Prompted by this thread, the following is a question I have always wondered about.
Why is Don Bradmans average always reported as 99.94 and not 100?
If his overall number of runs was 6996 and dismissals 70, this gives an average of 99.94286, which, I would have thought, should round to 100.
Shouldn’t one report the result to the same number of significant figures as the value provided to the calculation that has the least number of significant figures. Since 70 has two and 1.0 x 10e2 would look a bit daft, then why not 100?
I’d suggest two possible reasons:[ul]
[li]When you say “100%”, most people take that to mean “100.0000…%”, not “above 95.5%” so it’s done to avoid confusion.[/li]As you get close to 100%, the tiny difference between the actual value and 100 becomes important. When talking about purity of gold, for example, 99.6% can’t be rounded up to 100% - there’s a big difference between 99.6% gold, 99.9% gold and 99.99% gold.[/ul]
Also, it so bloody high! At least it makes it big deal if/when someone breaks through the magic 100 mark with a significant number of games (ie, not just 1 or 3).
Probably won’t see batting like that again. They tend to make the pitches suit the bowlers more and the bowling has tightened up a crap load since those days.
I think the reason is because the numbers used in the calculations are exact numbers, not “measured” or estimated ones. Think of it this way: the number of significant digits in 70 dismissals shouldn’t be thought of as only 2 digits, because that number is exact–so it is actually significant to any number of decimal places (70=70.000000…, etc.)
I always assume that it was because his last innings is so famous. He only needed four runs to maintain a test average over 100, and was out for a duck. Everyone knows that his average is less than 100. To report it as 100 would strike people as funny, and give rise to arguments. But to report it as 99.9 would be wrong.
They are typically reported to one decimal place, aren’t they?
I think it’s just tradition. The oldest figures I have seen always quote batting and bowling averages to 2 decimals. I’m sure it’s all down to Wisden in the nineteenth century.
If you divide a quantised unit by another, and the quotient is irrational, do you report the quotient to as many decimal places as you like? How does that work?
It depends on the situation, but normally I’d try to use the same number of significant digits. If it’s 10/30 I’d say 33%, if it’s 1000/3000 I’d say 33.33%.
So it seems the answer is - it should have been reported as 100 using accepted scientific reporting of data, but tradition had it reported to two decimal places.
No, I’m pretty sure Agback’s answer is right. I’m not much of a cricket fan but I knew the legend of Bradman’s last innings. We can’t say he had a 100 run average, because he didn’t get one. It’s like saying someone climbed Everest, even though they turned back 50 feet from the top.
And scr4, I think you’re confusing a 100 run average with a 100 % average; 100 runs is not the maximum; he could easily have ended up with a 102 run average, or more.
I’ve just realised; I’d always thought that he was going for the century per innings average, but he wasn’t; he was going for 100 per match (ie 50 per innings). I think I got confused because I heard something about Boycott averaging a century an innings one summer for Yorkshire. I haven’t been able to confirm this on the net, so I may have imagined it.
I was brewing a coffee when I thought “Bollocks!” Of course I know that not every test team or batsman bats twice, so Bradman’s innings average will be higher than 50. Eejit.
Bradman was going for a century per innings average. What I don’t understand is why Not Outs aren’t included in the innings total that’s used to calculate the average; these would lower the figure. If you’re not including NOs, then you shouldn’t include the runs from them in the total, no?
I realise I’m out of my depth, and will be withdrawing from participation in any future cricket threads. I will stick to football, but I did appreciate the quiet ripple of applause that went round the stands as I reached my 250 (even though the last few runs were well dodgy and I should have been caught or run out).
Yes I am. :smack: :smack: :smack:
I’m sorry, please ignore what I said in my first post.
Yes, I know I should learn to keep my mouth shut when I don’t know what I’m talking about… (but I thought I did… )
Batting Averages are the total runs scored in a series/season/career divided by the number of times the batsmen lgets out.
(Had Bradman not played that final innings his average would have been over 100)
The Don’s average was 101.39 before fronting up to the dreaded Eric Hollies.
First Lindwall mowed the Poms down for 52, then Arthur Morris rather rudely scored 196*, thus helping to deprive Bradman of a second dig - and chance to redeem the ton average.
…back in the days when you lot expected to need two innings to beat us
Still, I don’t imagine The Don complained:
he was an Australian and a Gentleman.
Truly unique.
Agback I just checked the Baggy Green website. It looks like all averages are always reported to two decimal places. So even though Bradman hit another 4 runs before being dismissed, presumably, his average would have been reported as 100.00.
)