i have a cricket/baseball question.
who is baseballs equivalent of lokomotiv?
he's been posting on baseball fora questioning why they dont use flat bats, bounce the ball and wear white cardigans?
uvelocity showing impressive sophistication with his use of "fora"
Originally Posted by Peter Mooresforever 63*
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.
Forever 63* at the SCG
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.
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.
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.
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)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)