Bradman vs Hypothetical Batsman

[DrWolverine]

Let’s us assume a scenario where we are going to see a batsman in the next 20 years.

This batsman will easily be ahead of the likes of Sachin, Smith, Viv, Sobers but still significantly behind Bradman.

Bradman(1928-1948)
52 Tests
80 innings
Avg of 99.94
29 centuries(A century per 2.7 innings)

Hypothetical player(2025-2045)
150 Tests
250 innings
Avg of 77
55 centuries(A century every 4.5 innings)

Other points to consider
1. The second best batsman between 2025-2045 will average 55.

2. He averages 70 against/in every nation and averages 85+ against/in Bangladesh/Zimbabwe.

Now who do you consider the best ever?

1. Bradman for being light years ahead of everyone and significantly ahead of this person

2. This modern day batsman who is better than every other batsman in history but still behind Don Bradman who played 100 years ago.

 

[Johan]

Bradman easily, still averages 25 points higher at peak

 

[centurymaker]

Hypothetical Batsman FTW.

 

[DrWolverine]

It may be the equivalent of Wilt vs Jordan

 

[Johan]

I wonder what the point of this thread is, with how a very small vocal minority acts, Bradman isn't even better than Sam Konstas and both of you are a part of that minority.

 

[Athlai]

I think they'd both be on a similar pantheon and the hypothetical batsman would probably be called a new Bradman/Bradman 2.0/21st century Bradman.

 

[sayon basak]

It may be the equivalent of Wilt vs Jordan

Does the Hypothetical player share Chamberlain's stats in the finals?

 

[Coronis]

Does the Hypothetical player share Chamberlain's stats in the finals?

18.6/24.6/3.8?

 

[sayon basak]

18.6/24.6/3.8?

Looks like Sehwag/Jaya's average in SENA.

Could you share the numbers of Russell in the finals?

 

[Coronis]

Looks like Sehwag/Jaya's average in SENA.

Could you share the numbers of Russell in the finals?

16.4/24.5/4.7

Russell way more clutch tho

 

[sayon basak]

16.4/24.5/4.7

Russell way more clutch tho

Anybody who wins 11 championship in 13 seasons has to be clutch.

 

[Coronis]

Anybody who wins 11 championship in 13 seasons has to be clutch.

Fun stat about Russell: Everyone talks about how loaded the Celtics were… when Russell didn’t play during his career the Celtics were 10-18, with 18/28 games against teams who had losing records.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Bradman would have made 51 tons had he played as the same innings as Walter Hammond. That would be a career interrupted by war and in a time where even England of then didn’t play as many tests as now.

Bradman averaged twice as much as McCabe. I don’t see McCabe averaging less than 40 any era, ever. That would put Bradman at bit over 80 at least.

 

[shortpitched713]

I've completely accurately and precisely calculated Donald Bradman's modern average to be 65.7 over a full career of 100+ Tests uninterrupted in a typical modern era where they are allowed to have a full attack of fast lads bowling bouncers at him.

That puts him clearly a standard deviation+ over every batsman that has ever lived, and likely ever will for a long, long time.


Edit: In case anyone thinks I'm serious about "accurately, and precisely", it's a joke. It's an approximation I did manage to land on with 2 different extrapolation methods though, but regardless obviously it's a guess.

 

[Migara]

Hypothetical batsman. There is at least one or two places where Bradman's average will take a hit. That is what happens with varying conditions. And one or two bowlers will find a method to nail him early. That also will become more of a possibility with expanding player base. We don't have any idea how Bradman would faired on a dust bowl, or with four big tall, fast and nasty West Indians bowling at him, Imran reverse swinging it or Murali's doosras. Hypothetical batsman has done all of this. So he is.

 

[sayon basak]

I've completely accurately and precisely calculated Donald Bradman's modern average to be 65.7 over a full career of 100+ Tests uninterrupted in a typical modern era where they are allowed to have a full attack of fast lads bowling bouncers at him.

That puts him clearly a standard deviation+ over every batsman that has ever lived, and likely ever will for a long, long time.


Edit: In case anyone thinks I'm serious about "accurately, and precisely", it's a joke. It's an approximation I did manage to land on with 2 different extrapolation methods though, but regardless obviously it's a guess.

Post the method imo. If Bradman averaged 65.7 over a full career, the second best batsman (Hammond) would average something like 58.45*(65.7/99.94)=38.42.

Stan McCabe would average approximately 31.69.

 

[centurymaker]

Post the method imo. If Bradman averaged 65.7 over a full career, the second best batsman (Hammond) would average something like 58.45*(65.7/99.94)=38.42.

Stan McCabe would average approximately 31.69.

The drop isn't exactly proportional.
The difference between them and Bradman is that the latter makes hay when he makes a 50. He converts. Not just converts, gets 200+ against a tiring attack. That gives him a massive avg boost. So when we make adjustments to their averages to factor in all the extra variables, it's not a proportional drop. I hope you get what I am saying.

 

[shortpitched713]

Post the method imo. If Bradman averaged 65.7 over a full career, the second best batsman (Hammond) would average something like 58.45*(65.7/99.94)=38.42.

Stan McCabe would average approximately 31.69.

That's a perfectly useful specialist Test batsman in the modern era. Nothing to sniff at.

I don't think we realize just how much, much more competitive cricket is in modern contexts compared to the past. So I expect some players who were considered great by the standards of the past to fail in a modern context. I.e. in some cases we'd never even hear about them. Exactly which those players are, and exactly what level of success they'd reach in a more modern game we'll never know. But they'd be butting heads against many more alternative options.

 

[Coronis]

I've completely accurately and precisely calculated Donald Bradman's modern average to be 65.7 over a full career of 100+ Tests uninterrupted in a typical modern era where they are allowed to have a full attack of fast lads bowling bouncers at him.

That puts him clearly a standard deviation+ over every batsman that has ever lived, and likely ever will for a long, long time.


Edit: In case anyone thinks I'm serious about "accurately, and precisely", it's a joke. It's an approximation I did manage to land on with 2 different extrapolation methods though, but regardless obviously it's a guess.

Curious, did this method include removing records with uncovered pitches and giving Bradman a bat with a sweetspot the size of a grapefruit rather than the size of a lime?

 

[sayon basak]

The drop isn't exactly proportional.
The difference between them and Bradman is that the latter makes hay when he makes a 50. He converts. Not just converts, gets 200+ against a tiring attack. That gives him a massive avg boost. So when we makes adjustments to their averages to factor in all the extra variables, it's not a proportional drop. I hope you get what I am saying.

Yeah I get you point.