Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44
Like Tree8Likes

Thread: Cricket and Baseball, Introductory question: Who is cricket's "Babe Ruth"?

  1. #31
    International Coach uvelocity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    seamy road
    Posts
    11,871
    i have a cricket/baseball question.
    who is baseballs equivalent of lokomotiv?
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    I just love all kinds of balls.

  2. #32
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,747
    Quote Originally Posted by uvelocity View Post
    i have a cricket/baseball question.
    who is baseballs equivalent of lokomotiv?
    Ian Chappell IMO.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  3. #33
    International Coach uvelocity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    seamy road
    Posts
    11,871
    he's been posting on baseball fora questioning why they dont use flat bats, bounce the ball and wear white cardigans?

  4. #34
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,747
    Quote Originally Posted by uvelocity View Post
    he's been posting on baseball fora questioning why they dont use flat bats, bounce the ball and wear white cardigans?
    Yeah definitely sounds like the sort of thing he'd do.


  5. #35
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,627
    uvelocity showing impressive sophistication with his use of "fora"
    Shri likes this.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    get ready for a broken ****in' arm

  6. #36
    International Coach uvelocity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    seamy road
    Posts
    11,871
    im an onion

  7. #37
    Ike
    Ike is offline
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer Ike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Tennessee USA
    Posts
    65
    Great comments, great humor!

    As for SR vs BA, I don't think they're equatable very much, While they are similar in that they both measure success per delivery faced, the fact that you have to run when you hit the ball (fair) in baseball, makes batting average much tougher than SR, at least in once sense. You might also equate SR with OBP for example (which measures all times reaching base safely by hit, walk, or hit by pitch--but not by error). In that case, Ted Williams career is best, at .482 (and Ruth is second at .474). These numbers are significantly higher than Bradman's .392 "equivalent". Does that mean Williams and Ruth were better baseball players than Bradman was a cricketer? No, of course not. Again, it just shows that the statistics aren't comparable.

    I still think that the true comparison of Bradman and Ruth is in their outstanding statistic--HRs for Ruth, Test batting average for Bradman, although each was also outstanding in many other stats. As for Grace, I'm still not convinced that he's not the equivalent, mostly nearly, to Ruth, rather than Bradman being so, since he dominated his era so tremendously, plus he had to play on pitches that were significantly more bowler friendly than in the 20th century and beyond. His Test numbers aren't nearly as good as Bradman's, true, but he only played in a few Test matches, compared to Bradman, and on worse pitches, and Test matches didn't begin until well into his career.

    In any case, my continued thanks for all the feedback. Please also comment if anything I've said above is not accurate, especially concerning cricket.

  8. #38
    Global Moderator nightprowler10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Madhouse on Madison
    Posts
    14,265
    Quote Originally Posted by Ike View Post
    Great comments, great humor!

    As for SR vs BA, I don't think they're equatable very much, While they are similar in that they both measure success per delivery faced, the fact that you have to run when you hit the ball (fair) in baseball, makes batting average much tougher than SR, at least in once sense. You might also equate SR with OBP for example (which measures all times reaching base safely by hit, walk, or hit by pitch--but not by error). In that case, Ted Williams career is best, at .482 (and Ruth is second at .474). These numbers are significantly higher than Bradman's .392 "equivalent". Does that mean Williams and Ruth were better baseball players than Bradman was a cricketer? No, of course not. Again, it just shows that the statistics aren't comparable.

    I still think that the true comparison of Bradman and Ruth is in their outstanding statistic--HRs for Ruth, Test batting average for Bradman, although each was also outstanding in many other stats. As for Grace, I'm still not convinced that he's not the equivalent, mostly nearly, to Ruth, rather than Bradman being so, since he dominated his era so tremendously, plus he had to play on pitches that were significantly more bowler friendly than in the 20th century and beyond. His Test numbers aren't nearly as good as Bradman's, true, but he only played in a few Test matches, compared to Bradman, and on worse pitches, and Test matches didn't begin until well into his career.

    In any case, my continued thanks for all the feedback. Please also comment if anything I've said above is not accurate, especially concerning cricket.
    They're comparing it to Bradman's batting average of 99.94, not strike rate (you kept mentioning SR so I wanted to clear that up). Also, the .392 may be based on the batting averages across the spectrum in baseball, and if so then I imagine everyone's OBP is higher than their batting average. In that case you would have to take into account the average OBP for the highest performers and come up with a new number which would most likely be higher than .482.
    RIP Craigos

  9. #39
    International Vice-Captain Riggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Get ready for a broken ****ing arm.
    Posts
    4,625
    Yea the impression I got was the .392 was compared to the other batting averages in terms of standard deviations above the rest or something.
    The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.

  10. #40
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bondi, NSW
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by Ike View Post
    Great comments, great humor!

    As for SR vs BA, I don't think they're equatable very much, While they are similar in that they both measure success per delivery faced, the fact that you have to run when you hit the ball (fair) in baseball, makes batting average much tougher than SR, at least in once sense. You might also equate SR with OBP for example (which measures all times reaching base safely by hit, walk, or hit by pitch--but not by error). In that case, Ted Williams career is best, at .482 (and Ruth is second at .474). These numbers are significantly higher than Bradman's .392 "equivalent". Does that mean Williams and Ruth were better baseball players than Bradman was a cricketer? No, of course not. Again, it just shows that the statistics aren't comparable.
    .
    I don't get this -- the distribution of OBP is completely different from BA so you can't make comparisons to Bradman's normalized baseball BA.

    In any case, I had a debate with a SABR member (of Indian heritage) from the New York chapter. He convinced me that the most valid statistic in baseball to compare to a batting average in cricket is OPS+ the formula for which is:



    Ruth is the alltime leader in the OPS+ stat with 206.
    Last edited by Second Spitter; 18-03-2014 at 04:40 AM.

  11. #41
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178
    Quote Originally Posted by uvelocity View Post
    im an onion
    Yeah you make people cry. Rarely with laughter.

  12. #42
    Ike
    Ike is offline
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer Ike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Tennessee USA
    Posts
    65
    First, my apologies to Second Spitter for misreading your earlier post.

    I agree that OPS is thought by many to be the best baseball hitting stat, although many in the Sabre community would put Runs Created, Wins Above Replacent, or park-adjusted WAR ahead of it. Ruth does very well in those categories generally, but I don't think you can equate Bradman's BA vs all other cricketers to Ruth BA or OPS vs all other baseball players (if that's what you're suggesting--please correct me if I'm wrong). Ruth was never considered the best 'pure hitter' in baseball (most would choose Ty Cobb or Ted Williams for that). He was the premier power hitter, the first to hit 'home runs' on a regular basis, and making them a key component (and fan favorite) in baseball.

    Perhaps there's no way to compare Ruth to any cricketer, or Bradman to any baseball player for that matter, because with Ruth I'm asking not about someone as good, but someone as famous, well-liked, and well-known as Ruth. But baseball is predominantly an American game (not ignoring it's great popularity in Japan, parts of Latin America, and a few other countries), while cricket has a major following in quite a few countries, as Adders pointed out. So ideas like 'most popular' all time, or 'most liked' or 'most respected' (though I doubt that one would apply to Ruth, or to Grace either, for that matter), are going to vary tremendously from country to country.

    If this is anywhere near accurate, then perhaps cricket has no Babe Ruth, just as baseball has no Don Bradman nor W. G. Grace.

  13. #43
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bondi, NSW
    Posts
    260
    RC and OPS+ are in essence the same thing. The difference being the former incorporates AB*. AB is an analogous to S/R in cricket, however it is not incorporated in a batsman's average.

    *The alternative formula for RC= OBP*TB = OBP*SLG*AB

    OPS+ has the added benefit of normalizing for park factors.

    WAR incorporates non-pure hitting elements (SAC, HBP, SB etc) which makes it less reliable to compare to cricket batting average which is a purely hitting statistic (e.g. leg-byes do not get credited to the batsman)

  14. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    just this side of cool
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by MrPrez View Post
    Yeah if you're looking for cricket's greatest icon, Sachin Tendulkar is your guy.
    Bradman retired about 65 years ago and has been dead for about 15.

    It will be interesting to see if Tendulkar is as well remembered as what the Don was, and still is, in decades to come.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-10-2010, 11:56 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30-04-2009, 07:00 PM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 16-01-2009, 09:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •