This paper aims to identify and prioritize the top-performing U13 batters and bowlers in cricket by leveraging advanced data science techniques on comprehensive match data collected through web scraping. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is used to achieve dimensionality reduction, simplifying the dataset while preserving important features. Next, the players are analyzed using clustering algorithms, which help form clusters of players with similar characteristics. These clusters then serve as the foundation for a classification model to determine the relative importance of different features in player rankings. Opponent strength variability is addressed by establishing an AHP framework. This framework uses clusters generated via K-means clustering as a measure of opponent quality, thereby introducing opponent strength into the rating system for a more nuanced comparison of player performances. Two models are compared: clustering-based classification and AHP-based ratings.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Cracking the Cricket Code: ML and AHP for Opponent-Strength-Based Player Rankings

  • Dheeraj Gudi

摘要

This paper aims to identify and prioritize the top-performing U13 batters and bowlers in cricket by leveraging advanced data science techniques on comprehensive match data collected through web scraping. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is used to achieve dimensionality reduction, simplifying the dataset while preserving important features. Next, the players are analyzed using clustering algorithms, which help form clusters of players with similar characteristics. These clusters then serve as the foundation for a classification model to determine the relative importance of different features in player rankings. Opponent strength variability is addressed by establishing an AHP framework. This framework uses clusters generated via K-means clustering as a measure of opponent quality, thereby introducing opponent strength into the rating system for a more nuanced comparison of player performances. Two models are compared: clustering-based classification and AHP-based ratings.