Batting Average by position

[the big bambino]

Bah, still you don't get the point. Probably you would understand that you have to compare same proportion of innings across eras, because current era has lot more test innings played. If you take 5 players from 30s and 40s, you'd take 25-30 from current era.

Its a decadal comparison not a career v career comparison. If I give DGB the same % of innings as SRT in a given decade the 30s is still the 2nd lowest batting ave. That is no change.

You wanna make something else up while you're at it?

[L Trumper]

The number of players in 90s and 00s (or rather number of innings) is so large compared to that of 30s and 40s. Hypothetical batsman with and av erage of 60 would make more effect on 30s and 40s group compared to 90s and 00s group. And the number is roughly about five times when player pool is compared.

If we replace Sachin with another Lara there would be no discernible change. Simply because all great batsman have similar averages. But Bradman is so far above the rest, and if you are replacing Don with second best at that time you will lose roughly 45% of his output. So number of innings would be immaterial in that case.

[Migara]

Its a decadal comparison not a career v career comparison. If I give DGB the same % of innings as SRT in a given decade the 30s is still the 2nd lowest batting ave. That is no change.

You wanna make something else up while you're at it?

Why SRT's batting average? It should be the global batting average. The whole "Bradman effect" is blown out of proportion. Every good batsman has dented bowlers stats. Bradman had done it more than others. That doesn't make bowlers who bowled to him Marshalls, Hadlees, Warnes or Muralis.

[Migara]

If we replace Sachin with another Lara there would be no discernible change. Simply because all great batsman have similar averages. But Bradman is so far above the rest, and if you are replacing Don with second best at that time you will lose roughly 45% of his output. So number of innings would be immaterial in that case.

Second best batsman argument is a a joke. It should be the average batsman who averages 28-32 range. Bradman will have more effect. But Ponting + Kallis (which brings the same innings %, or little lesser) would have done it in substantial amounts too.

[Migara]

The whole argument boild down to what would the change of average if there was an average batsman instead of a great one.

When the batsman averages 100 (and the global average is 30), the difference is 70 x 0.018 = 1.26 runs.
At average of 58, it is 28 x 0.018 = 0.504. The net difference Bradman brings is 1.26 - 0.54, that is 0.7 runs, so called the "Bradman Effect".

0.018 since Bradman played 1.8% of test innings during his period.

[L Trumper]

The whole argument boild down to what would the change of average if there was an average batsman instead of a great one.

When the batsman averages 100 (and the global average is 30), the difference is 70 x 0.018 = 1.26 runs.
At average of 58, it is 28 x 0.018 = 0.504. The net difference Bradman brings is 1.26 - 0.54, that is 0.7 runs, so called the "Bradman Effect".

0.018 since Bradman played 1.8% of test innings during his period.

It is average at the given position. Why would you count all the batsman? and why would anyone who bats at 3 will average 30. You are being disingenuous, including all batsman over whole period. This exercise is about individual batting positions at each period. If you don't chose the second best then you have to select number 3 average without bradman, that would actually hurt the overall output more.

[the big bambino]

Why SRT's batting average? It should be the global batting average. The whole "Bradman effect" is blown out of proportion. Every good batsman has dented bowlers stats. Bradman had done it more than others. That doesn't make bowlers who bowled to him Marshalls, Hadlees, Warnes or Muralis.

The point being that no one has dented them as uniquely as Bradman. Therefore it needs to be accounted for to make a proper appreciation of the bowlers he faced. With the exception of Warne the 4 bowlers you mentioned would not be considered great now if they played in DGB's era. Bcos they wouldn't have had the number of tests to prove themselves. In fact Murali wouldn't have played at all. You see how ridiculous your point becomes? You fail to rate players with a proper weighting of their skills. You penalise them for lack of opportunity.

I have provided a comparison for you in another thread. It shows the Eng bowlers Bradman faced to be the equivalent of Tyson, Trueman, Statham, Bedser and Bailey. That is a fine set of bowlers. Only a fool would argue otherwise. I also know that they are distinctly superior to the careers of bowlers Eng used to win the ashes in 2005 (achieved against a great team). That is on the raw stats alone. When the Bradman effect is taken into account the difference is overwhelming and in favour of the 30s bowlers. Additionally the overall batting ave of the 30s is the 2nd lowest by decades since that time if only DGB took up tennis instead of cricket. So the bowlers must have been doing something right.

I have given you these comparsions to show the fine quality of the bowlers Bradman faced. You on the other hand have given us nothing to prove otherwise except your naive incredulity. I've read your posts and am comfortable with the realisation they offer me nothing to consider except the opportunity to correct your misconceptions and biases.

[the big bambino]

The whole argument boild down to what would the change of average if there was an average batsman instead of a great one.

When the batsman averages 100 (and the global average is 30), the difference is 70 x 0.018 = 1.26 runs.
At average of 58, it is 28 x 0.018 = 0.504. The net difference Bradman brings is 1.26 - 0.54, that is 0.7 runs, so called the "Bradman Effect".

0.018 since Bradman played 1.8% of test innings during his period.

As another poster said you are being disingenuous. If I were being kinder I'd call you merely ignorant and leave it at that. I have the real rate of the distortion and DGB distorted the 30s overall ave by 1.28 runs. A meagre amount you infer but you'd be wrong. The differences in batting aves over the decades since the 30s is relatively miniscule. So Bradman's impact alone moves the 30's ave from 2nd lowest place up 4 places. He alone manages to do that. That is bcos an era that has a men who average 50 is counter balanced by every other era who have men who've done the same But no other era has a player who averages 103 except for the 30s (and perhaps the 40s). Hence the correction to remove the outlier.

[the big bambino]

For information of TBB:

Bradman played 80 out of 4376 innings. i.e. 1.83%

SRT played 323 out of 33576 innings i.e. 0.96%

Bradman basically played twice as much innings as SRT. SRT averages 54.3. If you replace it with a Sanga or a Kallis with higher average but still lesser innings that will equate to three or four batsmen

No. Just no...The higher proportion of innings you play relative to all others the more you'll distort the decadal ave. So using an absurd example to illustrate, if DGB played one innings of 103 it'd have no impact on the decadal ave. If he played every innings the ave for the decade would be 102.77. See it now? The more innings you play the greater the distortion.

So DGB distorted the 30s ave 2 ways.

(1) An abnormal and unique batting ave.
(2) Playing an abnormally high proportion of that decade's innings.

The 1st point is unique. The 2nd point is rare and almost uniquely confined to the 30s 40s and maybe 50s. The 2 in conjunction are unique.

That is to say no other player approaches the average and in modern times a player's impact is smoothed out by the greater no. of games played. So his proportion of innings becomes more modest relative to the total played.

Well that moderating factor doesn't apply to the 30s. So you have to correct for that distortion too. For example a batsman like Hammond, who ave in the 50s, played even more innings than DGB. Therefore his impact on that decade's average is greater than a similar player in a more modern decade.

So if you adjusted the proportion of Hammond's innings to reflect a modern percentage then the decade's batting ave falls even further. Much to your annoyance and the pleasure I'm taking from it.

[the big bambino]

As an example of the post above lets take Hammond. What impact did he have on the decadal ave of the 1930s?

For the starting point I've deducted DGB's runs so as to illustrate the distorting impact of the no. of innings Hammond played relative to the rest in the decade.

Hammond played around 3.5% of that decade's innings. A massive proportion for an individual player. I have a vague recollection that SRT played about 0.97% of the innings in the 90s. I couldn't be bothered checking that but it equates nicely with his overall figure provided by Migara in the post I quoted above.

If you remove Hammond's raw stats from the 30s the overall ave drops by just over one run. A disproportionate impact for a man who averaged 59 simply bcos of the no of innings he played.

If you proportion the no. of innings he played to the 0.97% figure that modern greats like SRT seems to generate, Hammond would only bring down the decadal ave by 0.28 runs. Almost one quarter the impact he actually had.

So thankyou Migara. It looks like I'll have to adjust the 30s batting ave to account for the disproportionate no. of innings the great players of that decade played. This would bring down that decade's batting ave even further

EDIT: Note that if you similarly proportion DGB's innings the decadal ave increases by almost a run but the 30s batting ave still remains the 2nd lowest.

[Migara]

It is average at the given position. Why would you count all the batsman? and why would anyone who bats at 3 will average 30. You are being disingenuous, including all batsman over whole period. This exercise is about individual batting positions at each period. If you don't chose the second best then you have to select number 3 average without bradman, that would actually hurt the overall output more.

Take what ever average you like. But the net effect would be the same. If the new batsman average 60 (Pollock for example), then the change would be (100 - 60) * 0.018, which would still be 0.72.

[Migara]

The point being that no one has dented them as uniquely as Bradman. Therefore it needs to be accounted for to make a proper appreciation of the bowlers he faced. With the exception of Warne the 4 bowlers you mentioned would not be considered great now if they played in DGB's era. Bcos they wouldn't have had the number of tests to prove themselves. In fact Murali wouldn't have played at all. You see how ridiculous your point becomes? You fail to rate players with a proper weighting of their skills. You penalise them for lack of opportunity.

Your argument is ridiculous. Bradman dented them, so did Sachin or Ponting. Bradman had the most effect all right, but the effect is meagre 0.72 runs, which will not change Voce in to a Marshall. And bolded part just shows the Bradman bias you have. Bradman never faced quality of Marshall or Hadlee, or Murali or Warne, even after the 0.72 Bradman effect is taken in to account. And to suggest Murali would not have played blah, blah is just changing goal posts of the discussion by bringing irrelevent arguments. The number of test argument is another joke, because nearly 50-75% of tests in 30-40s were Ashes. The number of sides are larger now and so are the bilateral series.

I have provided a comparison for you in another thread. It shows the Eng bowlers Bradman faced to be the equivalent of Tyson, Trueman, Statham, Bedser and Bailey.

I have proved that what Bradman did instead of Hutton in that place is 0.72. If he dented some bowlers with averages 4 - 5 runs, there must be ones who benefited from bowling to him. Otherwise the overall aggregate could not come to 1.26

That is a fine set of bowlers. Only a fool would argue otherwise. I also know that they are distinctly superior to the careers of bowlers Eng used to win the ashes in 2005 (achieved against a great team). That is on the raw stats alone. When the Bradman effect is taken into account the difference is overwhelming and in favour of the 30s bowlers. Additionally the overall batting ave of the 30s is the 2nd lowest by decades since that time if only DGB took up tennis instead of cricket. So the bowlers must have been doing something right.

You are once again dishing Bradman effect. If Ponting replaced Bradman, the bowling averaged would drop by 0.7, which is just plain insignificant. Put what ever way you like, none of the bowlers bowled to Bradman has class of Marshall, Holding, McGrath, oe Hadlee

[Migara]

As another poster said you are being disingenuous. If I were being kinder I'd call you merely ignorant and leave it at that. I have the real rate of the distortion and DGB distorted the 30s overall ave by 1.28 runs. A meagre amount you infer but you'd be wrong. The differences in batting aves over the decades since the 30s is relatively miniscule. So Bradman's impact alone moves the 30's ave from 2nd lowest place up 4 places. He alone manages to do that. That is bcos an era that has a men who average 50 is counter balanced by every other era who have men who've done the same But no other era has a player who averages 103 except for the 30s (and perhaps the 40s). Hence the correction to remove the outlier.

Once again failing to get the point. If a bowler averaged 31.3 with Bradman, without Bradman (with a batsman who has an average of 0) he would average 30. Still that bowler don'tbecome world class.

[Migara]

No. Just no...The higher proportion of innings you play relative to all others the more you'll distort the decadal ave. So using an absurd example to illustrate, if DGB played one innings of 103 it'd have no impact on the decadal ave. If he played every innings the ave for the decade would be 102.77. See it now? The more innings you play the greater the distortion.

Decadal averages were just averages of Ashes. I could easily show what effect Sehwag had on India-Pakistan matches for an example if only India and Pakistan played.

So DGB distorted the 30s ave 2 ways.

(1) An abnormal and unique batting ave.
(2) Playing an abnormally high proportion of that decade's innings.

The 1st point is unique. The 2nd point is rare and almost uniquely confined to the 30s 40s and maybe 50s. The 2 in conjunction are unique.

1st point is unique, I agree. Second was just due to circumstances.

That is to say no other player approaches the average and in modern times a player's impact is smoothed out by the greater no. of games played. So his proportion of innings becomes more modest relative to the total played.

Similarly, crap players in 30s and 40s will have a massive effect in bringing the average down compared to modern times. Two way process it is.

Well that moderating factor doesn't apply to the 30s. So you have to correct for that distortion too. For example a batsman like Hammond, who ave in the 50s, played even more innings than DGB. Therefore his impact on that decade's average is greater than a similar player in a more modern decade.

apply the same theory for 8,9,10 jack innings as well.

So if you adjusted the proportion of Hammond's innings to reflect a modern percentage then the decade's batting ave falls even further. Much to your annoyance and the pleasure I'm taking from it.

Remeber the rabbits.

[L Trumper]

Take what ever average you like. But the net effect would be the same. If the new batsman average 60 (Pollock for example), then the change would be (100 - 60) * 0.018, which would still be 0.72.

Why the hell are you using 0.018 again. It is averages by position. 0.018 is derived from all the innings played by all the batsman.