4 ms·

The cricket player Donald Bradman [1] is the outlier among outliers. Even compared to greats like Michael Jordan, the statistical significance of his achievemen

The cricket player Donald Bradman [1] is the outlier among outliers. Even compared to greats like Michael Jordan, the statistical significance of his achievements almost defy belief. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradman

jquery 12y ago
If you're willing to branch out beyond physical sports, Marion Tinsley [1] is perhaps even stronger, losing only 7 games in his 45-year career of checkers. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Tinsley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Tinsley
- qq66 12y ago
  I don't think checkers is comparable, since there's no luck component in checkers. In a physical sport with random winds/ground conditions/ball imperfections/bat imperfections/etc, you have to be that much better than your competitor to beat them consistently (and that margin varies by sport, where baseball, for example, has many more random factors than tennis).
  - jquery 12y ago
    This is a false conception people have about sports like checkers, chess, go, etc. It depends on how you think about luck. Sure, if you're an omniscient being who knows the entire decision tree for a given move in [checkers/chess/go/etc...], there's no luck, in the Monte Carlo sense. But, except for simplified positions, nobody is fully aware of the consequences of their move in these games. This "fog of war" is a good analogue for the random winds/ground conditions/ball imperfections that you mentioned in other sports. It's often why great players in these games sometimes lose to far worse players.
    - qq66 12y ago
      That's an interesting perspective. Thanks.
    - mehwoot 12y ago
      Checkers is a solved game. It proven possible to always not lose a game if you play correctly from the beginning. As such high level games feature many draws and few wins. Marion Tinsley also didn't compete in the World Championships for 20 years in the middle of his 45 year streak, during which time Walter Hellman was world champion for 17-odd years and only lost 7 games at the World Championships during that time. Marion Tinsley may be the best checkers player of all time, but his achievements are nowhere near unbelievable given the nature of the sport and achievements that are similar to his. Statistically, Donald Bradman is much more of an outlier when compared to other people who have played his sport.
  - pitt1980 12y ago
    I'm not sure I agree with you physical sports sometimes come with sustainable competive advantages until he gets old, LeBron is always going exceptionally big, and athletic in contrast, checkers exists on a much more fragile competive advantage
joebeetee 12y ago
Great to see a cricket comment. I wonder how he would've fared against the present day Akhtars, Akhrams, Donalds, Steyns, Warnes or Muralitharans. Would older greats have stood out as much faced with the technological and biological advances of the present day?
- anu_gupta 12y ago
  As long as he gets the advantages of modern nutrition, fitness conditioning, and analysis, then I'm pretty sure Bradman would tower over modern day players. Don't forget, in Bradman's time, there were no covered pitches, leg side theory was legal, batmen didn't wear helmets or much in the way of protection (and bowlers weren't that much slower than they are now).
- s4sharpie 12y ago
  Bradman survived the 'Bodyline' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline) series where the bowlers (pitchers in American parlance) literally targeted the body to injure the players and to hamper Brandman's prowess. It had the desired effect (Brandman only averaged 56 for the series as opposed to his career average of 99.94) and resulted in multiple injuries. I think he would do just fine today.
- zem 12y ago
  possibly apocryphal story, but... During the recent radio coverage of the current Ashes tour, between England and Australia, I heard a great quote about Sir Donald Bradman, the famous Australian cricket player. It went as follows: In the 1980s, England's fast bowler Bob Willis had the fortune to meet Sir Donald Bradman, legend of cricket. Bradman had been the dominant player from the 1930s and 1940s and the Australian had amassed stats that are unlikely ever to be bettered. Willis was keen to get The Don's view on what he might have averaged if he had played in the modern game. Bradman looked at Willis and replied that he reckoned that he would have averaged about fifty runs per game. Willis expressed surprise, having thought that the great man might have expected to have averaged more. Bradman looked Willis in the eye and then responded along the lines of "Well, I am in my seventies now!". from http://www.sportinglife360.com/index.php/donald-bradman-cricket-legacy-42177/ http://www.sportinglife360.com/index.php/donald-bradman-cric...
x0x0 12y ago
You should check out this [1] titled "The most remarkable graph in the history of sport" to get an idea of just how much of an outlier Bradman is. Read the whole thing, it's brief, but a quick excerpt: To understand how Bradman’s 99.94 average compares with other batsmen, consider that a typical topflight batsman has an average in the range 45 to 55. Batsmen with averages above 55 are once-in-a-generation phenomena who dominate the entire game. After Bradman, the second highest average in history [2] belongs to South African Graeme Pollock, with 60.97, and the third highest to West Indian George Headley, with 60.83. [1] http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/the-most-remarkable-graph-in-the-history-of-sport/ http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/the-most-remarkable-graph-in-...
- megablast 12y ago
  And it would have been an average of 100, if he hadn't got out for a duck (no score), in his last game.
  - Lrigikithumer 12y ago
    Yep, all he needed was a single 4 and he would have had an average of 100. Impressive guy, the idol of basically every kid whos ever played cricket.
    - dwd 12y ago
      Prior to the 1932-33 Ashes Tour(1) his test average was 112.29 after averaging over 200 per innings against South Africa and dropped to a mid career low of 89.55 as a result of the English tactics. Very impressive. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline
mavelikara 12y ago
Agreed, but I'd put Heather McKay up there with The Don. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_McKay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_McKay > When she retired in 1981 at the age of 40, McKay had gone nearly 20 years undefeated (with the only two defeats to her name occurring at the beginning of her career). Interestingly, both come from Australia.
thomasahle 12y ago
Sure, but that is more than a hundred years ago. Back then the sport was not nearly as competitive.

jquery 12y ago

If you're willing to branch out beyond physical sports, Marion Tinsley [1] is perhaps even stronger, losing only 7 games in his 45-year career of checkers. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Tinsley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Tinsley

qq66 12y ago
I don't think checkers is comparable, since there's no luck component in checkers. In a physical sport with random winds/ground conditions/ball imperfections/bat imperfections/etc, you have to be that much better than your competitor to beat them consistently (and that margin varies by sport, where baseball, for example, has many more random factors than tennis).
- jquery 12y ago
  This is a false conception people have about sports like checkers, chess, go, etc. It depends on how you think about luck. Sure, if you're an omniscient being who knows the entire decision tree for a given move in [checkers/chess/go/etc...], there's no luck, in the Monte Carlo sense. But, except for simplified positions, nobody is fully aware of the consequences of their move in these games. This "fog of war" is a good analogue for the random winds/ground conditions/ball imperfections that you mentioned in other sports. It's often why great players in these games sometimes lose to far worse players.
  - qq66 12y ago
    That's an interesting perspective. Thanks.
  - mehwoot 12y ago
    Checkers is a solved game. It proven possible to always not lose a game if you play correctly from the beginning. As such high level games feature many draws and few wins. Marion Tinsley also didn't compete in the World Championships for 20 years in the middle of his 45 year streak, during which time Walter Hellman was world champion for 17-odd years and only lost 7 games at the World Championships during that time. Marion Tinsley may be the best checkers player of all time, but his achievements are nowhere near unbelievable given the nature of the sport and achievements that are similar to his. Statistically, Donald Bradman is much more of an outlier when compared to other people who have played his sport.
- pitt1980 12y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with you physical sports sometimes come with sustainable competive advantages until he gets old, LeBron is always going exceptionally big, and athletic in contrast, checkers exists on a much more fragile competive advantage

joebeetee 12y ago

Great to see a cricket comment. I wonder how he would've fared against the present day Akhtars, Akhrams, Donalds, Steyns, Warnes or Muralitharans. Would older greats have stood out as much faced with the technological and biological advances of the present day?

anu_gupta 12y ago
As long as he gets the advantages of modern nutrition, fitness conditioning, and analysis, then I'm pretty sure Bradman would tower over modern day players. Don't forget, in Bradman's time, there were no covered pitches, leg side theory was legal, batmen didn't wear helmets or much in the way of protection (and bowlers weren't that much slower than they are now).
s4sharpie 12y ago
Bradman survived the 'Bodyline' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline) series where the bowlers (pitchers in American parlance) literally targeted the body to injure the players and to hamper Brandman's prowess. It had the desired effect (Brandman only averaged 56 for the series as opposed to his career average of 99.94) and resulted in multiple injuries. I think he would do just fine today.
zem 12y ago
possibly apocryphal story, but... During the recent radio coverage of the current Ashes tour, between England and Australia, I heard a great quote about Sir Donald Bradman, the famous Australian cricket player. It went as follows: In the 1980s, England's fast bowler Bob Willis had the fortune to meet Sir Donald Bradman, legend of cricket. Bradman had been the dominant player from the 1930s and 1940s and the Australian had amassed stats that are unlikely ever to be bettered. Willis was keen to get The Don's view on what he might have averaged if he had played in the modern game. Bradman looked at Willis and replied that he reckoned that he would have averaged about fifty runs per game. Willis expressed surprise, having thought that the great man might have expected to have averaged more. Bradman looked Willis in the eye and then responded along the lines of "Well, I am in my seventies now!". from http://www.sportinglife360.com/index.php/donald-bradman-cricket-legacy-42177/ http://www.sportinglife360.com/index.php/donald-bradman-cric...

x0x0 12y ago

You should check out this [1] titled "The most remarkable graph in the history of sport" to get an idea of just how much of an outlier Bradman is. Read the whole thing, it's brief, but a quick excerpt: To understand how Bradman’s 99.94 average compares with other batsmen, consider that a typical topflight batsman has an average in the range 45 to 55. Batsmen with averages above 55 are once-in-a-generation phenomena who dominate the entire game. After Bradman, the second highest average in history [2] belongs to South African Graeme Pollock, with 60.97, and the third highest to West Indian George Headley, with 60.83. [1] http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/the-most-remarkable-graph-in-the-history-of-sport/ http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/the-most-remarkable-graph-in-...

megablast 12y ago
And it would have been an average of 100, if he hadn't got out for a duck (no score), in his last game.
- Lrigikithumer 12y ago
  Yep, all he needed was a single 4 and he would have had an average of 100. Impressive guy, the idol of basically every kid whos ever played cricket.
  - dwd 12y ago
    Prior to the 1932-33 Ashes Tour(1) his test average was 112.29 after averaging over 200 per innings against South Africa and dropped to a mid career low of 89.55 as a result of the English tactics. Very impressive. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline

mavelikara 12y ago

Agreed, but I'd put Heather McKay up there with The Don. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_McKay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_McKay > When she retired in 1981 at the age of 40, McKay had gone nearly 20 years undefeated (with the only two defeats to her name occurring at the beginning of her career). Interestingly, both come from Australia.

thomasahle 12y ago

Sure, but that is more than a hundred years ago. Back then the sport was not nearly as competitive.