From: drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU (David Robert Walker)
Subject: Re: Old-fashioned hitters (was Best Playes (sic) of All Times)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:53:26 GMT

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:
  1) Baseball is the only sport about which this claim, they were
better in the 30s, is made. Not in football. Not in basketball. Not in
tennis. Certainly not in track, or field, or golf, or swimming, or any
other competition with a purely objective measurement. There should
not be much doubt that as a general rule, the athletes of today are
better than those of yeateryear, largely because of better training,
better coaching, and better nutrition (not just for the athlete, but
for the mother of the athlete before/during pregnancy.) 
  2) Baseball draws from a much larger population than before,
including blacks and Latin Americans. Major league baseball in 1935
was for white American males, only. Even the population of white American
males has increased since the 30s.
  3) League-leading averages have fallen while league averages have
remained fairly constant. The margin between the best player and the
average player has narrowed. That is usually taken as an indication
that the average player is improving. 
   4.) Changes in the game have made things more difficult, including
night baseball, cross-continental travel, and releif pitching.
>	Did anybody ever consider that maybe the hitters from the '30s,
>or the 'Teens, were just better hitters than today's players?

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
>players growing up now play organized baseball from the time they are
>five years old.  They go to practice once or twice a week and play games
>once or twice a week until they get to high school.
>	What are they doing the rest of the time?  Probably playing
>basketball.  You don't need organization, you don't need a bunch of
>neighborhood kids, if you want to go out in the driveway to shoot some
>hoops.  You can do it all by yourself.  But if you're a kid in America
>today, you're not going to be able to find enough people to go out and
>play baseball every day, even if you want to, and even if you have
>someplace to play.
>
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.

Clay D.