๐Ÿ  Home ๐Ÿ Teams ๐Ÿ† Rankings ๐Ÿ” Artifacts ๐Ÿ”ฌ Analysis ๐Ÿ“š Research ๐ŸŽฌ The Film Room ๐ŸŒน About ๐Ÿ“ก The Boardroom
๐ŸŽฏ

SUPER SELECTOR Algorithm

Statistical Unified Player Evaluation and Ranking SELECTOR

Our predicted XI algorithm combines multiple data sources to generate optimal team compositions:

Scoring Components

  • Base Classification (0-30 pts) - Role-based scoring for position fit
  • Performance Tags - Phase-specific tags (PP_ELITE, DEATH_SPECIALIST, etc.)
  • Derived Metrics - boundary%, consistency_index, death_dot_pct
  • Price Tier Bonus (5-15%) - Investment level consideration
  • Variety Optimization - LHB/RHB balance, spin/pace mix

Hard Constraints

  • C1: Captain cannot be Impact Player
  • C2: Maximum 4 overseas players
  • C3: Minimum 20 overs bowling coverage
  • C4: At least 1 wicketkeeper
  • C5: At least 1 spinner
๐Ÿˆ

PFF-Inspired Grading

Process over outcome evaluation from Pro Football Focus

Pro Football Focus revolutionized NFL analytics by grading every play. We adapt their methodology:

Key Concepts

  • Ball-by-Ball Grading - Evaluate each delivery on a -2 to +2 scale
  • Process Over Outcome - Good decisions that fail still get positive grades
  • Context Adjustments - Situation, opposition, and conditions matter
  • WAR (Wins Above Replacement) - Aggregate value metric

Cricket Applications

  • P0 Batter grading vs bowling type and phase
  • P0 Bowler grading by delivery outcome quality
  • P1 Fielding impact assessment
  • P2 Captain decision grading
๐Ÿ“„ View Full PFF Research Document
๐Ÿ€

KenPom Efficiency Metrics

Tempo-free statistics from college basketball analytics

Ken Pomeroy's basketball ratings remove pace from the equation. We apply similar concepts:

Key Concepts

  • Adjusted Efficiency - Opponent-normalized performance
  • Tempo-Free Stats - Per-possession (or per-ball) metrics
  • Four Factors - Decompose performance into components
  • Strength of Schedule - Quality of opposition faced

Cricket Applications

  • P0 Four Factors: Boundary%, Dot Ball%, Extras, Bowling Changes
  • P0 Venue Park Factors: Adjust for pitch and ground size
  • P1 Opposition Strength Index: Weight by opponent quality
  • P1 Adjusted Strike Rate: SR normalized by context
๐Ÿ“„ View Full KenPom Research Document
๐ŸŽจ

Player Clustering (K-Means V2)

Archetype-based player classification

We use K-means clustering to identify natural player archetypes:

Batter Archetypes

  • EXPLOSIVE_OPENER - High SR, PP aggression, boundary-heavy
  • PLAYMAKER - Consistent scoring, adaptable approach
  • ANCHOR - Low dot%, innings builder, lower SR
  • MIDDLE_ORDER - Middle overs specialist, rotation focus
  • FINISHER - Death overs specialist, high SR at end

Bowler Archetypes

  • WORKHORSE - Consistent economy, regular overs
  • NEW_BALL_SPECIALIST - PP wickets, swing/seam
  • DEATH_SPECIALIST - Low death economy, yorker execution
  • WICKET_TAKER - High wickets, aggressive approach
๐Ÿ“„ View Creative Archetype Descriptions
๐Ÿ“Š

CricPom: Novel Composite Metrics

KenPom-for-Cricket adjusted rating system

CricPom adapts college basketball's KenPom methodology to T20 cricket, producing opponent-adjusted, venue-neutral player ratings that account for tournament quality and conditions similarity.

Core Adjusted Metrics

  • AdjBRR (Adjusted Batting Run Rate) โ€” Batting run rate adjusted for bowling quality faced, venue park factor, and match context. Formula: raw_RR ร— (league_avg_bowling / opponent_bowling_quality) ร— venue_factor
  • AdjBE (Adjusted Bowling Economy) โ€” Economy rate adjusted for batting quality faced and venue. Lower is better. raw_econ ร— (league_avg_batting / opponent_batting_quality) ร— venue_factor
  • CEM (Composite Efficiency Metric) โ€” All-rounder evaluation combining AdjBRR and AdjBE into a single efficiency score. CEM = wโ‚ยทAdjBRR_percentile + wโ‚‚ยท(1 - AdjBE_percentile)
  • OSI (Opponent Strength Index) โ€” Weighted average quality of opponents faced, used as the adjustment denominator in all CricPom ratings

5-Factor Tournament Quality Engine

CricPom consumes the Tournament Quality Weighting system (see below) to weight data from 426 T20 tournaments. Each tournament's data receives a composite weight computed as:

W = โˆ(fแตข^wแตข)^(1/ฮฃwแตข) โ€” geometric mean of 5 factors

  • PQI (25%) โ€” Player Quality Index: average career quality of participants
  • Competitiveness (20%) โ€” Match balance and outcome distributions
  • Recency (20%) โ€” Exponential decay favoring recent data
  • Conditions Similarity (15%) โ€” How closely conditions match IPL 2023-2025
  • Sample Confidence (20%) โ€” Statistical reliability from match volume

How It Differs from Raw Stats

Aspect Raw Stats CricPom Adjusted
Opposition qualityIgnoredOSI-adjusted
Venue effectsIgnoredPark factor adjusted
Tournament relevanceAll equal5-factor weighted
RecencyAll equalExponential decay
All-rounder evaluationSeparate batting/bowlingUnified CEM score

Status: Tournament weights computed (TKT-187). CricPom foundation metrics (AdjBRR, AdjBE, CEM) implemented (TKT-190). Groundwork research complete.

๐Ÿ“„ View KenPom Research Foundation
โš–๏ธ

Tournament Quality Weighting

Jose Mourinho's 5-Factor Composite Weight System

Not all T20 data is equal. Our weighting system quantifies tournament quality across 426 tournaments and 9,357 matches:

5-Factor Composite Weight

  • Player Quality Index (PQI) - Average career quality of tournament participants
  • Competitiveness Index (CI) - Match outcome balance, margin distributions
  • Recency Decay - Exponential decay weighting recent tournaments higher
  • Conditions Similarity - How closely tournament conditions match IPL 2023-2025 (Founder Decision #6)
  • Sample Size Confidence - Statistical reliability based on matches played

IPL 2023+ Baseline (Founder-Locked)

All conditions comparisons use IPL 2023-2025 as the baseline, not all-time IPL averages. The data shows the 2021-22 to 2023-25 transition produced the largest single jump in IPL history: Run Rate +1.00, Boundary% +3.2, Six% +1.65. Using the all-time average (RR 7.86) would dilute comparisons against a fundamentally different era than the modern IPL (RR 8.98).

Tournament Tiers (Provisional)

  • Tier 1A IPL - Baseline (1.0x weight)
  • Tier 1B PSL, SA20, The Hundred, MLC, BBL, CPL - Major franchise leagues (0.70-0.85)
  • Tier 1C ILT20, LPL, Super Smash, Vitality Blast - Established leagues, lower overlap (0.50-0.70)
  • Tier 2 T20 World Cup, Asia Cup - High-quality international (0.60-0.80)
  • Tier 3 SMAT - Domestic Indian T20 (0.40-0.50)

Status: Plan approved by Founder. IPL 2023+ baseline locked. Implementation via TKT-183 (8-12 days).

๐Ÿ“„ View Full Tournament Weighting Plan
๐Ÿ”ฌ

Dual-Scope Analytics Framework

All-Time vs Since-2023 view architecture (TKT-181)

Every analytical view now exists in two scopes to balance historical context with current-form accuracy:

Architecture

  • _alltime views - Full IPL history (2008-2025, ~1,169 matches). Used for career records, historical comparisons
  • _since2023 views - Current analytical window (2023-2025, ~219 matches). Used for all predictive outputs, tags, archetypes
  • 80 dual-scope views - 40 pairs covering batting, bowling, phase, venue, matchup, and Film Room tactical analysis

Why 2023+? The Data Evidence (Founder-Approved)

DuckDB analysis of 1,169 IPL matches reveals a structural break at 2023 โ€” the largest single-era shift in IPL history:

Era Matches Run Rate Boundary% Six% Dot%
2008-20123227.6015.24.0436.1
2013-20173147.9016.14.6334.8
2018-20201808.1716.95.5533.8
2021-20221347.9816.55.4135.2
2023-20252198.9819.77.0631.6

2023+ vs 2008-2022 deltas: Run Rate +14.2%, Boundary% +23.1%, Six-hitting +49.6%, Dot Ball% -10.0%

What Caused the Break

  • Impact Player rule (2023) โ€” 12 effective players per side, inflating batting depth and scoring rates
  • 2022 mega auction reset โ€” team compositions fundamentally reshuffled, pre-2023 team context obsolete
  • Evolved batting intent โ€” six-hitting up 49.6%, batters attacking from ball one in the modern IPL
  • 219 matches provides sufficient sample for statistical reliability across all analytical views
๐Ÿ“„ View TKT-181 Review Document
๐ŸŽฏ

Insight Confidence Framework

Editorial confidence scoring for analytical insights (TKT-094)

Every insight published in the magazine needs a confidence assessment. This framework scores each analytical claim on a 0-100 scale with letter grades:

Scoring Breakdown

  • Sample Size (40%) โ€” Capped at 300 balls/innings. HIGH (โ‰ฅ300), MEDIUM (โ‰ฅ100), LOW (<100)
  • Consistency (25%) โ€” Metric stability across sub-samples (first half vs second half of career)
  • Recency (20%) โ€” How recent the underlying data is (1.0 = all 2025, 0.5 = mix)
  • Cross-Validation (15%) โ€” Does the insight hold across conditions (home/away, bat/field)?

Grade Boundaries

  • A (โ‰ฅ85) Publish with confidence
  • B (โ‰ฅ70) Publish with minor caveats
  • C (โ‰ฅ55) Add sample size caveat and limitations
  • D (<55) Do not publish as standalone insight

Status: Framework implemented. Bridges with existing Confidence Intervals (TKT-145). Used editorially for all stat pack claims.

๐Ÿ“Š

Data Foundation

Ball-by-ball analysis from Cricsheet

Data Sources

  • Cricsheet Ball-by-Ball - 219 IPL matches (2023-2025)
  • IPL 2026 Auction Data - Squad compositions and prices
  • Historical Records - Team vs team, venue performance

Derived Metrics (115+ Views)

  • 80 dual-scope views (_alltime + _since2023 pairs)
  • Batter consistency index, boundary percentage, dot ball percentage
  • Partnership synergy scores, pressure sequences
  • Phase-specific performance (PP, middle, death)
  • Bowling type matchups, handedness analysis
  • 13 Film Room tactical views (entry points, wicket clusters, bowling changes)

Validation

  • Every insight reviewed by cricket domain expert (Andy Flower)
  • 8-step Task Integrity Loop via Mission Control
  • Founder sign-off on all key outputs