Great film. Yeah back to back European Cups is incredible but something I find almost as impressive about Clough is his playing stats, 251 goals in 274 games is pretty insane

That's pretty crazy.

Sammy Baugh is also the only player in NFL history to lead the league in punting average, passing yardage and defensive interceptions in the same season.

Antonio Cromartie should easily break this record.

Whats interesting is these two accounts are the same person and they match a couple known spammer accounts. And now they're both gone. Clever way to build post count I must admit.

SE mods have turned into Sherlock holmes

along those lines, father/son goals:

Bobby Hull:

610 NHL (62 playoffs)
303 WHA (43 playoffs)
44 OHA (8 playoffs)
12 International
-----
1082 total goals

Brett Hull:

741 NHL (103 playoffs)
50 AHL (2 playoffs)
84 NCAA
153 BCJHL
21 International
-----
1154 total goals

depending on how nitty you want to be, 1351-2236 goals between the two of them in their hockey careers. gotta be a record, same with points (somewhere between 2561-4288 points depending on what you want to count). pretty impressive stuff! and pretty cool that they had equally great HOF careers.

I gave you TheUntoucheable back.

Thanxx but my P.O.T. binge is over for now. I'll save it for a rainy day a la asseni. Gotta lay low for now

Can someone who understands cricket a little more explain to me how such an insane outlier is even possible?

Wouldn't it be akin to say, shooting 98% from the field (and from three and from the line) in basketball? Or hitting .850 in baseball or something?

How can it even be possible that one single player is THAT much better than everyone else who has ever lived.

Were the bowlers he faced just way awful or were there rules that were changed that made it harder on other batsmen or something?

I just don't understand how something like that can happen.

Miscommunication. I thought u were saying my post 66 wasn't a stat, but rather a fact. I realize now that you were saying that about your own post 67. That's why I replied the way I did. Sorry about that.

wwi and wwii ldo

this

Ya, probably akin to having a TS% of 80> on super high usage (he batted at #3 - typically where a teams best batsman bats).

Rule changes since Bradman's retirement have made life a lot easier for batsman.

The most significant rule change since Bradman's retirement is that pitches are now allowed to be covered. For those that don't know, a cricket pitch is essentially a cut turf strip heavy rolled and compacted to be hard (also don't think they were allowed to use heavy rollers in pitch preparation back then). Covering a pitch not only protects it from rain/ extreme weather but allows the pitch to be kept in better condition over the course of a test match (5 days). Pretty much anyone that has ever batted on a weather effected pitch will tell you it is hell. Pitches soften, can become 'gluey', crack quicker - all things that make it incredibly difficult to bat on. The basketball equivalent to batting on an uncovered pitch would be making a basketball hoop an inch or so smaller.

Where 'great' modern bowlers typically average >23 runs per wicket (with a few exceptions like Shane Warne) on covered wickets, it wasn't rare for 'good' bowlers to average >20 runs per wicket on uncovered wickets. Modern bowlers (especially the second tier guys) are much better than they used to be. I don't think that increase in quality offsets the disadvantages of batting on uncovered pitches though.

Pretty much every sort of advanced batting metric that has been developed for cricket has come to the same conclusion. He kind of just was that good.

I've seen statisticians say it is equiv to a .5 in baseball.

Edit: and yeah there are various theories you can come to (like the games were way easier -- but then how come he averaged 50% more than EVERYONE else of that era), but the predominant one is that he was just that good.

yup, and triple century. 400 is just 400.

people in lower grades of cricket have scored more than that though.

He was ridiculously good.

His batting style was more defensive than most openers as well. His strength was finding gaps in the field and hitting the ball very hard along the ground. He just made it very very hard for bowlers to take his wicket (get him out).

Trying to explain it is really a bit meaningless. Plenty of documentaries have tried

Ya. Brian Lara holds the test cricket record of 400 (not out) runs in one innings and the First Class record of 501 (not out). The latter record is especially absurd.

He's the best batsmen ever, but his case is often overstated. In Bradman's time there were only 2 legitimate cricket powers, Australia and England. South Africa and West Indies were awful, and the subcontinent didn't play test matches yet (they weren't given test status till the late 40s iirc).

It's similar to Wilt's 50 points/game record. It's incredible, but in a very different era than now.

Not really. He is probably held in pretty much the right esteem. As I said above, if you try to discount his achievements by referencing the quality of opposition then you need to reference the difference and increased difficulty between playing on covered and uncovered pitches

While his stats are inflated by games against India, the West Indies and South Africa, his average against England is still a pretty remarkable 89.78. That average is line with his average of 90.17 across every game he ever played. The reality is that he still averaged 1.5 times more than the other "legends" of that era in Headly, Hobbes, Hammond, Sutcliffe.

This thread makes me want to get more into cricket.

Most unbelievable stat?

Wayne Gretzky, 50 goals in 39 games.


fine then;

Bobby Orr 1970-1971 Bruins GP78 G37 A102 P139 +/-124 PIM91 WIMinfinity

White Goose - It's a great stat but certainly not the most unbelievable.

Do any others have any thoughts on the Isner/Mahut match at Wimbledon? It was so comically ridiculous I'm kind of surprised it hasn't gotten more attention in this thread.

I don't know much about tennis, but it seemed like the longer the match went, the less likely a break seemed. Saving energy for service games and just hoping for a couple mistakes to steal a break.

Curious what the points after 30-0 in those games looked like. I wouldn't be surprised if it was something like 100-10, seemed like they pretty much took a nap at the end of games in which they were trailing.

Father/son hits:

Ken Griffey Sr. and Jr.: 2143 + 2781 = 4924

Bobby and Barry Bonds: 1886 + 2935 = 4821

Gus and Buddy Bell: 1823 + 2514 = 4337

Pete Rose Sr. and Jr.: 4256 + 2 = 4258