From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: If they played today would they be so great?
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:59:45 GMT
Organization: A Slightly Warmer Place Than Dave Kirsch's Winter Wonderland

In <92097.154214ALWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> ALWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:

>There is a lot of talk about how today's athlete is better conditioned than
>athletes who played before. There has also been a lot of talk about how the
>former baseball stars such as Mays, Mantle, Gehrig, Williams, etc. etc. played
>in different "eras" and their stats are relative to the era that they played i

>in, that is why we no longer have .400 hitters, Triple Crown winners etc.
>because the game has changed. Is this to say that if a Mantle or a Mays played
>today the numbers they put up would mirror a Canseco or a Puckett, or someone
>like Eric Davis would have put up #s like Willie Mays had he played in that
>era?Would George Brett or Don Mattingly have hit .400 if they played then?
>The questions could go on and on.Opinions are welcome, this is ,after all
>a discussion group.

I think there are three different phenomenoms going on here.

First, in order to evaluate players, you have to calculate their relative
stats, not their actual stats.  Various factors - the ball, the strike zone,
the ballparks, etc - can greatly shift the balance between hitters and
pitchers.  The average average has fluctuated widely, from a high around
.300 in the early 30s to a low somewhere around .230 or .240 in the mid 60s
(These are guesses from memory; please correct me if I'm wrong).  A .300
is impossible to judge unless you know the offensive context of the baseball
that was played at the time.    

Second, there's the factor that was best explained by world reknowned 
paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in an essay a number of years ago on
the extinction of the .400 hitter.  Basically, Gould explained that as
systems improve they equilibriate.  Variations in batting averages etc.
diminish as the overall quality of the group of players improve.  You'll
find that the extremes both above and below the average are far, far less
today than they were 100 years ago.  With apologies to Frank Thomas, the
quality of the game today is too high for any player to be as great as Babe
Ruth was compared to his peers.  The conditioning, the less casual and more
scientific approach to playing, and the talent base have all contributed to
the refinement of the system of major league baseball.

The third phenomenom applies only to pitchers.  Broadcasters are fond of
complaining about the paucity of complete games these days.  But because
the game is so much more intense and competitive these days, pitching
styles have changed.  In the olden days pitchers could pace themselves
and reach back and throw their best heat only when they had to.  But these
days pitchers throw hard on most pitches in most situations.  So they don't
last as long.  This phenomenom reduces innings and wins.   

(There are other reasons for the wear on arms, of course - more throws to
first, a smaller strike zone > more pitches, etc.  Some suspect that one
of the reasons pitchers can't throw complete games is that, because of
relievers, they're not used to it.  I'm not sure of that - it's a chicken
and egg question).

Anyway, in other words, for the reasons above, I think today's players are
far superior to pre-1960 players.  I'm not quite sure how to compare players
from today with 60s and 70 stars, though.

Greg  
-- 
  spira@panix.com       "The one-O delivery to Fisk.  He swings.  Long drive,  
 cmcl2!panix!spira      left field!  If it stays fair, it's gone!  Home Run!"  
158-17 Riverside Dr.                     Ned Martin, 10/22/75   
Whitestone NY 11357          (Insert your favorite baseball moment here) 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball