tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6193495965695124697.post2509228504345570285..comments2024-03-18T22:43:32.290-07:00Comments on The Old Batsman: The meaning of 77, or The Don recedesThe Old Batsmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14376172807195747856noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6193495965695124697.post-89213817259137194932013-01-24T10:03:18.296-08:002013-01-24T10:03:18.296-08:00oh I did not have any idea about the meaning of 77...oh I did not have any idea about the meaning of 77 or the Don recedes, but I do know after I read your blog and I thank you for the informationprice per head reviewshttp://www.priceperhead101.com/price-per-head-reviews/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6193495965695124697.post-37298467688953563262011-03-15T22:19:53.893-07:002011-03-15T22:19:53.893-07:00Who is/was the second most dominant sportsman as c...Who is/was the second most dominant sportsman as compared to their peers? (I'm assuming you have 1. Bradman, 3. Ty Cobb)FifthBeatlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10401668749535983431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6193495965695124697.post-40068492715888447972008-12-03T20:43:00.000-08:002008-12-03T20:43:00.000-08:00David, dont mind seeing the stats on Grekzky eithe...David, dont mind seeing the stats on Grekzky either.<BR/><BR/>Put them up when you have a chance.<BR/><BR/>And Cheers OTB.Damith S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17751878318520600594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6193495965695124697.post-41228605473424661692008-11-27T01:00:00.000-08:002008-11-27T01:00:00.000-08:00There was a great stat on Woods that at one point ...There was a great stat on Woods that at one point last year he was further ahead in the world rankings of the guy at number two, than the guy at number two was ahead of the world number 1000. My rudimentary grasp of stats reckons he'd need to win 26 majors to be as far ahead as Bradman, so he could do it. <BR/><BR/>Would be really interested to see the Gretsky stuff, too. I love these kind of stats, even though I have no idea how to work them out...The Old Batsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14376172807195747856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6193495965695124697.post-37253105973893304102008-11-26T16:35:00.000-08:002008-11-26T16:35:00.000-08:00I have seen some golf ranking thingy which on face...I have seen some golf ranking thingy which on face value looked like Woods is roughly as dominant as Bradman was, albeit not in terms of wins in Majors. Wayne Gretzky in ice hockey is another one who could statistically challenge Bradman as the greatest sportsman ever. I had a look at Gretzky vs other NHL'ers earlier in the year, and found that he was roughly as many standard deviations above the mean as Bradman was. But Gretzky played in a high-scoring era, and I forgot to transfer my NHL data when I moved back to Brisbane, so I can't do era adjustments and get a better estimate on it.David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6193495965695124697.post-45111870892532823042008-11-26T00:53:00.000-08:002008-11-26T00:53:00.000-08:00Thanks Rob, I'll email you.sorry Damith, have sort...Thanks Rob, I'll email you.<BR/><BR/>sorry Damith, have sorted the flyslip listing out. Technology is not my strongpoint...<BR/><BR/>Hi David, good point. I do hope the primacy of average remains, although I guess ultimately what we're trying to measure is effectiveness. As long as there's always some way of comparing that, then Bradman will be unapproachable. I've always got a kick out of the fact that cricket has the most dominant sportsman, although Woods might win 40 per cent more majors than Nicklaus... maybe!The Old Batsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14376172807195747856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6193495965695124697.post-47992393686274866252008-11-25T19:29:00.000-08:002008-11-25T19:29:00.000-08:00When it does, the meaning of stats will change, su...<I>When it does, the meaning of stats will change, subtly at first, and then irrevocably. 99.94 will prove harder to understand.</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree when it comes to Test cricket. As long as innings aren't limited, fundamentally the average will remain by far the best simple measure of batsmen and bowlers. Day-night Tests would reduce averages because in most places it's harder to bat under lights (and this would, in my view, change the game much more than is desirable), but there have been low-scoring eras in the past. Not just in the early days, but also in the 1950's.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that average means less than strike rate in limited-overs cricket for batsmen. You need at least some minimum value in both to be successful. <BR/><BR/>In T20 cricket economy rate is much more important for bowlers than average. In 50-over cricket I'm not sure, since I haven't done a detailed study on it. My suspicion is that the bowling average is still the most important thing.David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6193495965695124697.post-55866534423164193862008-11-25T18:09:00.000-08:002008-11-25T18:09:00.000-08:00A superb post old batsman !Yes the meaning of thos...A superb post old batsman !<BR/><BR/>Yes the meaning of those older stats have less and less meaning to the modern generation.<BR/><BR/>I hold Bradman in a god like status but some ppl are now starting to question whether bradman was actually that good , cuz he played less opposition and most of runs came against eng etc.<BR/><BR/>i think how we approach this will in the end be the determining factor in whether we still hold bradman and the past greats in the same plane.<BR/><BR/>ps- i think you have added me wrongly to your blogroll :)<BR/><BR/>it should be<BR/>http://www.theflyslip.net/<BR/><BR/>you have added cricketanytime by mistake i think?Damith S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17751878318520600594noreply@blogger.com