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

[the big bambino]

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.

I'm wondering about that. Sutcliffe had an 11 yr career. I'm thinking it's the volume of tests and their number. So it would be "easier" to maintain a 60 ave over a longer time if your game frequency is less. Maybe bcos you can always prepare yourself and commit to the challenge. It's harder to stay motivated for the volume of international games now, I'm speculating.

Sutcliffe also played very well against Australia and this helped maintain his average. If he played other nations more frequently his average would've fallen below 60. This is contrary to what you'd expect but he seemed to master Australian bowling and the test program of the day played to that advantage.

I'll post some more but if you are looking for a factor that could undermine Bradmans ave then scheduling could possibly be it.

 

[fredfertang]

Somewhere, fredfertang is smiling...

Oi, what are you on about, 'somewhere'

Makes me sound like a deceased fertang

As you well know despite the rigours of painting a 40' x 12' shed over the weekend I'm still alive and well and living in the Royal County

 

[chasingthedon]

Oi, what are you on about, 'somewhere'

Makes me sound like a deceased fertang

As you well know despite the rigours of painting a 40' x 12' shed over the weekend I'm still alive and well and living in the Royal County

Sorry. Should have read "Somewhere in ****neyland, but spiritually in Lancashire, fredfertang is smiling...:

 

[chasingthedon]

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?

That wasn't the logic which was applied to Larwood's adjusted average, that was Gould's theory. The book I took the averages from apparently was based on an adjustment for the pitch and the opposition, both based on batting scores.

If you look at Tests involving Miller, about 45% of first and second innings scores (more likely to be completed innings) were above 300, while this number was over 65% in Larwood's Tests, suggesting scoring was higher in Larwood's time.

 

[the big bambino]

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

That wasn't the logic which was applied to Larwood's adjusted average, that was Gould's theory. The book I took the averages from apparently was based on an adjustment for the pitch and the opposition, both based on batting scores.

If you look at Tests involving Miller, about 45% of first and second innings scores (more likely to be completed innings) were above 300, while this number was over 65% in Larwood's Tests, suggesting scoring was higher in Larwood's time.

The top quote made me think you were suggesting it was the authour's logic too.

Undoubtedly Larwood bowled more often to higher scores as he played the vast majority of his matches v Australia whereas Lindwall and Miller didn't play the same proportion of games v their strongest opponent. So I can agree to some sort of adjustment but wow - 13 points!

 

[chasingthedon]

The top quote made me think you were suggesting it was the authour's logic too.

Undoubtedly Larwood bowled more often to higher scores as he played the vast majority of his matches v Australia whereas Lindwall and Miller didn't play the same proportion of games v their strongest opponent. So I can agree to some sort of adjustment but wow - 13 points!

Yeah it seems out of whack compared to other adjustments.

 

[chasingthedon]

I did wonder if Bradman had more not outs than is typical, and if you look at number threes on average he would expect five not outs in 80 innings rather than ten.

Which would bring his average down to a pathetic 93.28

 

[GotSpin]

I did wonder if Bradman had more not outs than is typical, and if you look at number threes on average he would expect five not outs in 80 innings rather than ten.

Which would bring his average down to a pathetic 93.28

Wouldn't that be more to do with the impossible task of getting him out. He probably lost runs.

I don't know if you are joking though

 

[AndrewB]

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?

Don't know what the book's argument is, but Larwood and Voce only played in 4 Tests together out of 20-odd each, so it's not ridiculous that their averages should have significantly different "adjustments".

 

[chasingthedon]

Wouldn't that be more to do with the impossible task of getting him out. He probably lost runs.

I don't know if you are joking though

That's what the smiley face was for. You're exactly right, he was more difficult to get out.

 

[Red]

Don't know what the book's argument is, but Larwood and Voce only played in 4 Tests together out of 20-odd each, so it's not ridiculous that their averages should have significantly different "adjustments".

My point was more I can't work out why Larwood's average has dropped such a massive amount (13)

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)

Looking at the list, most players have dropped by 6 max, but mostly 3 or 4. Interestingly, and I didn't notice this before, Tate has dropped 9. Perhaps it IS the Bradman factor.

 

[the big bambino]

Bradman alone is worth abt 3 to 4 points on a bowler's average so that's a fair adjustment all on its own.

 

[Ikki]

When you say Bradman's name, put some RESPECK on it.