Predict Bradman in ODIs in modern era.

[akshayxyz]

What should be one's ODI stats, so as to be considered bradman-esque (in ODIs). i.e. Bradman (of 30s-40s in tests) kind of standout performance - in ODIs in modern era (preferably 1990s (or 80s) onwards. Few points that you might find useful that I have gathered from various sources. a) As per some statistical analysis on Don's era - it is widely accepted that he would have averaged about 75 (in tests) in modern era. In other words, 75 can be considered as Bradman-esque test average of modern era. If it helps, Sachin (or a combination of others) can be considered a benchmark for consistency across all formats in modern era. c) Any assumptions/(numbers) you are going to add/drop, and think should be considered by others too - please mention, I will update OP. Rules: 0) Your answer should be in the form - [ODI average] +/- [error] in at least [N] ODIs. If you think it is not possible to do so - please state. a) This is a serious post with some serious purpose - that definitely is not to prove greatness of one player over other. There are other posts for that. It is more of an exercise to explore the limitation/strengths of statistical models (bell curves, outlierss and/or other approaches) you people would want to use to do the prediction/extrapolation. So please contribute constructively. educated guesses, Calculators, google, Cricinfo, matlab ,outsourcing - are all allowed. c) Instead of debating over the purpose of this post, you better just leave a guess - or please just stay away. d) Please refrain from indulging into talks over conditions, bowlers faced, or other differences between eras. There are numerous other discussion threads for those purposes. e) Base your prediction purely on the basis of numbers - averages, 100s, 50s, etc.. and other such cricket stats - relative to peers. f) If it helps you can use stats/math model from other sports - (to study variance/distribution etc.) - be careful that there should not too much of difference in sports dynamics. e.g. It would not be wise to map some performance distribution curve from Tennis to Batting in Cricket.

[akshayxyz]

Before anyone posts nonsense comments - or considers/reports it as a joke - first refer to "Ramiz vs Hammond" and "Donald vs GOB Allen" and many more such posts. Those are clearly in sarcastic vein. This one's purpose is to prove/disprove the accuracy of using simplistic stats ( curves and outlier stuff) to predict one batsman's performance in significantly different time-space/rules/levels of cricket.

[akshayxyz]

1. Rett Someone with an avg of around 55-60 (20% of 275-300) and a SR of 90+ would probably be an outlier like what Bradman is in tests

[akshayxyz]

[bhanu]

fail thread :facepalm:

[zen]

ODIs are more abt how effective you are in a game wrt how often can you get your team into a winning position or win the game for your team .... Unlike in tests, a good inning can help your team to seal the deal In ODI you also need a good SR to go with the avg .... Like what is believed by many, scoring most number of runs or 100s doesn't make you the best automatically as the more games you play, you are likely to score more runs (if you are good) and the amount of 100s you score also depends upon the position you bat at Btw, below is the list of batsmen who have scored over 5000 runs: LINK Unfortunately, so far there hasn't be a true outlier in ODIs. Most of the top guys have been around the same level. May be Viv Richards can probably stake a claim for scoring at an avg of 47 w/ a ST of 90 in an era not many avg that much or played at such a SR In my opinion, someone with an avg like Bevan's and a SR like Richards could be considered as an outlier and stake a claim to be the unquestionably greatest like Bradman in tests. By avg like Bevan, I mean someone who avg a lot higher than his counterparts and by SR like Richards, I mean someone whose SR was much higher than his peers. Taking today's playing conditions into account with scores like 300 being achieved easily, someone with an avg of around 55-60 (20% of 275-300) and a SR of 90+ would probably be an outlier like what Bradman is in tests. Too bad, Don didn't get to play ODIs :winky:

[The Outsider]

If Gandhi was born in the modern era, he would have been the greatest ODI cricketer because it's a completely different world now. He would have averaged 200 with a strike rate of 400.

[ganeshran]

In before Bossbhai

[Stuge]

how about Sreesanth in bradman era ? sreesanth bowling to Bradman or breadman :P

[akshayxyz]

fail thread :facepalm:

In before Bossbhai

how about Sreesanth in bradman era ? sreesanth bowling to Bradman or breadman :P

As I said - either say - it is not possible, or just leave a wild guess. Can you contribute anything useful? If you failed to notice the main assumptions: a) Some statisticians have been able to calculate Bradman's equivalent test average in modern era - purely on the basis of how he faired in comparison to his peers back at that time. As per them the outlier Bradman's average was - was pure reflection of extraordinary cricketing skills he would have over his peers in any era. b) With however amount of changes in the way cricket is played in modern era- Bradman would have been able to adapt and still maintain the 'skill gap' he had over his peers. There is no doubt whether he would have been able to adapt to ODI - everyone else has been able to - Ponting, Sachin, Kallis, Lara, or even Gavaskar ( who started with 36/60 overs). without affecting his test cricket average. c) So all one need to do is - look at how Bradman faired as compared to his peers back then, and use it to predict his ODI average - as compared to modern generation. If you do not agree to above, point out - or suggest if you need more assumptions/data to calculate.

[akshayxyz]

If Gandhi was born in the modern era' date=' he would have been the greatest ODI cricketer because it's a completely different world now. He would have averaged 200 with a strike rate of 400.[/quote'] Anything else professor? If you think it is not possible - say so and stay away, or leave a guess Or suggest what do you need to calculate, it is not more difficult than predicting Bradman's average in modern era - a problem you have already solved.

[The Outsider]

Anything else professor? If you think it is not possible - say so and stay away, or leave a guess Or suggest what do you need to calculate, it is not more difficult than predicting Bradman's average in modern era - a problem you have already solved.

You really don't have to advertise your stupidity in every thread. Firstly, I never made that prediction. Secondly, the prediction you are referring to is not a prediction. Thirdly, it is a mathematical construct to determine the level to which Bradman was a statistical outlier normalized to the modern day sample size. Nothing more, nothing less.

[ganeshran]

There is simply no way that you can arrive at a number and be able to conclusively prove that it will be Bradman's ODI average in the modern era. The assumptions you can make are hugely debatable and might not hold true at all.

[Sachin=GOD]

You really don't have to advertise your stupidity in every thread. Firstly, I never made that prediction. Secondly, the prediction you are referring to is not a prediction. Thirdly, it is a mathematical construct to determine the level to which Bradman was a statistical outlier normalized to the modern day sample size. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sir, Is rating a batsman as greatest of all time without having seen him bat (or seeing a few clips of his batting) also a sign of stupidity?

[The Outsider]

Sir' date=' Is rating a batsman as greatest of all time without having seen him bat (or seeing a few clips of his batting) also a sign of stupidity?[/quote'] You are free to draw your conclusions on that - online certifications about my stupidity from Sachin=GOD aren't exactly on the top of my priorities. But, I'll tell you what I definitely consider stupid and jingoistic is applying different standards to Bradman and Dhyanchand based on which passport they held.

[akshayxyz]

ODIs are more abt how effective you are in a game wrt how often can you get your team into a winning position or win the game for your team .... Unlike in tests, a good inning can help your team to seal the deal In ODI you also need a good SR to go with the avg .... Like what is believed by many, scoring most number of runs or 100s doesn't make you the best automatically as the more games you play, you are likely to score more runs (if you are good) and the amount of 100s you score also depends upon the position you bat at Btw, below is the list of batsmen who have scored over 5000 runs: LINK Unfortunately, so far there hasn't be a true outlier in ODIs. Most of the top guys have been around the same level. May be Viv Richards can probably stake a claim for scoring at an avg of 47 w/ a ST of 90 in an era not many avg that much or played at such a SR In my opinion, someone with an avg like Bevan's and a SR like Richards could be considered as an outlier and stake a claim to be the unquestionably greatest like Bradman in tests. By avg like Bevan, I mean someone who avg a lot higher than his counterparts and by SR like Richards, I mean someone whose SR was much higher than his peers. Taking today's playing conditions into account with scores like 300 being achieved easily, someone with an avg of around 55-60 (20% of 275-300) and a SR of 90+ would probably be an outlier like what Bradman is in tests. Too bad, Don didn't get to play ODIs :winky:

were you trying to say? a) ODI is not reflection of cricketing skills or it is not a game of cricket? b) Don would have denied to play ODI cricket? c) Playing ODI/tests simultaneously does( doesn't) affect the performance in each other ? d) One has to be an statistical outliers to be qualified for predictions? From what I have learnt from You/Outy and others: a) Don would have been able to adapt to any changes in the game and still maintain the deviation above others. So you answer is - as per your maths/stats model -Don would have averaged 55-60 at SR of 90 w/o affecting his test average of 75(modern) or vice versa? Thanks at least some one attempted :).

[Sachin=GOD]

You are free to draw your conclusions on that - online certifications about my stupidity from Sachin=GOD aren't exactly on the top of my priorities. But, I'll tell you what I definitely consider stupid and jingoistic is applying different standards to Bradman and Dhyanchand based on which passport they held.

I have never called you stupid. Its just a difference in perception maybe, you can rate a player without watching him play but I cannot. I have never called DhyanChand to be the greatest of all time - I merely said that he was widely regarded as the greatest ever.

[akshayxyz]

You really don't have to advertise your stupidity in every thread.

Choice of words which has no relevance to the subject is sign of intelligence?

Firstly, I never made that prediction.

But you introduced me to it - so I assumed that you endorse that.

Secondly, the prediction you are referring to is not a prediction. Thirdly, it is a mathematical construct to determine the level to which Bradman was a statistical outlier normalized to the modern day sample size. Nothing more, nothing less.

But is it not the calculation which forms the basis of "what Don would have done today" without worrying about the decades of changes in the game of cricket? No argument about whether Don was statistical outlier in his era - but I am tired of people using that construct to claim that it is possible in today's setup, and Don would have been the only one to achieve so.

[The Outsider]

I have never called you stupid. Its just a difference in perception maybe, you can rate a player without watching him play but I cannot. I have never called DhyanChand to be the greatest of all time - I merely said that he was widely regarded as the greatest ever.

Is the following your quote or not? If it is, what does it mean, Wren and Martin ke champion?

He was so great that many a times the opposition team simply refused to take the field against him

.

[The Outsider]

Choice of words which has no relevance to the subject is sign of intelligence?

Wrong. Prediction is something quite different. Look it up.

But you introduced me to it - so I assumed that you endorse that.

Endorse it to the extent of it's scope.

But is it not the calculation which forms the basis of "what Don would have done today" without worrying about the decades of changes in the game of cricket?

No, it's not. Try to understand the scope of the study and argument.

No argument about whether Don was statistical outlier in his era - but I am tired of people using that construct to claim that it is possible in today's setup, and Don would have been the only one to achieve so.

The study attempts to quantify one variable - the presence of a larger pool of cricketers today - and concludes the equivalent statistical outlier today would be in the range of 75-80. It is not a prediction.