Bradman vs Hypothetical Batsman

[shortpitched713]

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?

One method was extrapolation from the model I used to determine averages using combination of averaged ICC rankings and adjusted averages, and time of Test debut. It fails for older players if the career span is too long though (i.e. Hobbs). This spit out 65.72.

The other method was simply taking a median between what I believe would be Bradman's upper bound average based on FC stats (for whatever reason Bradman outperformed in Tests instead of scored lower than FC stats as would be expected from such insane numbers, for instance Hadlee), and the lower bound from his bodyline tour. The first number is mid 70s, and the second number is mid 50s. The average of those two numbers is 65.745.

Anyway, I think that's a very realistic number, but people don't like it because it supposedly takes away from what he actually did accomplish, which is not at all my intention. What actually takes away from his accomplishments is the simple, inexorable drum of time. An actual batsman right now who ended up retiring with a career average of 65.7, half the forum's head would be so far up his asshole they'd die of aspxhyxiation. The other half would complain about his FTB tendencies of course, and claim he's not fit to hold Graham Gooch's cup...

 

[sayon basak]

One method was extrapolation from the model I used to determine averages using combination of averaged ICC rankings and adjusted averages, and time of Test debut. It fails for older players if the career span is too long though (i.e. Hobbs). This spit out 65.72.

Don't think ICC Ranking is the best metric to use.

The other method was simply taking a median between what I believe would be Bradman's upper bound average based on FC stats (for whatever reason Bradman outperformed in Tests instead of scored lower than FC stats as would be expected from such insane numbers, for instance Hadlee), and the lower bound from his bodyline tour. The first number is mid 70s, and the second number is mid 50s. The average of those two numbers is 65.745.

Could you provide the median of Sachin's upper bound and lower bound average as well?

 

[Burgey]

Murali's doosras

If he's delivering those in Australia then I reckon Bradman would be more than comfortable.

 

[Burgey]

Say a hypothetical batsman comes along and plays 100 tests over 15 years and averages 28, but does it across all conditions and opponents including playing agaisnt Ireland and Afghanistan.

Who is the better player? Hypothetical batsman, or Sachin Tendulkar/ Brian Lara?

 

[sayon basak]

Imran reverse swinging it or Murali's doosras. Hypothetical batsman has done all of this. So he is.

What are you talking about? The hypothetical player wouldn't even face Murali and Imran.

 

[shortpitched713]

Could you provide the median of Sachin's upper bound and lower bound average as well?

This isn't really relevant. We don't need to approximate Sachin's stats to fit the modern era, because he already played in the modern era. We can just adjust his for conditions. I've done that and posted about it. Unfortunately Sachin's average isn't that standout compared to a couple of others because his home conditions in India during the preponderance of his career were relatively easier to score runs in.

Looking at adjusted average alone however doesn't do justice to Tendulkar. He has the most longevity of any Test cricketer in the history of the game, and his career value should be reflected with that.

 

[shortpitched713]

Say a hypothetical batsman comes along and plays 100 tests over 15 years and averages 28, but does it across all conditions and opponents including playing agaisnt Ireland and Afghanistan.

Who is the better player? Hypothetical batsman, or Sachin Tendulkar/ Brian Lara?

Nah, this is a ridiculous approach as no player can possibly play in every set of conditions.

Instead we should simply that judgement of adaptability and usefulness across conditions by judging him by 1 innings only in which he faced the toughest possible conditions, and ignoring everything else.

I.e. Graham Gooch = GOAT

 

[sayon basak]

This isn't really relevant. We don't need to approximate Sachin's stats to fit the modern era, because he already played in the modern era. We can just adjust his for conditions. I've done that and posted about it. Unfortunately Sachin's average isn't that standout compared to a couple of others because his home conditions in India during the preponderance of his career were relatively easier to score runs in.

Looking at adjusted average alone however doesn't do justice to Tendulkar. He has the most longevity of any Test cricketer in the history of the game, and his career value should be reflected with that.

My point was that the median of the upper bound and lower bound doesn't really show what he'd do in the modern era, just shows the contrast between their peak performance and off days.

 

[DrWolverine]

If the hypothetical batsman averages 85 in the modern era, he is winning 10-2 in the poll.

If the hypothetical batsman averages 75 in the modern era and great everywhere, the poll is tied at 8-8.

Interesting

 

[Burgey]

Nah, this is a ridiculous approach as no player can possibly play in every set of conditions.

Instead we should simply that judgement of adaptability and usefulness across conditions by judging him by 1 innings only in which he faced the toughest possible conditions, and ignoring everything else.

I.e. Graham Gooch = GOAT

What's ridiculous is this thread and your own approach/ analysis. The hypothetical batsman in this thread is to Bradman as Mitch Marsh is to Tendulkar or Lara. How anyone who hasn't been lobotomised is capable of thinking someone averaging 25 runs per innings less is somehow comparable or better than the other bloke is beyond me.

People taking this comparison seriously is the cricketing discussion equivalent of what went through Private Lawrence's mind before he topped himself in Full Metal Jacket, it's that damaged.

 

[centurymaker]

Don't think ICC Ranking is the best metric to use.

Yeah it isn't. For instance, ICC Ratings give weight to the match outcome, which in fact is more or less out of the hands of an individual player.

So suppose someone scores 140+ but his team is crap and they end up losing or bowling is weak and they end up conceding big and match ends in a draw. In this case, that player will get a smaller increase in ICC Rating as opposed to someone whose team is good enough to end up victorious.

ICC Ratings therefore are not rating individual performances 'exclusively'. They are factoring in variables (like result) that don't necessarily reflect how good that player's innings was.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah it isn't. For instance, ICC Ratings give weight to the match outcome, which in fact is more or less out of the hands of an individual player.

So suppose someone scores 140+ but his team is crap and they end up losing or bowling is weak and they end up conceding big and match ends in a draw. In this case, that player will get a smaller increase in ICC Rating as opposed to someone whose team is good enough to end up victorious.

ICC Ratings therefore are not rating individual performances 'exclusively'. They are factoring in variables (like result) that don't necessarily reflect how good that player's innings was.

Unless you’re the greatest matchwinner ever - Viv apparently

 

[Migara]

If he's delivering those in Australia then I reckon Bradman would be more than comfortable.

He would have to face them in Sri Lanka too. That is tge whole point here.

 

[Migara]

What are you talking about? The hypothetical player wouldn't even face Murali and Imran.

That is what I understood from the question. Gone through all that tests and average 75.

 

[ataraxia]

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.

This isn't particularly relevant to this thread. When we debate Hobbs v Tendulkar we know that by measure of skill Tendulkar is superior, particularly if they were both to play in the modern era. That's not what we're debating – rather, that is the question of who was furthest ahead of their peers.

 

[Coronis]

Speaking of Bradman vs a hypothetical, slight tangent here, I was wondering which current/modern players combined would be an equal to/greater player than Bradman (ignoring fielding, just thinking primary skills). Would we have to go all the way to Smith + Bumrah, or could we get away with stuff like Smith + Hazlewood, Bumrah + Kohli, Root + Cummins, Williamson + Rabada etc. ?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Speaking of Bradman vs a hypothetical, slight tangent here, I was wondering which current/modern players combined would be an equal to/greater player than Bradman (ignoring fielding, just thinking primary skills). Would we have to go all the way to Smith + Bumrah, or could we get away with stuff like Smith + Hazlewood, Bumrah + Kohli, Root + Cummins, Williamson + Rabada etc. ?

I think an ATG+High ATVG works just fine. So l will say, Root+Cummins or Smith+Hazlewood

 

[DrWolverine]

I think an ATG+High ATVG works just fine. So l will say, Root+Cummins or Smith+Hazlewood

Speaking of Bradman vs a hypothetical, slight tangent here, I was wondering which current/modern players combined would be an equal to/greater player than Bradman (ignoring fielding, just thinking primary skills). Would we have to go all the way to Smith + Bumrah, or could we get away with stuff like Smith + Hazlewood, Bumrah + Kohli, Root + Cummins, Williamson + Rabada etc. ?

Don Bradman and Rubel Hossain vs Sachin Tendulkar and Dale Steyn

Suppose they come as combo package, who would you pick?

www.cricketweb.net

 

[capt_Luffy]

Don Bradman and Rubel Hossain vs Sachin Tendulkar and Dale Steyn

Suppose they come as combo package, who would you pick?

www.cricketweb.net

Tbf Sachin and Steyn are both top tiers and I would be better off with Sir D bowling Rubel's overs likely.

 

[Randomfan]

It's very hard to do well in all kinds of conditions and versus all kinds of bowling. It becomes harder if sample size is large with lots of variety.

70 avg against/in every nation and that too with 150 tests ? As long as 100 tests were against top oppositions with large enough sample size agasint/in each, this hypothetical player over Bradman for me.

Tackling this question simply based on stats,

It's relatively easier to be an outlier, even with a greater margin, if sample size is 1K good players.
It's infinitely harder to be an outlier if a sample size is 100K good players. It's not just 100 times harder, it's way more harder. That's how stats works.



Another way to look at it,

Bumrah averaging 17 in Aus(hardest opposition) and averaging 10 against WI/SL/BD ( weaker oppositions) shouldn't be extrapolated to Bumrah averaging mid teens against/in each top nations individually or collectively.

Bumrah against Aus/WI/Sl/BD: Avg 14 with avg of 17 against the hardest opposition.





Bumrah against top oppositions ( Aus, Eng, SA and NZ): Collective avg is 21 against top teams with variety.



Bumrah's avg of 21 against top oppositions having variety reflects his skill far more than his numbers against Aus/SL/WI/BD. I know it's 18 tests with 7 5-fers against Aus/SL/WI/BD, but even with 36 tests and 14 5-fers, my conclusion would be the same. You simply get tested way differentely if facing lots of top teams in all kinds of conditions. I am not comparing Bumrah with Bradman here. Only using him to make an example.



I think it's extremely hard to do well against vatiety of oppositions/conditions against top 4-5 oppositions individually and collectively. If a hypothetial batsman can avg 70 against/in top 4-5 oppositions(I don't care much about below that) then I will take that hypothetical batsman without hesitation. Right now, Bradman is the best test batsman for me.