Bradman effect

[the big bambino]

Interesting stuff - if you get a moment, and can be bothered, how do those comparisons work out if you ignore Larwood's performances in 1930, when he was never really fit enough to play

Fred. If I haven't confused myself then HL's Aussie av falls to 25.58 (from 29.88) if you remove his 30 figures and DGB's runs in other series. If you proportion him to play 19% of his games v Aus (instead of the 71%) his ave is 22.65. If you want I can pm you the way I worked it out. I mean its simple but their is a chance I may have misunderstood your question.

 

[Flem274*]

In Bradman's time weren't there about 10000 FC fixtures for every test match? If I've got this right then even if he sux forevers because of only playing England and 52 tests or whatever, his FC average is probably even more indicative than his test average as to how far ahead of everyone else he is. The two good test teams argument falls down when you consider he has nearly 6000 runs at 98 for NSW and averages 100+ for South Australia. Australian domestic cricket back then, as ever, was no lark. I don't think you'll see too many other batsmen doing that.

Incidentally I love how he averaged 11 for rest of Aussie. Who did they play in those two matches out of interest?

*waits for someone to blame Roadalaide on his SA exploits*

 

[harsh.ag]

Thankyou HB. I'll do this post, one more for Fred and then a last talking about the myths of the Bradman era.

First of all I agree with your post. You can isolate things til you get the outcome you want. But leaving the raw stats in place and unexplained can be misleading too. Frankly I think DGB was a victim of his own success as it allowed opportunity to revise the quality of his opponents. Therefore the only way to really judge the bowlers he faced is to take out his figures and see how much he distorted them. I think this is justifiable bcos a bat of his calibre is unique in the game's story this far. We then get an idea of how his opponents would be remembered if his distorting contribution was absent.

When I take DGB's runs from the 27-39 Eng attack they are superior to the other mentioned in every column. Their bowling ave versus Australia falls 5.48 points from 34.84 to 29.36. To put that in perspective it is greater than the difference in the Pakistani group when playing Aus as opposed to India. That ave is the 3rd lowest in ashes history since that time.

The no of bowlers who ave <30 v Aus increases from 4 to 7. The overall ave falls from 30.24 to 28.41. The no of bowlers who ave <30 v All teams goes from 8 to 9. The adjusted overall av falls 1 point to 27.4.

Compare that to the Australians of 88-2000 whose overall av was 27.92 and adjusted av is 27.32. Their no of bowlers in the top 10 with averages <30 is 9 as well.

With DGB's figures removed the 27-39 Eng is competitive with the Aus teams of 88-2000. No doubt some will huff incredulity without offering refutation. Even if we accept their complaints (and we have no reason to) we can include DGB's runs and state his opponents were competitive with Pak, SA and Eng of the periods chosen. And I don't think we can doubt their quality.

I agree with most of what you say (as you can infer from my sig, I guess )

I have only one concern with your analysis is that when I and others point out the non-replacement of Bradman with another (normal) batsman in the analysis, you have said that the replacement would have averaged somewhere around 30 (Chippendale was the example, I think). But you really need to factor that the batsmen at number 3 and 4 always average higher than the rest of the batting line up. They somehow toughen up, face a lot more deliveries, score a lot more runs, and take up the responsibility. Even if they average/averaged less in lower positions.

What do you think?

 

[the big bambino]

I agree with most of what you say (as you can infer from my sig, I guess )

I have only one concern with your analysis is that when I and others point out the non-replacement of Bradman with another (normal) batsman in the analysis, you have said that the replacement would have averaged somewhere around 30 (Chippendale was the example, I think). But you really need to factor that the batsmen at number 3 and 4 always average higher than the rest of the batting line up. They somehow toughen up, face a lot more deliveries, score a lot more runs, and take up the responsibility. Even if they average/averaged less in lower positions.

What do you think?

Could have indeed but it wouldn't have been Chipperfield. You can only suggest the most likely outcome and for me that has to be Chipperfield. But I do agree someone else may have stepped up now that you mention it. And that person would most likely have been McCabe. I just don't know how to work out if he would have stepped up and by how many. I'm thinking the answer might best lay in a series where Bradman was absent. Luckily there was one against SA. It wont be a strict comparison but useful all the same. I don't think I'll use the instance of his famous bodyline innings as I think it was a oncer that coincided with DGB's absence.

 

[the big bambino]

Harsh.skm: I think I've got an idea. Bare with me. McCabe did step up in that series but its not plausible that he would've maintained an 84 average over his career as he did in that series. Lets make a few assumptions. Lets try and bost the 30s batting ave (without DGB) to equal the batting ave of the 90s.

First lets put Chipperfield's contribution back in to replace Bradman's. MCabe would need to find another 407 runs over his career to boost the decadal ave to equal the 90s. That would presume he is able to lift his batting ave from 48.21 to around 55.35 or thereabouts. Personally I think that would be about the limit a great player would expect to achieve and put him in the realm of SRT, Hammond, Hutton and the like. I don't think I'm being parochial in saying I reckon he could do it. It certainly is reasonable odds to think he could.

 

[the big bambino]

In Bradman's time weren't there about 10000 FC fixtures for every test match? If I've got this right then even if he sux forevers because of only playing England and 52 tests or whatever, his FC average is probably even more indicative than his test average as to how far ahead of everyone else he is. The two good test teams argument falls down when you consider he has nearly 6000 runs at 98 for NSW and averages 100+ for South Australia. Australian domestic cricket back then, as ever, was no lark. I don't think you'll see too many other batsmen doing that.

Incidentally I love how he averaged 11 for rest of Aussie. Who did they play in those two matches out of interest?
*waits for someone to blame Roadalaide on his SA exploits*

Just tracked them down. The 1st was in 1928 when he played for the Rest in a trial and the 2nd in 1940 when he played for the Rest versus the Shield champs NSW. He was up against Gregory, Oxenham, Grimmett and Blackie in the 1st match and then Lush, Cheetham, O'Reilly, Pepper and McCool in the 2nd match.

 

[abmk]

Don't understand how no one has brought it up so far ... why are bradman's runs just being deducted for 'correction' - we are correcting for the bradman effect - him being quite a bit better than anyone else ... not him not being there at all .......

what would be fair would be that overall, reduce DGB's average to say 60 in the same no of innings and compute the average of the England bowlers overall in that period ........

 

[the big bambino]

I'll come back to that later this evening. It has been brought up before and I'll mention the figure I added back in. I'll do a quick arithmetic on a 60 ave batsmen replacing DGB.

 

[the big bambino]

Sorry it took so long. If you replace DGB with a man who averages 60 you get this result for the Eng team 27-39.

Ave v Aus = 32.06
Bowlers v Aus with an ave <30 = 5. (I think Larwood just gets in).
Ave v All teams = 29.33
Adjusted ave v All teams = 27.86 (or thereabouts)
No of bowlers v All teams with an ave <30 = Atleast 8 probably 9.

For mine Aus with DGB is stronger in batting in this period than say Aus from 88-2000. Without DGB then the modern Aussies are. With DGB replaced by a batsman averaging 60 then I'd say they are about the same, maybe give it to the older group - then again they had no one like Gilly. Anyway its close.

Just to repeat the reason I don't add back a player with a 60 average is that he would have already been there. I mean Hammond was famous approaching that ave so a man averaging 60 would have regularly turned out for Aus. Thats why I pick a fringe player whose own ave approximates the global ave with DGB's runs deducted so I don't need to bother.

However the point raised is certainly reasonable. If DGB was more like your average, rare, great batsman (if I can put it like that) then the above is the outcome if he were a Hobbs or Headly or Hammond instead.