The Disappearance of 0.400 Hitting

The Disappearance of 0.400 Hitting - Stephen Jay Gould

This is basically a compilation video discussing the disappearance of 0.400 hitting. The number 0.400 represents a batting average which is calculated by taking a player's total successful hits and dividing them by the total amount of swings. Multiply a batting average of 0.350 by 100 and you get the percent of balls hit by that player - 35%. Gould attempts to explain the extinction of 0.400 hitting as a statistical phenomenon comparable to the mass extinctions of varied biological forms throughout natural history. This video is different from the others on Gould in that it focuses on a sports phenomenon - some variety I hope sports and science buffs alike will enjoy.

Included in this video is a short introduction 0.400 hitting with Chipper Jones' close attempt in 2008 with 0.414 in June 13. His average dropped to 0.393 in June 22. Chipper Jones' average is now 0.309 (as of Aug. 2009).

The rest of the video jumps between clips taken from NOVA and Charlie Rose interviews with Stephen Jay Gould.

Read more about the disappearance of 0.400 hitting and its statistical relationship to natural history in Gould's book, "Full House."

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• Stephen Jay Gould
• Chipper Jones
• Baseball
• 0.400
• Hitting
• Batting Average
• Evolution
• Natural Selection
• Charlie Rose
• NOVA
• Joe DiMaggio
• Ty Cobb
• Ted Williams
• Statistics
• Full House
• Science
• Sports
• 400
• Batting

[BeadStallcup]

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.

[CosmosFan1]

@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.

[uselessjoe]

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.

[nicksch1404]

Haha Charlie Rose can't understand what a normal distribution is

[yeaidoubledip]

Hahaha I was watching this in my statistics class, and Steven Jay Gould came up, and i was like "oh shit"

[procommenter]

[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.]

[majik2hanz]

@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]

@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).

[burpingdogg]

@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]

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.