From: mcmath@csb1.nlm.nih.gov (Chuck Totally Hair McMath)
Subject: Re: Old-fashioned hitters (was Best Playes (sic) of All Times)
Followup-To: rec.sport.baseball
Organization: MSD
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 18:07:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.165326.6387@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker) wrote:
> 
> In article <8197@news.duke.edu> fls@acpub.duke.edu (Forrest Smith) writes:
> >
> >	When comparing the best hitters of today with the best hitters
> >of yesteryear, there seems to be some idea that, although cumulative
> >batting averages of an earlier era were higher than those of today, the
> >actual talent level of today is higher.  Like, maybe pitchers are
> >better, so it's generally harder to hit.
> 
> There are several more reasons:
<			yaa daa daa yaa daa daa yaa daa daa...
> 
> It has been considered. The usual reasons for it are: Look at the
> numbers and its obvious; they don't play as much baseball as they used
> to; the best athletes now play football or basketball; there aren't as
> many minor leagues; expansion.
> 
> >	I suggest that today's baseball players cannot hit like their
> >predecessors because of a change in the way kids grow up.  Kids don't
> >play baseball day in and day out like they used to.  The best baseball

>		 blah blah blah

> There is no doubt in my mind that the average player of today is
> betterthan the average player of the 30s or teens. I beleive that the
> star players of the past could still be stars today; if transported
> here with their skills intact. They would not stand so far above
> everyone else as before, but they could still stand out. I think Babe
> Ruth would still be a star today, as would Ted Williams, Mickey
> Mantle, and Ty Cobb. But Cobbwouldn't hit .367, and Ruth wouldn't hit
> 50+ HR so often.
> 
	In that vein, there was an analysis of sorts I heard on the radio (NPR?) a
week or two ago.  The speaker took the same tack as just above.  He
mentioned that the league batting average is much the same today as it was
in the 20s and 30s, so the overall talent in the league hasn't changed, but
think of it this way: if you look at batting average distribution, you'd
expect them to fall in a normal distribution (hold on, I'm liable to wave
my hands here and there).  

Back in the 20s and 30s, the talent distribution was much more uneven -
that is, Ty Cobb (or whomever) would hit .360, which was probably 4 or 5
standard deviations from the norm.  On the other hand, you had people
(nameless people) who were hitting sub .200  - 4 or 5 std deviations below
the norm - and playing regularly (I didn't look this up, but it sounds
plausible - remember Ray Oyler :) ).  

In today's game, while the 'sum' of the overall talent is the same, it is
distributed more evenly.  Therefore, you don't have batters hitting 4 of 5
std deviations above the norm, you have them hitting 1 or 2 - on both
sides.  You don't see many people hitting .330+, but by the same token you
don't find many hitting .180- either.

chuck


|- chuck mcmath - mcmath@csb1.nlm.nih.gov - MSD, Inc. --------------|
|- National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health ----|
|- Bethesda, MD 20894 - Mbr Society of Astral Projectionists (SAP) -|
|- "Hey batter, hey batter, hey batter, swing" - Anon. -------------|
|- Disclaimer: I know nothing (but isn't that obvious?) ------------|