those details that xkoranate gives you, you do make it harder for new folks to understand what's going on, and the freedom you get in what to RP might get too much, and it gets very difficult very fast when deciding on details with the other user.

I don't see the randomness as a huge problem (but it could be me). Bad scores in cricket tend to look much, much worse than they are, as often only the win/loss matters - but you get these large run differences that make it look worse. There are RL precedents for surprise upsets. There are many RL precedents for a team completely collapsing for a very low total.

[Gruenberg]

Say you're chasing 250.

Scoring 251/8 off 33 overs is, in terms of NRR, a very high margin of victory. Scoring 251/3 off 45 overs is a much lower one. But we know the latter score actually represents a much more comprehensive victory and is more realistic.

Similarly, 150/4 off 50 overs and 150 all out represent the same net run rate loss. But 150/4 off 50 chasing 250 is a stupid and unrealistic score whereas 150 all out is eminently possible.

Because of this, I am generally in favour of changes that allow people to opt more for more realistic scores so long as in doing so they gain no advantage in NRR terms. If I had a chose, I would elect in my semifinal defeat to have been bowled out rather than lose with inexplicable caution.

From what I can tell of the code, the meanRunRate and meanWicketRate are treated as completely independent variables, which is where the problem arises.

[The Sarian]

Sorry if this is a bit rambly, I’m writing this for a second time on a train after pressing send just as I entered a tunnel the last time..

Personally, I would be in favour of removing wickets from the scores - with the exception of all outs - an interim measure. It’s not a perfect solution but we’re in a situation where there is no good answers at the moment.

I do understand the concerns expressed (especially regarding newcomers who don’t really know cricket) but we’re currently in a situation where we’re having bowlers consistently defending totals of 350 with economy rates of 3 while taking no wickets and batters chasing 180 striking at 180 while wickets tumble around them. To piggyback off of the football example, the odd 8-2 result isn’t a problem but if every result was a ten goal thriller then I think the community would step in and do something because you just aren’t really realistically RPing the sport anymore. As they don’t actually impact the overall result in white ball cricket, it’s not like it is unkeeping to leave them up to RPers - for good or ill as we would other aspects of a RP.

Of course, we don’t have to come up with a consensus (though it would be nice) but we could agree to leave it to individual hosts to decide - allowing users to vote on the system they’d prefer in each instance.

All this comes with the proviso that I think just creating a better white ball scorinator must be a priority - do we have a roadmap as a community on how this can happen in as short a time as possible?

[The Sarian]

Do you then limit the output of the scorinator to merely a final score rather than, say, a score and a specific number of overs?

Would this have a similar effect to a baseball scorinator spitting out just a final score (like 2-1, 5-4 in 11 innings, etc.) as opposed to a line score with runs by inning?

Experience has shown that you can be very creative in baseball whether you stick strictly with the scorinator-provided line scores or you do your own.

About the only thing I could see as a concern that I'd want to address is the extreme randomness of some of the scores. Losing to Graintfjall by a lot for an unranked team isn't at all surprising. An unranked team blowing out the second ranked team is something that seems like there's very little RL precedent for. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I'd let people with more sport-specific knowledge answer that one.

Sorry to double post but I missed this last point about randomness. It’s not really easy to make a RL comparison just because cricket is such a closed sport that you would never really have a comparative match. Ireland, the eleventh ranked ODI side in the world, has nineteen professional cricket players and you don’t have go far below that before you’re having international teams made up entirely out of semi professionals or amateurs. But, if such as result were to happen it probably would be by teams being bowled out stupidly (see, for example, England’s first innings in the 2019 test against Ireland).

I do think the scorinator is perhaps a little too random in comparison to some other sports on this forum - I once procrastinated by doing a 32 team World Cup and got a few too many shock wins by associate nations for my liking - but not in a way that would be especially remarkable if we weren’t discussing the scorinator otherwise.

[Rundel]

Speaking only for myself, I would prefer "have the scorinator (or hosts) remove wickets from posted results" to "allow users to handwave results they feel are unrealistic"--I think the latter is likely to create a higher barrier of entry for newcomers if we're constantly second-guessing "is this realistic enough"? It's one thing to model a roster after other examples in the thread even if I'm not an expert myself; I would feel more uneasy trying to decide whether a newly-generated result is ICly appropriate.

[The Plough Islands]

I still can't support the idea of providing incomplete scores unfortunately - if this is going to be adopted in tournaments going forward, will I be able to request the full scorinator output, with overs and wickets, be provided for my matches at least?

[The Licentian Isles]

While I'm less involved with cricket than I have been in the past, I very much recognise this problem: it's similar to the one that's arisen with the Xkoranate golf paradigm. For context for those who weren't aware, golf in the Olympics has been broken for a little while, with the men's gold medallist at the last games scoring 14 over par across the four rounds, which is wildly unrealistic. Myself and Osarius collaborated to try and find a solution to this: Os had the knowledge of coding and the Xkoranate paradigms, I had at least a working knowledge of golf and what the results should look like. While the current Olympics is running on a different adaptation (at least to my understanding), I guess my point is that it's possible for those knowledgeable about cricket but not Xkoranate to work closely with someone knowledgeable about Xkoranate but not cricket, in order to develop a new paradigm: you don't have to rely on a single person knowing the details on both.

I'm not going to pretend that I know enough about cricket or Xkoranate to be involved in such a project, but given the doubts that some seem to have about the interim solutions proposed, I think it could be something worth considering.

[Liventia]

A while ago Apox and I looked into the possibility of re-writing RedBaller, the Test scorinator, for white-ball cricket. That may be easier to do than re-writing a xkoranate paradigm.