Sachin Tendulkar better than Don Bradman, new study shows

[Spikey]

Well, yeah. Look at his batting graph:

HowSTAT! Player Batting Graph

He is flatlining around 100. There is no sign of decline. Add to that the fact he averaged a similar amount over a huge amount of FC matches, and it should put to rest any doubts concerning whether he could maintain that level of play.

ftr very brief study shows that run of 12 centuries without being dismissed in the 50-99 area is double the next best (Waugh with 6)

 

[Ruckus]

Starting early this is a joke right? He was test class and so he started. If he started at 18 he'd still have the most runs but not by as much. Secondly his average would jump to 59+ over 20 odd years. Starting early hurts his average quite a bit.

That's actually a pretty good point. While him starting early does obviously help his run aggregate, it also probably detracts from his average. Never really thought about that...

 

[Hurricane]

ftr very brief study shows that run of 12 centuries without being dismissed in the 50-99 area is double the next best (Waugh with 6)

What does this mean - 12 centuries in the 50-99 area?

 

[Burgey]

In the litany of **** posted on cw ever, this is the greatest pile of steaming excrement.

 

[Jayzamann]

Thread on ICF on same topic - Sachin Tendulkar better than Sir Don Bradman - Indian Cricket Fans

I don't know why, but I have started posting there.

Indian Cricket Fans - View Single Post - Sachin Tendulkar better than Sir Don Bradman

I liked you before, but now...

 

[Ruckus]

haha a funny comment of a news site:

"By means of Economic Theory! Of course, Don Bradman never made as much money per run as Sachin Tendulkar!"

 

[zaremba]

What a complete and utter bunch of arse.

 

[ganeshran]

i dont understand why 80 innings isn't a large enough sample size to take all that into account. we're told 30 is good enough to approximate a normal distribution...?

edit: and that's by the central limit theorem irrespective of whether the original pool of data is normally distributed.

Because you are using his run tally at 80 innings to predict his run tally at 180 innings with the implicit assumption that the average remains constant. This is not necessarily true. Ponting's average touched 60 at one point before declining. Hussey's average was in the 80s at one point and 64 during his 30th innings.

P.S: This is not a point in the SRT vs Bradman debate. I would say the same thing for extrapolation of aggregates for any batsman.

 

[Ruckus]

Are you aware of his FC average?

 

[Spark]

my knowledge of stats is pretty poor and only goes as far as what i need to know, but iirc the clt wouldn't apply here because something like "how many runs you score in a given innings" isn't that random or independent?

 

[ankitj]

Because you are using his run tally at 80 innings to predict his run tally at 180 innings with the implicit assumption that the average remains constant. This is not necessarily true. Ponting's average touched 60 at one point before declining. Hussey's average was in the 80s at one point and 64 during his 30th innings.

P.S: This is not a point in the SRT vs Bradman debate. I would say the same thing for extrapolation of aggregates for any batsman.

Even if Bradman averaged 20 for another 100 innings, he would average 55.

 

[Spark]

Are you aware of his FC average?

think that's slightly beside the point - if you're gonna say that he'll average 95-100 over 180 test innings based on his fc average, that's fine, but it's a whole other thing to say the same thing based on an average of 95-100 over 80 innings.

 

[ganeshran]

Even if Bradman averaged 20 for another 100 innings, he would average 55.

I already said that my point was not specific to Bradman.

 

[ankitj]

my knowledge of stats is pretty poor and only goes as far as what i need to know, but iirc the clt wouldn't apply here because something like "how many runs you score in a given innings" isn't that random or independent?

Why isn't runs scored in an innings independent or random? Fair to say that for a given batsman there is a true mean and true standard deviations. And for a sufficient sample, the sample average will be normally distributed irrespective of any thing because the CLT bitch always holds true.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The point for mine is that he averaged 100 over that long a period of time, it's different to playing 80 innings over 5 years and extrapolating that over 15-20 years, but he was playing regular cricket throughout the period, aside from the war, and managed to uphold it. Unless he had all his form slumps while he was playing FC cricket... oh wait, he averages 100 there too.

 

[Spark]

Why isn't runs scored in an innings independent or random? Fair to say that for a given batsman there is a true mean and true standard deviations. And for a sufficient sample, the sample average will be normally distributed irrespective of any thing because the CLT bitch always holds true.

just ignore me. my knowledge of stats theory is rubbish.

 

[zaremba]

The point for mine is that he averaged 100 over that long a period of time, it's different to playing 80 innings over 5 years and extrapolating that over 15-20 years, but he was playing regular cricket throughout the period, aside from the war, and managed to uphold it. Unless he had all his form slumps while he was playing FC cricket... oh wait, he averages 100 there too.

Quite.

 

[ganeshran]

Ankit what is the cut off on the sufficient size of the sample for CLT to apply.

 

[Dan]

Because you are using his run tally at 80 innings to predict his run tally at 180 innings with the implicit assumption that the average remains constant. This is not necessarily true. Ponting's average touched 60 at one point before declining. Hussey's average was in the 80s at one point and 64 during his 30th innings.

P.S: This is not a point in the SRT vs Bradman debate. I would say the same thing for extrapolation of aggregates for any batsman.

FFS, he averaged 99.94 over a period of 20 years. His form didn't drop over 2 decades (apart from Bodyline I guess, but that's a completely different story.)

Tendulkar has averaged what, 56 (?) over 20 years.

Regardless of the number of innings, Bradman maintained his average over the same period of time as Tendulkar. 99.94 over 20 years (even if it was only 80 innings) >>> Tendulkar's average over 20 years.

Tendulkar is an incredible batsman though, head and shoulders above his contemporaries IMO.

The thing is, do we rate time-longevity or innings-longevity?

 

[ankitj]

I already said that my point was not specific to Bradman.

Yeah, but when the difference in averages (i.e. estimated means, let's say) is so large, uncertainty due to smaller sample will do little to challenge the conclusion that Bradman's true average is better than Tendulkar's. It might be harder to do that with respect to Graeme Pollock vis-a-vis Tendulkar may be. Also, 80 is a fairly large sample. There is a diminishing marginal benefit on sample sizes too.