The reason no one has hit 400 since Ted Williams is because my dad wouldn't let me play baseball after 7th grade...Why? Because I didn't learn how to swim. I will forever have a chip on my shoulder ...and not a bat.
If the definition of batting average is exactly the same today as it was 75 years ago then I don't believe Jay Gould answered the question. He did not, and it seems to me that as the overall "average" abilities of baseball players improved (went up his scale on the table) that outlier batting skills above .400 would be more frequent. It seems to me.
@BeadStallcup But Gould's entire premise posits that unlike other absolute measures of quality, like a jumping distance, or a mile run time, a batting average is actually a relationship between two measures: how good the pitcher is at pitching, and how good the batter is at batting. If overall quality of play is improving, then both of these measures should increase. If they both increase, then the batting average doesn't change.
[Should not Charles Darwin be exhumed to see what progress time has been made in his putrefaction and fossilization? Even people is sweaters are partially nude. Taketh not lengthy walks on short piers.]
Also the ballparks of the pre 1960's era had many idiocyncracies that the smart players would utilize to their advantage everything from the grooming of infields to extremely short outfield walls (Philly's Baker Bowl, Cleveland League Park, Fenway in Boston, etc...enabled home team hitters to take advantage of their best qualities. Whether speed and bat control etc... factor in the 77 home games influence on the best hitters / pitchers ability to separate from the 'mean' of their peers.
Wait...here you say idosyncracies were greater (more variables) and that allowed more opportunity for great players to exploit them, but below you say that more variables reduce opportunity to separate from the mean. More variables cannot create both more and less advantages. But it doesn't matter since you still have to explain why more or less variables didn't increase or decrease the overall mean batting average. Variable differences do not explain narrowing of distribution.
@majik2hanz what does explain the narrowing of the distribution is that everyone on the field is better: hitters, pitchers AND fielders. Gould's book provides ample evidence to support that contention.
First I have not read Gould's book I am basing my comments of the excerpt in this video. I do not contend the fact that overall players have gotten better physically. and perhaps in his book he addresses this but I am differentiatiing between the context of how the game was played and the lesser degree of the participant variables (action of play) and the greater variance in the ballpark variables (the arena of play).
My point is that the nature of "type of play" pre major expansion of teams (less specialization and less players overall) allowed for the best players to separate from the mean to a greater degree of variance (hence the few 400 hitters as well as stats of premier pitchers) versus the way the game is played today. I know the mean itself hasn't changed but the ability of top players to rise further above is dampened by the way the game is now played.
Pre 1960 the best pitchers and hitters had greater chance to separate from the mean (higher variance of batting & pitching) due to the greater frequency of common opponents - less teams, less players-less variables. This is what makes variations from the mean more difficult in the modern age due to expanded rosters, expanded pitching staff philosophy style of last 40 years. There are more variables in the universe of baseball to influence one players ability to separate from the mean.
The guy is missing the obvious. Prior to 1960 there was an advantage for hitters in less variation in different pitching 'experienced'. Less teams but greater frequency of play w same opposition. Starting staffs were four men, and relief pitching had not become prominent. So a good hitter got much more exposure to each pitcher. Thus less pitching variation enabled best hitters to separate adjust and excel. Calculate ratio of different pitchers a batter faced in a season pre 1960 with post 1960
The reason no one has hit 400 since Ted Williams is because my dad wouldn't let me play baseball after 7th grade...Why? Because I didn't learn how to swim. I will forever have a chip on my shoulder ...and not a bat.
uselessjoe 3 months ago
If the definition of batting average is exactly the same today as it was 75 years ago then I don't believe Jay Gould answered the question. He did not, and it seems to me that as the overall "average" abilities of baseball players improved (went up his scale on the table) that outlier batting skills above .400 would be more frequent. It seems to me.
BeadStallcup 4 months ago
@BeadStallcup But Gould's entire premise posits that unlike other absolute measures of quality, like a jumping distance, or a mile run time, a batting average is actually a relationship between two measures: how good the pitcher is at pitching, and how good the batter is at batting. If overall quality of play is improving, then both of these measures should increase. If they both increase, then the batting average doesn't change.
CosmosFan1 4 months ago
Haha Charlie Rose can't understand what a normal distribution is
nicksch1404 8 months ago 2
Hahaha I was watching this in my statistics class, and Steven Jay Gould came up, and i was like "oh shit"
yeaidoubledip 9 months ago
[Should not Charles Darwin be exhumed to see what progress time has been made in his putrefaction and fossilization? Even people is sweaters are partially nude. Taketh not lengthy walks on short piers.]
procommenter 1 year ago
Also the ballparks of the pre 1960's era had many idiocyncracies that the smart players would utilize to their advantage everything from the grooming of infields to extremely short outfield walls (Philly's Baker Bowl, Cleveland League Park, Fenway in Boston, etc...enabled home team hitters to take advantage of their best qualities. Whether speed and bat control etc... factor in the 77 home games influence on the best hitters / pitchers ability to separate from the 'mean' of their peers.
majik2hanz 1 year ago
Wait...here you say idosyncracies were greater (more variables) and that allowed more opportunity for great players to exploit them, but below you say that more variables reduce opportunity to separate from the mean. More variables cannot create both more and less advantages. But it doesn't matter since you still have to explain why more or less variables didn't increase or decrease the overall mean batting average. Variable differences do not explain narrowing of distribution.
burpingdogg 1 year ago
@majik2hanz what does explain the narrowing of the distribution is that everyone on the field is better: hitters, pitchers AND fielders. Gould's book provides ample evidence to support that contention.
burpingdogg 1 year ago
@burpingdogg
First I have not read Gould's book I am basing my comments of the excerpt in this video. I do not contend the fact that overall players have gotten better physically. and perhaps in his book he addresses this but I am differentiatiing between the context of how the game was played and the lesser degree of the participant variables (action of play) and the greater variance in the ballpark variables (the arena of play).
majik2hanz 1 year ago
@burpingdogg
My point is that the nature of "type of play" pre major expansion of teams (less specialization and less players overall) allowed for the best players to separate from the mean to a greater degree of variance (hence the few 400 hitters as well as stats of premier pitchers) versus the way the game is played today. I know the mean itself hasn't changed but the ability of top players to rise further above is dampened by the way the game is now played.
majik2hanz 1 year ago
Pre 1960 the best pitchers and hitters had greater chance to separate from the mean (higher variance of batting & pitching) due to the greater frequency of common opponents - less teams, less players-less variables. This is what makes variations from the mean more difficult in the modern age due to expanded rosters, expanded pitching staff philosophy style of last 40 years. There are more variables in the universe of baseball to influence one players ability to separate from the mean.
majik2hanz 1 year ago
The guy is missing the obvious. Prior to 1960 there was an advantage for hitters in less variation in different pitching 'experienced'. Less teams but greater frequency of play w same opposition. Starting staffs were four men, and relief pitching had not become prominent. So a good hitter got much more exposure to each pitcher. Thus less pitching variation enabled best hitters to separate adjust and excel. Calculate ratio of different pitchers a batter faced in a season pre 1960 with post 1960
majik2hanz 1 year ago