To test this feature, visit your live site.

Part Overs Not Imported for Historical Data

Hi Mark,

I've just imported the first batch of historical data and notice that part overs have been excluded. (e.g. 14 overs imported instead of 14.4). The balls bowled is correct, 88 for 14.4 overs. Is this deliberate or a bug?

And is there a list showing which reports use historical data?

Thanks,

Ian

3 comments

Comments (3)

Commenting has been turned off.

Mark

Jul 12

Hi Ian,

I had a look at the database entries and the part overs are indeed being correctly imported for your history entries.

It is possibly a display thing only. What page are you looking at where you are not seeing part overs? If it is the player pages or the complete summary report then, yes, part overs on aggregate totals are not displayed these reports for anyone - regardless of whether it is history or match data.

Did you try going back and edit the history entry to see if the part overs are show? (they should be - yell out if they aren't)

And I don't have a definitive list for which reports do and don't use historical data unfortunately. However, the general rule is that if it makes sense then history is included, if it doesn't make sense (ie. there aren't the fields in the historical data to support it) then it is excluded.

For example: The top captains report - doesn't use historical data since there is no way to capture if someone was a captain or not in the historical data. The top matches by player report - does include historical data since you can enter the number of matches played in the history.

Edited

Mark

Jul 13

Best Answer

Replying to

The reason for not including part-overs for aggregated over totals is entirely because of the 8-ball over (and other non-6 ball over) variants of the game and the complexity that it adds for adding overs accurately.

An example - if we have a person that has bowled both 8 ball overs and 6 ball overs in their bowling career then what does the sum of the total overs look like?

I will simplify the example even more - if they bowled 1.7 overs of an 8 ball over match and they bowled 1.5 overs of a six ball match. What does their total overs add up to be? The only thing you could say for certain is that it is somewhere between 3 and 4 overs. You could convert it all to decimals and give a decimal answer (which is in fact how the system sums them up in the background) but then do you convert the part-overs back based on 6 ball overs or 8 ball overs? And if you picked one or the other there would be someone that disagrees. If you left it as a decimal then no one would understand why some totals have a .8 or .9 at the end.

The solution that I settled on was to convert all overs to decimals, add them together and then truncate the sum result to just show "whole" overs bowled.

These reports also show the actual number of balls bowled so if anyone was really cut up about not seeing the part-overs then they can use the balls bowled figure with absolute certainty.

This is what Cricket Statz does (and other systems do the same thing for the very same reason). I hope that explains it well enough.

PS - if you think that this is only a problem for matches played in the "old days" then it isn't - just look at the 100 Ball limited over variant currently being played in England where there are 5 ball overs...

Edited