Explaining Bradman - Baseball, Biology, Darwin, and Dinosaurs.

[sledger]

This is such a Watson thread.

 

[StephenZA]

There were many cricketers who were professionals in Bradman's day and that factor did not make them better players. Talent is still the most important factor. More people playing a game doesn't always translate into higher quality teams. The WI have been a brilliant cricket nation with a population of around 5 million to pick from. Even now while they are a poor test side they are exceptionally good at ltd over formats.

Yes there were professional players, but when compared to the current era (for example) their numbers were far less numerous, both percentage wise and purely by number. And the more professional players were better than they otherwise would have been, but not necessarily always better players than the more talented players they played with. My point is that compared to his contemporaries Bradman was both highly talented and professional.

More people playing does not always translate into a better team, there are many factors, I mentioned as much. However a larger player base gives a much higher chance of getting a better team and there being those highly talented individuals.

As I said, IMO I do not think that Bradman is twice as talented as the rest of the pack (as statistics would indicate), but I do think that Bradman is the greatest batsmen of all time.

 

[the big bambino]

Bradman was not a professional. His attitude to the game might appear professional but his analytical ability was down more so to his exceptional intelligence. You would think having more people playing would give you a higher chance of talented individuals but its more likely to give you a greater number of ordinary players. Filling all 11 places in a test side with quality test class players is still as elusive now as it has been despite the greater number of players; and having more than 2 stand out teams at anyone time is unusual. Though at present there are.

 

[watson]

I looked at the ICC ratings along these lines in this piece:-

A Measure of Greatness | Cricket Web

Through Test cricket history only Bradman and Hutton rated higher than Hobbs, while in Hobbs time the 5th player rates the same as the 20th player now (or at least at the time of the article).

Actually I mentioned this theory of Gould's in the feature.

The following quote from your article is so cool CTD.

The graph shown above illustrates the increasing levels of overall quality over time, what evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould noted as the “shrinking variation” between the best and worst players (Gould was discussing baseball, but the same process applies in cricket). It’s a little less obvious looking at the number one spot, mainly thanks to Hobbs and Bradman, however if we observe the trend for numbers 5, 10 and 20 we can observe a) the gradual increase over time and b) the gradually reducing differential between each position. - See more at: A Measure of Greatness | Cricket Web

Also, the ICC Ratings list that you show obviously has Bradman at No.1, but not by much. The difference between No.1 and No.10 is just 26 points.

961 Don Bradman (Aus) 945 Len Hutton (Eng) 942 Jack Hobbs (Eng) 942 Ricky Ponting (Aus) 941 Peter May (Eng) 938 Garry Sobers (WI) 938 Viv Richards (WI) 938 Clyde Walcott (WI) 938 Kumar Sangakkara (SL) 935 Matthew Hayden (Aus)

 

[StephenZA]

Bradman was not a professional. His attitude to the game might appear professional but his analytical ability was down more so to his exceptional intelligence. You would think having more people playing would give you a higher chance of talented individuals but its more likely to give you a greater number of ordinary players. Filling all 11 places in a test side with quality test class players is still as elusive now as it has been despite the greater number of players; and having more than 2 stand out teams at anyone time is unusual. Though at present there are.

He was not a professional in terms of modern standards and definition. However there are few players who would spend time using a cricket stump to hit a golf ball to improve reflexes. This shows a mindset and dedication that was (and even now) is not the norm. Using his intelligence and analytical ability to continuously improve and refine his game is a form of professionalism. My understanding was that he practically lived and breathed cricket most of his life and dedicated a great deal of time to cricket even after he stopped playing.

As for the number of players, yes you will always get more ordinary players than great. But it is easier to make a team of great players from a large pool than a small pool. Conversely, it is more difficult to make a team of great players from a small pool than a big pool of players... but this is tangential.

I still feel the points I made stand. This in no-way takes away from the great player he was, and the greatest batsmen of cricket he is. But it does possibly explain the vast difference statistically from himself and the rest of the greats. If you want to feel he is that far ahead of everyone else, I can`t prove otherwise; I can just give you my thought process of why I think his stats are so far above everyone else`s.

 

[chasingthedon]

The following quote from your article is so cool CTD.



Also, the ICC Ratings list that you show obviously has Bradman at No.1, but not by much. The difference between No.1 and No.10 is just 26 points.

True, but the gap between Bradman and Hutton in second is larger than the gap between Hutton in second and Mohammad Yousuf in 14th (current list).

 

[watson]

True, but the gap between Bradman and Hutton in second is larger than the gap between Hutton in second and Mohammad Yousuf in 14th (current list).

That's an interesting observation.

Because the 'gap' is 16 points it would therefore follow that;

Bradman (961) is to Hutton (945) as Hutton (945) is to Yousef (933), or as Hutton (945) is to Pollock (929).

Can't say that the analogy is perfect, but it's certainly a nice concept, and probably more appropriate than saying something like 'about twice as good as Hutton'.

After all, Bradman never had to face Lindwall and Miller in the Test arena for most of his career. That has to be some kind of major handycap if you are Hutton.

 

[chasingthedon]

That's an interesting observation.

Because the 'gap' is 16 points it would therefore follow that;

Bradman (961) is to Hutton (945) as Hutton (945) is to Yousef (933), or as Hutton (945) is to Pollock (929).

Can't say that the analogy is perfect, but it's certainly a nice concept, and probably more appropriate than saying something like 'about twice as good as Hutton'.

After all, Bradman never had to face Lindwall and Miller in the Test arena for most of his career. That has to be some kind of major handycap if you are Hutton.

Also the ICC ratings are solely based on the scorecard, no account is taken of conditions or opponents faced.

 

[watson]

Also the ICC ratings are solely based on the scorecard, no account is taken of conditions or opponents faced.

Apparently there is still some attempt to estimate the difficulty in scoring runs.

Who decides how good the pitch is?

Nobody does. There is a common misconception that there is an expert panel that sits down to assess the pitch in each match. In fact, all the Ratings calculations are based purely on the information in the scorecard (as you would find published in a newspaper). If both teams score 500 in each innings, the computer rates this as a high-scoring match in which run-making was relatively easy, and therefore downgrades the value of runs scored. If both teams score 150, this indicates that runs were at a premium and a player gets greater credit for scoring well in this game.

http://www.icc-cricket.com/player-rankings/faqs

 

[Coronis]

The difference is, whilst other batsmen have hit similar highs to Bradman, he was at that level consistently for his whole 20 year career.

 

[Howe_zat]

The difference is, whilst other batsmen have hit similar highs to Bradman, he was at that level consistently for his whole 20 year career.

Well, quite. Averaging 90+ over a year or so happens all the time. That's not what made Bradman special. Seems kinda obvious but here we are

 

[Howe_zat]

Quite annoyed that Watson put a bunch of unrelated key words in the title to make me think I should read the thread

 

[Spikey]

i too can explain bradman. he was insanely, illogical superior to everyone else ever. the end.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

If Bradman's so great how come he's dead.

 

[the big bambino]

Well, quite. Averaging 90+ over a year or so happens all the time. That's not what made Bradman special. Seems kinda obvious but here we are

Indeed. We have a batsman who averaged twice as much as other greats and we seem to find any unrelated crap, from labyrinthine impact stats, retrospective rankings and now Gould implying China will need another hundred years and billion people before they win the soccer world cup to explain away the obvious.

 

[watson]

Quite annoyed that Watson put a bunch of unrelated key words in the title to make me think I should read the thread

They're related to the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and his idea of 'Shrinking Variation' - as outlined in the video in the OP.

The thread is probably worth reading not for what I've written but for what CTD wrote. His essay ('A Measure of Greatness') is really very good.

 

[Victor Ian]

I'm not sure how we draw a similar comparison between Bradman and all those Baseball 'hacks'. I don't disagree with the idea that the variation has diminished. Rather, I am not swayed that we are looking at two similar sets. In one set - baseball - you have a repetitive number (.400) occurring in the age of smaller samples that has since become rare. In the other - cricket - you have one stark anomaly - and then the repetitive number - > 55 - that occurred about as frequently, was about the same margin greater than average, and then became incredibly rare. Perhaps Bradman would not average 99.96. More likely, using this idea, he would average 80-90.

 

[chasingthedon]

Indeed. We have a batsman who averaged twice as much as other greats and we seem to find any unrelated crap, from labyrinthine impact stats, retrospective rankings and now Gould implying China will need another hundred years and billion people before they win the soccer world cup to explain away the obvious.

As regards my specific unrelated crap, I did say that Bradman shows as the best batsman.

 

[the big bambino]

Did you define quality teams as having an ICC rating of 100? How does a team achieve that rating?

 

[chasingthedon]

Did you define quality teams as having an ICC rating of 100? How does a team achieve that rating?

The ICC Test team ratings have been around since 2003 - I derived them back to 1877 using the algorithm given in their FAQ (at least it used be there).