What would a modern player need to beat Bradman?

[Migara]

Fact's don't care about your feelings.

Facts of course.

 

[Nintendo]

Facts of course.

OK. I have 50 runs. I add 50 more runs. I now have 100 runs. This is a fact.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Bradman = Lara + Laxman

By that logic, Botham/Kapil far better than any specialist cricketer bar Bradman and Barnes probably.

Botham and Kapil are bowling equivalents of 50 avg batsmen ( Hayden, Flower, Sehwag.. Etc)
With bat, Botham and Kapil averages 20-25 points more than regular specialist bowlers.

Overall, they are worth a 75 avg batsman.
Allrounders are underrated

Lillee, Mcgrath, Steyn.. Etc = equivalent of a 55 avg batsman
Kapil / Botham = equivalent of 50 avg batsman ( first skill ) + additional 25 ( second skill ) = 75 avg batsman
Imran, Procter = 80 avg

 

[Migara]

OK. I have 50 runs. I add 50 more runs. I now have 100 runs. This is a fact.

Oh yes.

I have 50 test runs in 1900. Another 50 in 2000. Any one who says these are same conveys only a single fact. Oversimplification.

 

[TheJediBrah]

OK. I have 50 runs. I add 50 more runs. I now have 100 runs. This is a fact.

But what if I feel like I have 200 runs

that is my truth

 

[ataraxia]

But what if I feel like I have 200 runs

that is my truth

Then it's time to declare, because you feel like you have enough and the bowlers are getting impatient.

 

[Athlai]

But what if I feel like I have 200 runs

that is my truth

It's a pretty dumb way of putting it but he has a mild point.

Dice example.
2 batsman that average 50 vs 1 batsman that average 100 is kind of like 2 6-sided dice vs 1 12-sided dice. On face value, they can bring you the same totals, but it isn't actually the same.

You have an 8.33% chance of only getting a 1 with the 12-sided dice (also the same for getting a 12)
But there is only a 2.78% chance of rolling a 1 with both 6-sided dice, and even then, that totals 2.

The mean average of a 12-sided dice is 6.5, while the mean average of 2 6-sided dice is 7.*

This is why a greatsword is superior to a greataxe @Howe_zat

*and I'm aware the actual comparison is between mean averages which makes this like Migara's point, even more tenuous

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's a pretty dumb way of putting it but he has a mild point.

Dice example.
2 batsman that average 50 vs 1 batsman that average 100 is kind of like 2 6-sided dice vs 1 12-sided dice. On face value, they can bring you the same totals, but it isn't actually the same.

You have an 8.33% chance of only getting a 1 with the 12-sided dice (also the same for getting a 12)
But there is only a 2.78% chance of rolling a 1 with both 6-sided dice, and even then, that totals 2.

The mean average of a 12-sided dice is 6.5, while the mean average of 2 6-sided dice is 7.*

This is why a greatsword is superior to a greataxe @Howe_zat

*and I'm aware the actual comparison is between mean averages which makes this like Migara's point, even more tenuous

I didn't actually read the posts just feeding off Nintendo

but that's very informative thank you

 

[Athlai]

As an argument I've always thought it has a glaring hole though.

Saying Bradman is worth 2 ATG players, doesn't mean his team plays with ****ing 10 men. In practice it'd just mean Bradman + pleb > 2 ATGs

Which is perfectly fair.

d12 + d4 shits all over 2d6

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Hmm I don't believe you, because you haven't mentioned anything about log transformations.

 

[honestbharani]

In a very simple cricketing way of thinking, I sometimes feel Bradman might help you win a game by 70 runs and someone else in his place may help you win the game by 20. But if they also took a couple of wickets etc. then may be some sides will prefer the other player.

Its why I think I said Bradman is the most dominant player for sure but there may have been more important players for their teams than Bradman was for that Aussie side.

 

[Daemon]

Bradman was not that good. It’s like if the only ever cricket played was India vs West Indies and you took Ashwin’s stats at face value.

He was an overrated cheat. Most 90s batsmen from the shield were better than him.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bradman was not that good. It’s like if the only ever cricket played was India vs West Indies and you took Ashwin’s stats at face value.

He was an overrated cheat. Most 90s batsmen from the shield were better than him.

Yeah especially Bevan.

 

[ataraxia]

Bradman was not that good. It’s like if the only ever cricket played was India vs West Indies and you took Ashwin’s stats at face value.

He was an overrated cheat. Most 90s batsmen from the shield were better than him.

I like how you use the phrases "overrated cheat" and "most 90s batsmen from the shield" in the same paragraph.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Bradman was not that good. It’s like if the only ever cricket played was India vs West Indies and you took Ashwin’s stats at face value.

He was an overrated cheat. Most 90s batsmen from the shield were better than him.

I was getting my angry response ready until the last sentence

well played

 

[Athlai]

Bradman was not that good. It’s like if the only ever cricket played was India vs West Indies and you took Ashwin’s stats at face value.

He was an overrated cheat. Most 90s batsmen from the shield were better than him.

I'm slightly partial to this argument. Not in diminishing Bradman but in how other ATGs may get averages in the 70s or even 80s if they played their entire careers against only oppositions and conditions they were good in.

 

[Slifer]

If Sobers' or Miller's first class records were their tests records (averages and conversions only) would they be any closer?


Sobers averages 55 and 28
Miller 49 and 22.

 

[ataraxia]

If Sobers' or Miller's first class records were their tests records (averages and conversions only) would they be any closer?

No.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm slightly partial to this argument. Not in diminishing Bradman but in how other ATGs may get averages in the 70s or even 80s if they played their entire careers against only oppositions and conditions they were good in.

In Bradman's case you could actually look at it as the opposite. That he didn't get to play mostly against opposition he was good against, but that he played mostly against opposition he wasn't as good against (in his case because England were the best opposition team, but still) as he averaged 89 v England compared to 100+ against everyone else.

You could argue that had Bradman played a more varied opposition instead of constantly playing the other best team he'd end up with a better record

 

[honestbharani]

playing the other best team

Kinda misleading when there were only 2 teams playing 80% of all the cricket.