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

[the big bambino]

Ok thanks I think its important in assessing quality of opponents if it is based on win/matches ratio.

Also, if I get the gist of the OP's point, I think it is applicable in explaining averages trends but, as others have mentioned here, I'd be careful to applying it to a freak performer.

 

[chasingthedon]

Ok thanks I think its important in assessing quality of opponents if it is based on win/matches ratio.

Also, if I get the gist of the OP's point, I think it is applicable in explaining averages trends but, as others have mentioned here, I'd be careful to applying it to a freak performer.

TBH I put more faith in the raw impact numbers - even though I came up with it and derived the correct ICC ratings, how these modify the raw numbers is still subjective at the end of the day.

 

[the big bambino]

I just had a look at S Rajesh's article and it would have been easier to follow if he illustrated his example a little better imo. My query would be the rating of SA. While I get that the ratings attempt to weight oppositions, SA sides up to readmission played almost exclusively against Aus and Eng. Depriving them of accumulating points against weaker, albeit weighted opponents. I'm speculating this factor would have some negative impact on their overall ratings.

 

[chasingthedon]

This is how I understand the ideas outlined in the video, and I am happy to be wrong.......

There is an absolute limit as to how good a batsman can be due to the constraints of human biomechanics, reflexes, eye sight, and depth of concentration. The greatest batsman from each era (for the sake of argument the 1920s onwards) are all very close to that absolute limit of excellence.

The reason that it is no longer possible to achieve an average that is twice as good as everyone else is because everyone else on the cricket field is better at playing cricket. Better batsman, better bowlers and better fielders. In other words, because everyone is closer to the absolute limit of cricketing excellence it makes it far more difficult for the likes of Sobers or Tendulkar to stand-out, to be a true statistical outlier.

The fallacy that Bradman is about twice as good as every other great batsman is a fallacy because it makes the false assumption that there is no absolute peak that batting can reach. Or if there is, then that peak can some how be moved. It cannot.

In real terms, Bradman, Sobers, Lara, and Tendulkar have all pushed the skill and art of batting to its absolute limits, and therefore to say that one is significantly better than the other doesn't make sense. To say that one great batsman is about twice as good as another great batsman appears rather silly.

I have a book which contains an interesting study along these lines. Between the Wickets, by Surjit Bhalla, includes modified averages based on all matches being normalised as if they were played at Lord's against a moderate attack (revised average over 50):-

82.90 Don Bradman (99.94)
62.40 George Headley (60.83)
60.25 Graeme Pollock (60.97)
58.76 Jack Hobbs (56.95)
55.76 Viv Richards (52.62)
54.33 Garry Sobers (57.78)
53.23 Everton Weekes (58.62)
52.64 Dudley Nourse (53.82)
52.24 Gordon Greenidge (48.32)
51.40 Aubrey Faulkner (40.79)
51.55 Greg Chappell (53.86)
51.40 Len Hutton (56.57)
50.82 Herbert Sutcliffe (60.73)
50.56 Allan Border (52.80)
50.55 Walter Hammond (58.46)
50.40 Ken Barrington (58.67)

The book was printed in 1987 so some players (Richards, Greenidge, Border) would play for more years and finish with a different average. Bradman's average drops significantly, but he's still 20 runs ahead of the next best.

The revised bowling averages were calculated along similar lines (revised average under 20):-

15.59 Harold Larwood (28.36)
16.13 Allan Davidson (20.53)
16.29 Clarrie Grimmett (24.22)
16.77 Bill O'Reilly (22.60)
17.02 Maurice Tate (26.16)
17.04 Neil Adcock (21.11)
17.68 Jim Laker (21.25)
18.16 Fred Trueman (21.58)
18.16 Hedley Verity (24.38)
19.06 Keith Miller (22.98)
19.28 Peter Pollock (24.19)
19.60 Alec Bedser (24.90)
19.65 David Allen (30.98)
19.91 Ray Lindwall (23.03)

Sydney Barnes goes from 16.43 to 25.94.

Somewhere, fredfertang is smiling...

 

[chasingthedon]

I just had a look at S Rajesh's article and it would have been easier to follow if he illustrated his example a little better imo. My query would be the rating of SA. While I get that the ratings attempt to weight oppositions, SA sides up to readmission played almost exclusively against Aus and Eng. Depriving them of accumulating points against weaker, albeit weighted opponents. I'm speculating this factor would have some negative impact on their overall ratings.

I looked through the thread but didn't see a link to this article - where can I find it?

 

[the big bambino]

I just googled a search term. Something like how does icc calculate team test ratings. Maybe if you throw Rajesh in you'll get it more readily.

 

[the big bambino]

Btw those bowling and batting averages are a bit of a lol. No pun intended. (Well yeah it was). Headley's adjusted batting ave is counter intuitive too.

 

[chasingthedon]

I just googled a search term. Something like how does icc calculate team test ratings. Maybe if you throw Rajesh in you'll get it more readily.

I see - I explained it here

Series Points ? A New Way of Ranking Test Players | Cricket Web

With a better example.

 

[the big bambino]

Bit of x promotion there.

 

[chasingthedon]

Bit of x promotion there.

Sorry if that example also wasn't helpful

 

[Red]

I have a book which contains an interesting study along these lines. Between the Wickets, by Surjit Bhalla, includes modified averages based on all matches being normalised as if they were played at Lord's against a moderate attack (revised average over 50):-

82.90 Don Bradman (99.94)
62.40 George Headley (60.83)
60.25 Graeme Pollock (60.97)
58.76 Jack Hobbs (56.95)
55.76 Viv Richards (52.62)
54.33 Garry Sobers (57.78)
53.23 Everton Weekes (58.62)
52.64 Dudley Nourse (53.82)
52.24 Gordon Greenidge (48.32)
51.40 Aubrey Faulkner (40.79)
51.55 Greg Chappell (53.86)
51.40 Len Hutton (56.57)
50.82 Herbert Sutcliffe (60.73)
50.56 Allan Border (52.80)
50.55 Walter Hammond (58.46)
50.40 Ken Barrington (58.67)

The book was printed in 1987 so some players (Richards, Greenidge, Border) would play for more years and finish with a different average. Bradman's average drops significantly, but he's still 20 runs ahead of the next best.

The revised bowling averages were calculated along similar lines (revised average under 20):-

15.59 Harold Larwood (28.36)
16.13 Allan Davidson (20.53)
16.29 Clarrie Grimmett (24.22)
16.77 Bill O'Reilly (22.60)
17.02 Maurice Tate (26.16)
17.04 Neil Adcock (21.11)
17.68 Jim Laker (21.25)
18.16 Fred Trueman (21.58)
18.16 Hedley Verity (24.38)
19.06 Keith Miller (22.98)
19.28 Peter Pollock (24.19)
19.60 Alec Bedser (24.90)
19.65 David Allen (30.98)
19.91 Ray Lindwall (23.03)

Sydney Barnes goes from 16.43 to 25.94.

Somewhere, fredfertang is smiling...

How does Larwood's adjusted average drop by 13 points while Lindwall and Miller's only drop by 3-ish? Totally don't get these adjusted averages everyone claims to have a method for.

And if Larwood's is adjusted so dramatically, shouldn't Bill Voce be considered better seeing as his average was better than Larwood's playing for the same team in the same era?

 

[chasingthedon]

How does Larwood's adjusted average drop by 13 points while Lindwall and Miller's only drop by 3-ish? Totally don't get these adjusted averages everyone claims to have a method for.

And if Larwood's is adjusted so dramatically, shouldn't Bill Voce be considered better seeing as his average was better than Larwood's playing for the same team in the same era?

Well I didn't write the book so I can't comment on the method and its validity, also it's 30 years old so I doubt the author will be moved to comment either. I posted it more to show Bradman's average was still 20 runs higher than everyone else even after adjustment, added the bowler figures for interest.

I think he had a minimum qualification which Voce may not have met. Also I presume with Larwood his opponents were considered to be more difficult to bowl to than were Lindwall's and Miller's.

Having said all that, I presume the comment "Totally don't get these adjusted averages everyone claims to have a method for" renders any further discussion moot?

 

[the big bambino]

Really though Red Hill's comments are valid. I don't get how the averages of brad man go down and headley up when the latter rarely faced full strength opponents. Voce played more tests and took more wickets than Lol. Lindwall and Miller bowled to some of England's finest. So I'm perplexed as well. But as you say fred will be happy.

I'm also looking at batting averages over 60 in the context of this thread to see if Goulds comments on baseball apply to cricket. It seems they don't really.

 

[chasingthedon]

Really though Red Hill's comments are valid. I don't get how the averages of brad man go down and headley up when the latter rarely faced full strength opponents. Voce played more tests and took more wickets than Lol. Lindwall and Miller bowled to some of England's finest. So I'm perplexed as well. But as you say fred will be happy.

I'm also looking at batting averages over 60 in the context of this thread to see if Goulds comments on baseball apply to cricket. It seems they don't really.

One thing he was getting at is that there are more good players now.

If you look at the 1930s there were 12 players who averaged over 50 (minimum 10 Tests) in that decade, while in the oughties there were 21.

Of the dozen players in the 30s five of them averaged over 60, whereas in the oughties there was just one.

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah I've been looking at that. I don't think its about players getting better. Skills are relevant to respective eras so it shouldn't make that much difference. Matches played seems interesting. There is a point where the 60 averaging players drop out. It seems to be around the 50-60 tests mark. More tests now means fewer men averaging 60. We can monitor Smith and Voges (pity about the latter's age) to see if they can maintain a 60 ave over 60 matches. Smith in particular will be interesting to watch. Atm he's played 41.

 

[Red]

Having said all that, I presume the comment "Totally don't get these adjusted averages everyone claims to have a method for" renders any further discussion moot?

Not at all. There was probably a dismissive tone to my comment that I didn't actually intend. It just always seems when these methods are used to throw something really random into the mix, like Larwood in this case. And as BB says, Headley's average goes up while Bradman's goes down, even though they played in the same era and Bradman averaged higher against England and India (the two common opponents they had). And also, Headley averaged 37 vs Aus, while Bradman avged 74 vs the WI. I cannot for the life of me see how it can make sense that Headley's adjusted average rises, while Bradman's falls.

 

[chasingthedon]

Not at all. There was probably a dismissive tone to my comment that I didn't actually intend. It just always seems when these methods are used to throw something really random into the mix, like Larwood in this case. And as BB says, Headley's average goes up while Bradman's goes down, even though they played in the same era and Bradman averaged higher against England and India (the two common opponents they had). And also, Headley averaged 37 vs Aus, while Bradman avged 74 vs the WI. I cannot for the life of me see how it can make sense that Headley's adjusted average rises, while Bradman's falls.

I'm guessing that, as BB noted, the author didn't account for the depleted attacks faced by Heafley.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah I've been looking at that. I don't think its about players getting better. Skills are relevant to respective eras so it shouldn't make that much difference. Matches played seems interesting. There is a point where the 60 averaging players drop out. It seems to be around the 50-60 tests mark. More tests now means fewer men averaging 60. We can monitor Smith and Voges (pity about the latter's age) to see if they can maintain a 60 ave over 60 matches. Smith in particular will be interesting to watch. Atm he's played 41.

There's also the time factor to complicate matters. A good run over 60 Tests might be easier to maintain over 4 years compared to 60 Tests in 10 years.

 

[chasingthedon]

Yeah I've been looking at that. I don't think its about players getting better. Skills are relevant to respective eras so it shouldn't make that much difference. Matches played seems interesting. There is a point where the 60 averaging players drop out. It seems to be around the 50-60 tests mark. More tests now means fewer men averaging 60. We can monitor Smith and Voges (pity about the latter's age) to see if they can maintain a 60 ave over 60 matches. Smith in particular will be interesting to watch. Atm he's played 41.

Really? It makes sense to me that as there are more quality batsmen more of them reach a specific lower milestone average, say 50, whereas as there are also more quality bowlers less batsmen would go on to the higher milestone of 60.

 

[the big bambino]

It's not what I'm getting just looking at a few random players. Reaching a 60 ave now is just as frequent but as they play more tests it comes down as it would eventually have done to Headley or Sutcliffe presuming you could retrospectively apply the trend and there's no reason you can't.

Just back on Larwoods adjusted ave surely the fewer good players around applies to him (and lindwall and miller) so it seems their averages should rise?