Shane Warne vs Dale Steyn

[smash84]

I swear the concept of context is lost on most here.

When there are only two good teams and one of them have the only ATG and great test bowlers of the era, and you're playing in literally two countries and a decent amount against outright minnows. Not even travel to the Caribbean like Hammond did, he didn't quite face the same scenarios as even people from his own era.

When they're 4 or 5 test level teams you can get a feel for how players do in varied conditions and against similar teams. It's not so cut and dry back then.

Even with the drastic pitch changes within 3 years of his retirement, even someone like Hutton didn't have the same career experiences. And again he faced so much better bowlers, O'Reilly, Lindwall, Miller and that's just from Australia. He played all over the world against varied attacks in new environments.

Context.

So why didn't any of his contemporaries or anyone before him who played in similar conditions average anywhere close to what he did?

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2 what do you think Hammond would average today

I've said multiple times I'm more a fan of Hammond the cricketer than Hammond the batsman.

His rating, as is Bradman's and Hobbs's is based on the fact that he was the 2nd best batsman behind only Bradman for a long ass time, probably until usurped by Hutton.

He's got hits in his career like anyone else and had his tussles with O'Reilly and with bodyline in the Caribbean.

He's not in my top 8, but a solid top 10 /11.

You're asking questions, but not challenging anything I've actually.said.

 

[subshakerz]

I swear the concept of context is lost on most here.

When there are only two good teams and one of them have the only ATG and great test bowlers of the era, and you're playing in literally two countries and a decent amount against outright minnows. Not even travel to the Caribbean like Hammond did, he didn't quite face the same scenarios as even people from his own era.

When they're 4 or 5 test level teams you can get a feel for how players do in varied conditions and against similar teams. It's not so cut and dry back then.

Even with the drastic pitch changes within 3 years of his retirement, even someone like Hutton didn't have the same career experiences. And again he faced so much better bowlers, O'Reilly, Lindwall, Miller and that's just from Australia. He played all over the world against varied attacks in new environments.

Context.

How come you can see context here but when we bring up for others, you argue special pleading?

 

[Johan]

I've said multiple times I'm more a fan of Hammond the cricketer than Hammond the batsman.

His rating, as is Bradman's and Hobbs's is based on the fact that he was the 2nd best batsman behind only Bradman for a long ass time, probably until usurped by Hutton.

He's got hits in his career like anyone else and had his tussles with O'Reilly and with bodyline in the Caribbean.

He's not in my top 8, but a solid top 10 /11.

You're asking questions, but not challenging anything I've actually.said.

I'm just saying that if you think Bradman's average would go down by 20 points or whatever, doesn't that basically doom every other great Batsmen of the era who played alongside Bradman?

 

[Migara]

Just because Marshall bowled well in the 80’s doesn’t mean he would have done as well in the 30’s. He certainly couldn’t handle the 70’s.

If the success was measured in wickets Marshall would not. Casualties, he would top the list.

1930s have not seen anything even remotely close to quality, pace, hostility or tactfulness of Macko.

 

[Johan]

If the success was measured in wickets Marshall would not. Casualties, he would top the list.

1930s have not seen anything even remotely close to quality, pace, hostility or tactfulness of Macko.

Batters from 30s faced and countered top ten quality pacers already, Bradman would be fine.

 

[sayon basak]

What metric? Weekes faced like pitches and ATG bowlers home and away.

And he's not seen as an ATG

Based on what?

Sachin again faced varied conditions and great bowlers.

Don't think shortpitched's method accounts for the opposition bowling. Not a bad attempt tho.

 

[shortpitched713]

View attachment 46250

At work, my dude. Patience.

 

[subshakerz]

I've said multiple times I'm more a fan of Hammond the cricketer than Hammond the batsman.

His rating, as is Bradman's and Hobbs's is based on the fact that he was the 2nd best batsman behind only Bradman for a long ass time, probably until usurped by Hutton.

He's got hits in his career like anyone else and had his tussles with O'Reilly and with bodyline in the Caribbean.

He's not in my top 8, but a solid top 10 /11.

You're asking questions, but not challenging anything I've actually.said.

Btw congrats on becoming a Hall of Famer.

Who came up with these CW titles?

 

[kyear2]

I'm just saying that if you think Bradman's average would go down by 20 points or whatever, doesn't that basically doom every other great Batsmen of the era who played alongside Bradman?

Why?

We've been though this.

 

[shortpitched713]

Could you find out what Everton Weekes would average using the same metric that you used?

I am more interested to see if Wally Hammond would average more or less than Pujara by that metric

Here's a sampling of some old timey types:

Len Hutton - 49.47
Garry Sobers - 57.29
Everton Weekes - 56.35
Ken Barrington - 55.09
Jack Hobbs - 27.99
Herbert Sutcliffe - 42.97
Wally Hammond - 43.62

I don't want to piece together the whole formula, as it would be kind of time consuming as it's spread throughout multiple cells of an Excel sheet, but the way it works is this:

Start with an adjusted average for these batsmen based on the methodology of power regression from ICC Ranking Average and Era Adjusted Average, described in this post:

Adjusting the batting average based on actual quality

Its amazing how consistent a band test averages stay in over history. When I watch the modern player block the ball to the boundary through the covers, or straight, with his modern super bat. I think, Mark Richardson was born for this era and would average 55 instead of 45. But, he probably...

www.cricketweb.net

For old timers you subtract their debut year from 1978 and fit the entire history of cricket before that point on a normal distribution, calculating their z-score in relation to where they are in the history of cricket, and using a normal distribution z-score table to determine their percentage modifier. You multiply that average then by the percentage modifier.

So yeah, that's kind of how it works, and I think it works pretty well given when the biggest growth period of skill in the game was. Accepting the overall premise, I do think there is a bit of a flaw in that using the debut year penalizes much older players who had longer careers and were actually more modern than their debut year would indicate. So in particular, I'd say there is an effect where the 2 decade careers of the three H's above lead to a somewhat suppressed average due to overaggressive modifier (especially 23 year career of Hobbs), in comparison to the more typical 12 year career of Sutcliffe which isn't as heavily modified. The effect shouldn't be huge though (maybe add a maximum of 2 runs to Hutton and Hammond, 4 runs to Hobbs). I could fix this by going with something like median career year to calculate the modifier, but I cbf any more.

 

[Johan]

Hutton below Weekes

 

[Coronis]

Hobbs = half the batsman Barrington was. You heard it here first folks.

 

[vidiq]

I know you always try to get a response, but this is too idiotic for words.

Good try though.

An AT bowling attack and your removing the greatest bowler with the most well rounded record and most complete skill set.

You're hilarious.

 

[DrWolverine]

There is a very small difference between top 10 bowlers or even the top 10 batsmen except Bradman