I think if an old team played a modern team, the home team would win. If they play it in 1927, even Barry Bonds is going to be thrown off by using a huge bat and tiny glove. If they play it now, the reverse would be true.

And the deadball era is just a completely different game, unless someone wants to guess what "Cy Young plus modern conditioning" would look like now. The conversion doesn't even make sense.

Even though I don’t think that the best of the old time teams could seriously compete with today’s, what you say still rasies a very valid point. While you’d have to pretend that Jim Crow didn’t exist to set up such a game, it’s a pretty sure bet that modern players would absolutely freak out in 1927 playing conditions (Not to mention living conditons! Or salaries!), at least until they got acclimated to it, which considering some of the modern egos might take quite a while.

Just for starters, I’d love to see Barry Bonds being forced to share a small, unairconditioned hotel room with one of his teammates, and then be able to be the fly on the wall when they commence to discussing who gets to use the tub before the hot water runs out. And I’d love to see how they’d deal with fans running out on the field during the game to ask for autographs, as happened to Joe Dimaggio in 1948.

Yeah, it’d be interesting.

I'll suggest there are fewer GBs.

That's certainly part of it, and a part consistent with what I said. I think there are also more POs on BIP, though I don't know how to prove that either way. But those reduced errors had to come from somewhere, and GBs would be the likeliest source.

Seeing as how they’ve been toughening the major tournament courses every few years for the past generation or two, it seems highly unlikely that the best golfers of the Jones, Hogan, or early Nicklaus eras could step in a time travel machine and perform on the level of the top golfers today, under modern conditions.

Well, the problem you have with this interpretation is that teh courses played on "back in the day" were *never* in teh condition the guys play on now. Every fairway is perfect - these guys whine over landing in a divot. In the old days, guys didn't mark their balls on the green. Putt around that.

Also, ther aren't many changes to teh Old Course over the last, oh, 200 years, and you don't see the pros wearing it out.

Nicklaus, when he won in 1972(?) hit his drive *over teh green*. That's without modern balls and equipment.

The ball today barely resembles the balls of *my* early playing days (1980) - Tiger couldn't play with the 1960 equipment. (Okay, Tiger could).

It's much easier to adjust to *better* equipment than it is to worse equipment, IMO.

But those reduced errors had to come from somewhere, and GBs would be the likeliest source

Did you get a chart together of 1950 and 1960? You need to follow that.

Chris, what I was saying about golf applies mostly to the major tournaments and on the pro level. The major courses have always kept their courses in great shape in anticipation of the grand slam events. But the ball is tightly regulated on the pro level, and all those Big Berthas serve more to feed duffers’ egos than they do to lower pro scores, since the added distance brought about by the improved clubs is negated by the increased course lengths. Drive for show, putt for dough may be a cliché, but there’s a lot of truth in it.

And you read innumberable articles about the toughening of Grand Slam courses, from increased distances to narrowed fairways to roughened roughs to bigger sandtraps to slickened and sloping greens. I don’t think that all these reports are exaggerations, either.

And while I know (yes, I really know) that you couldn’t “prove” this, I find it impossible to believe that a Bobby Jones or a Ben Hogan---great as they were---could step onto one of today’s modern Grand Slam courses and put up the sort of scores he did in 1930, let alone win any of the tournments competing against an enormously expanded talent pool of golfers.

It's like thinking that the 1927 Yankees could win the 2006 World Series. Ludicrous.

I find it impossible to believe that a Bobby Jones or a Ben Hogan---great as they were---could step onto one of today’s modern Grand Slam courses and put up the sort of scores he did in 1930, let alone win any of the tournments competing against an enormously expanded talent pool of golfers.

All I can figure is that you aren't a golfer.

Why do you think these guys couldn't play? they lack what again? How has the golf swing changed? What are you talking about?

ANd NO the condition of all teh courses is so vastly improved as to boggle the mind. Heck, getting the courses, and cutting the grass and making sure they all stimp correctly wasn't even an option.

I'm sure you were out there at the 1953 Masters taking notes on the course conditions, Chris, perhaps caddying for Hogan himself. And I'm sure that Augusta was much tougher then, as you say, and that all the reports of modern adjustments that I mentioned are all just smoke to blow over the media's collective eye.

Right.

And I'm sure that competition from all over the world has done absolutely nothing to improve modern players' talents.

Right again.

I'm 61, Chris, but your age is showing. Nostalgia and respect for the past are admirable traits, but leave us not be ridiculous.

Did you get a chart together of 1950 and 1960? You need to follow that.

I'm not sure what you want charted.

Also, ther aren't many changes to teh Old Course over the last, oh, 200 years, and you don't see the pros wearing it out.

You misspelled "teh."

I'm sure you were out there at the 1953 Masters taking notes on the course conditions, Chris, perhaps caddying for Hogan himself. And I'm sure that Augusta was much tougher then, as you say, and that all the reports of modern adjustments that I mentioned are all just smoke to blow over the media's collective eye.

Right.

And I'm sure that competition from all over the world has done absolutely nothing to improve modern players' talents.

Right again.

I'm 61, Chris, but your age is showing. Nostalgia and respect for the past are admirable traits, but leave us not be ridiculous.

Andy,
your position that courses in the 50s were maintined in teh same condition they are today, when the mower and mesurement technologies are vastly different is surprising. But you are older, so maybe you're right.

What's more, what have they done to teh Old Course? I have playe there, and there isn't any more land there. they can only play the course that is there. Maybe add 20 yds on a tee or two?

The scores aren't wildly lower, despite significant advances in the clubs and balls.

How do you explain that, oh ancient one?

I'm not sure what you want charted.

Well, your two data that you felt illustrated an improvement in play - H-HR/AB-HR and errors per team.

Chris,

I'm not saying that the courses aren't maintained in somewhat better condition today, but that the improvements in that direction---which would tend to make the courses somewhat easier---have been more than negated by the conscious efforts on the part of Grand Slam tournament course officials to make the courses even more of a challenge.

Here's one small sample of what I'm talking about, taken from a report on the 1999 Masters on the Golf Today website. I've boldfaced the critical paragraphs:


If anyone needed reminding of the dangers of Augusta National's hard, fast greens and tricky pin placements, all they needed to do was look at Duval, the world's hottest golfer, losing his share of the lead Thursday with back-to-back-to-back bogeys on the back nine.

As his game came apart -- though ever so briefly -- the wraparound shades that are Duval's trademark came off his head as menacing clouds rolled in to force a storm delay.

By the time Duval walked off the 17th green Thursday, he had regained some composure but others had the lead. Meanwhile, the stately course with some new makeup showed it was indeed capable of still holding its own.

"On a course like this you run into some bad stuff," Duval said. "You try to outweigh it with the good stuff."

A day earlier, workers were watering greens between groups to keep closely cropped surfaces from burning out in 90-degree heat. Then a storm came, forcing a 95-minute delay in play.

Players had the chance to regroup overnight, then tackle the chore once again. They could only hope to sleep well, without the thoughts of tight pins and shaved greens that can make matters so difficult.

"There's a lot of decisions out there and a lot of mental strain when you play this course," said Montgomerie, one of those in the group at 70. "It's very difficult. Very difficult."

Just how difficult was evident, as players went on roller-coaster rides down the wide fairways and through the tall pines.

Woods made a triple-bogey 8 on the eighth hole, then regrouped with three straight back-nine birdies to finish the day even par. Vijay Singh was also even, though he made only one par in his last 10 holes.

Ernie Els was cruising toward the clubhouse with a share of the lead when he found two bunkers and then needed three putts for a double bogey on the last hole to finish at 71.

"As soon as you relax, you drop a shot," Montgomerie said.

The 63rd rendition of golf's most exclusive major featured the most sweeping changes in course history -- added rough along the fairways and lengthened second and 17th holes.

But there were no changes in the hugely undulating greens, and that was where Augusta National made its stand to defend par once again. Masters officials helped by tucking pins in positions rarely seen the first day of the tournament and swirling winds cost some other shots.

"The greens are firm and fast, and there's some really hard pins," Love said.

Yeech, Andy, you don't play golf, do you?

And of course the set of changes referred to above represent but one of many which have been instituted over the history of the course. It's a completely conscious decision on the part of the Augusta officials, who have always felt the obligation to make their course keep up with the ever-increasing power (brought about in part by the equipment, as you say) and skills (brought about largely by the competition resulting from the inclusion of ever-increasing numbers of international players and hothoused U.S. players) which have taken place over the years, an increase which may have escaped your notice but which certainly hasn't escaped the tournament officials, as evidenced by their actions. You can't simply go by scores, any more than you can meaningfully compare Bill Terry's .401 in 1930 to Tony Gwynn's .394 in 1994.

Here, I'll help you argue with yourself:
"Drive for show, putt for dough may be a cliché, but there’s a lot of truth in it."

Driving for show:
added rough along the fairways and lengthened second and 17th holes.

Putting for dough:
But there were no changes in the hugely undulating greens

Geez, Andy, you've gone Spivey on me.

You keep ignoring the Old Course, which hasn't had the "luxury" of lengthening.

Yes, courses have had to be made longer, but it is LARGELY teh equipment - not just the clubs, the sweet spots, the drivers, the shafts and MOSTLY the balls, and the condition of the course/greens. You can't find a spike mark on a green these days. They riddle the greens in the old days.

What is the skill you think is there in golf that has improved that isn't a function of equipment?

rec.sport.golf had a discussion on this very topic almost exactly a year ago.

And no, Chris, I don't play golf. But I led the freshman team in hitting at Duke, hit over .600 in a DC summer league with Ray Miller as a teammate and at least one future Major Leaguer playing against us, in addition to many future minor leaguers and college stars.

And all that plus two bucks will get me on the Metro, and all that plus your golf experience qualifies neither of us to claim any particular knowledge of baseball or golf beyond knowing that we'll never make a living out of either of them. Your arguments and historical claims are going to have to make a living on their own, I'm afraid.

And I'd like you to ask a few dozen 80ish golf pros (I'm sure you know many) what they think about the changes in today's Grand Slam courses---whether they think that they could compete at the same level on the PGA tour today with the level of skills they had then, in the 20 years after WWII. I doubt if they'd be so foolish.

Interesting link, Daly City, but it doesn't look like those 102 posts there ever resolved the question any more than Chris or I ever will. If only we'd applied our collective genius to building a time machine....

What is the skill you think is there in golf that has improved that isn't a function of equipment?

In four words, Chris: Competition brings about improvement.

And today's competition is worldwide, not confined to the confines of the British Empire and its former (white) colonies. You consistently ignore the implications of this, as if introducing this sort of constant testing of one's skills would have no positive effects on one's game.

And in one word: Sheesh.

You consistently ignore the implications of this, as if introducing this sort of constant testing of one's skills would have no positive effects on one's game.

No, Andy, I doubt the significance of this. It improves *some*, but how much? And that wouldn't necessarily make teh best of history's knees knock. Jack Nicklaus is a big man. He would simply excel at any time -

Ben Hogan's swing is *still* the thing. People model Hogan. If Hogan is "the goal", then how can he be less than those whose goal is to be like him?

I think you grossly overstate the effects of competition in teh face of limitations of what is required.

But I'm glad you claim so much about golf with no knowledge of what it takes.

Length is rarely an issue for golfers because of teh equipment.
One thing that ws regualrly discussed in "how to stop Tiger", when the reaction was to lengthen everythign was that was wrong. Length isn't the issue to stop Tiger - you have to trick it up.

I think roughing up the course, like it used to be (BTW, they show old golf on TV - you can see just dogtracks for courses being used on tour) would increase scores.

Look at the Peter Lawrie winning British Open. It wasn't about length - it's about difficulty.

Jack Nicklaus is a big man. He would simply excel at any time -

But at what level? To what extent? Would Nicklaus win as many Grand Slams if he began his career in 1996 as he did during his career, with Tiger Woods in the field? There are only a finite number of Grand Slam titles to go about, my friend. There is only one green jacket awarded each year.

Would Hogan have won as many tournaments as he did, if he had begun his pro career in 1962? In 1996?

They might be just as good as ever (and I've sold Hogan's book enough times not to realize that his swing is the model), but there are a lot more like them---or nearly like them---out there now. The old timers simply couldn't dominate they way they did in their time, as great as they were, and as great as they might be now. And this doesn't diminish their place in history one iota---it just recognizes the reality of increased competition.

Would Nicklaus win as many Grand Slams if he began his career in 1996 as he did during his career, with Tiger Woods in the field? There are only a finite number of Grand Slam titles to go about, my friend. There is only one green jacket awarded each year.

Reluctant though I am to step into the middle of this love-fest, I just have to point out to Andy that you could say the exact same thing about Tiger: if he had begun his career in 1962, he wouldn't have won as many GS's, either, because he'd have been playing against Nicklaus. That has nothing to do with whether the players are better today or not; it's a function of what would happen if the two greatest players in history happened to be playing at the same time. There'd be only so many Slams to go around, and they'd have split them up. Neither would have won as many as each won (Jack) or will win (Tiger) given that they DIDN'T go head-to-head.

Except for one thing, Sam. It took Nicklaus a lot longer to get to his first ten than Woods. I would imagine that not only might Tiger have won a few that Jack won without Tiger breathing down his neck, he also might have won a certain number that Jack didn't win.

We can do this dance for a few more rounds if you wish, but the bottom line is that the overall competition today is much stronger (broader and deeper talent pool) than in Nicklaus's or Hogan's day. Worldwide competition now vs. US and British Empire competition then , etc. Of course if you wish to disbelieve that, or if you think that this increased talent pool means little or nothing (as Chris apparently does---good old Chris), I can't stop you.

I'm not sure what you want charted.

Well, your two data that you felt illustrated an improvement in play - H-HR/AB-HR and errors per team.

Done:

1950- rough BABIP = .242; E/Team = 150
1960- .236 140

So errors have continued to decline almost linearly since 1950. Rough BABIP has been level since then. This suggests that the pace of improvement has slightly exceeded the pace of expansion.

Except for one thing, Sam. It took Nicklaus a lot longer to get to his first ten than Woods. I would imagine that not only might Tiger have won a few that Jack won without Tiger breathing down his neck, he also might have won a certain number that Jack didn't win.

Let's see. Nicklaus won his first major in his rookie pro season (1962). He won his 10th at the 1972 Masters.

Tiger won his first major in his first full season (1997) and his 10th at the British Open in 2005.

That's quicker, certainly, but I hardly think it took Nicklaus a "lot longer."

Be that as it may, my point is that I think you have to take Jack and Tiger out of the conversation. Put either one of them in the other's era, and he's by far and away the best player in the world. Period. I don't care how good the competition is today generally (and I agree with you that it's deeper and more competitive overall). Those two stand apart from their eras, perhaps more than any two athletes ever have over any sport. You can have Sergio, Goosen, Mickelson, Els, Duvall, Singh --the lot of them. You take Tiger out and substitute Jack, and Jack would tower over all of 'em just like Tiger does.

Absent any real evidence, I htink that's the practical position. Is it reasonable to infer "it has to be"? yes. But that also doesn't make it so.

No, the weight of the available evidence means its the most supportable inference. Every single shred of evidence that you have posted shows an increase in some attribute. Then you try to minimize it, "Its only ..." And those graphs you posts show a substantial difference in defensive ability. I'd also opine the same would be true if you could graph range. So if offense is outpacing defense, or even keeping up with defense, that is one hell of a lot of offensive skill that needs to be on display.

That's a keen eye.

Judging an average of a five pound increase across an entire population. That doesn't require to much keenness. And that's especially so if I happen to neglect those Latins you mention out of some type of blind prejudice.

But that's exactly what I mean. Every attribute we throw out, you show an increase. Then you try to minimize that increase. If every attribute is improving, how on earth would you explain stasis in ability. There would have to be almost no impact on all of those attributes or a serious retardation of some attribute, which you haven't shown or even opined about.

No. Because the ball/gloves are different. Whew, that was easy.

Yep. It sure is. In fact its like shooting fish in a barrel. Because:

(1) We've already discussed technology and we already now that's the card you will play every time. If you see a difference, you'll just say "that's just technology." Unless its steroids, then you'll claim that tech doesn't manifest itself.
(2) Even if you were right, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED. Old players aren't going to be able to see all the improvements from the tech, because they have skills that are based on the old tech.

And I'd like it if you said "I am wrong about that analogy

LOL, the only misrepresentation has been you saying the counter argument is "It has to be." No one has said that but you. Instead, you have gotten all types of evidence of incremental change, and you keep demanding some steep jump in the data. That is why the football analogy is relevant. If there were the steep jump that you seek, it would be likely attributal to an immediate external agent, like doping.

I think its actually kind of funny and telling. Small statements and inferences are met with such fervor and claims that "absent any evidence" my view is right. Where did you come up with this. Have you attempted to weigh any inference because I didn't see it in Part One or Part Two. Then anyone who says, "whoa, your way too far out there cowboy" gets painted as having the diametrically opposite viewpoint.

Its pretty simple. All available evidence shows an increase in human achievement over the passage of time. Such changes do not coincide with changes in equipment alone, and tend to spike when there is an external factor. There is no counter evidence this wouldn't be true in baseball. The fielding graph shows an almost purely linear slope. Field has shown other increase is ability to hit. You yourself have shown differences in size and slugging. There is no countervailing force that you have shown which retards development.

Instead, you want to attribute a steady increase as being "balls and gloves" when I doubt that they change at all in certain years.

The only counter argument has been "I don't want it to be so."

You take Tiger out and substitute Jack, and Jack would tower over all of 'em just like Tiger does.

Well all those majors that Jack Nicholson won were just luck. Majors are just an exhibition, what really counts is the grind of the PGA regular tour season. One pebble on the green can be the difference in a major.

Nevertheless, I think there is some validity in your point and it doesn't differ too far from Andy's point.

If you put Owens in the mile today, he'd likely get beat.

Jack Johnson would get pummeled by guys like Lennox Lewis, pre-retirement.

Yet, neither would suck at their relative sport by any standard.

I would opine if you took Teddy Ballgame, or Babe Ruth and put them in today's game, they would still be very good ballplayers. I don't think they could dominate this era the way they dominated their era. And that is true if you never give Bonds a syringe, or just have him sit out that contest.

I think the same is true with the Silver Bear. He would be a great golfer. I don't think he would dominate like he did in his era. And that's with or without Tiger.

The reason is because achievement still improves. These guys are still loaded, but the achivement curve takes away some of their seperability.

Timing sports and accuracy sports see slower curves than transportation sports, but they see the curve nevertheless.

Minor nit, Jesse Owens was a sprinter. Glenn Cunningham was the American miler back in those days.

I really like that databaseSports.com site for non-baseball sports, and am basically using this as an excuse to tout it.

That has nothing to do with whether the players are better today or not; it's a function of what would happen if the two greatest players in history happened to be playing at the same time.

Sam is precisely correct here.

The problem I have with the golf analogy is that I amnot talking just about winning golf tournaments. I'm talking about scoring. There is no defense in golf.

Andy, you should review how often Nicklaus finished second in majors. It's silly.

Then you try to minimize that increase. If every attribute is improving, how on earth would you explain stasis in ability.

Hey look - BL misrepresented my point! I'm shocked!

BL, attempt to state what you think my position is, because you aren't listening to me (but heck, neither is Andy).

If every attribute is improving, how on earth would you explain stasis in ability.

Okay, over the last decade, MLB players have gotten smaller (shorter and weighing less).

Has MLB players ability declined over that period?

The fielding graph shows an almost purely linear slope

How do you explain the dramatic drop in the 90s? The players got *alot* better?

And were the players *worse* fielders from 1940-1990 than tehy were in the 1920s and 30s?

No, ther are otehr explanations for those drops. Oh, I see - you get "otehr explanations", but when I claim there could be, I'm a crackpot.

Even if you were right, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED. Old players aren't going to be able to see all the improvements from the tech, because they have skills that are based on the old tech.

Would 2005 players not have the same issues with old tech?

Would 2005 players not have the same issues with old tech?

I'm sure they would, just as I would have difficulty using flint instead of a steel knife. But I don't think many would doubt that the steel knife was an improvement. Nor do I think anyone would argue that flint-wielding butchers cut as much meat, or as precisely, as modern knife users.

I don't see how you can argue glove tech improvements (which you do) without simultaneously admitting that hitting performance at the same level after the defensive technology improvement necessarily means that hitters got better. If defense improves -- and this is indisputable -- then batters MUST get better or offense dies.

If defense improves -- and this is indisputable -- then batters MUST get better or offense dies.

Or they change the rules and conditions to redraw the balance. They design smaller ballparks. The lower the pitcher's mound. They wind the ball a little tighter. I'm not saying the batters don't/haven't also gotten better; they just don't need to in order to keep offense alive in the presence of improved defense.

Well all those majors that Jack Nicholson won were just luck. Majors are just an exhibition, what really counts is the grind of the PGA regular tour season. One pebble on the green can be the difference in a major.

Ah . . . Colin "My #### doesn't work in the play-offs" Montgomerie.

I see your point. ;-)

Or they change the rules and conditions to redraw the balance. They design smaller ballparks. The lower the pitcher's mound. They wind the ball a little tighter. I'm not saying the batters don't/haven't also gotten better; they just don't need to in order to keep offense alive in the presence of improved defense.

And visibility gets better. How common were batter's eyes in centerfield in the old days? Was the split between day ERAs and night ERAs larger or smaller in the old days?

I don't see how you can argue glove tech improvements (which you do) without simultaneously admitting that hitting performance at the same level after the defensive technology improvement necessarily means that hitters got better. If defense improves -- and this is indisputable -- then batters MUST get better or offense dies.

No they don't. Or do you mean like dies in the 1960s? Which it did. So they changed the rules. Until it died again in 1972. So they changed the rules. Until it died again in hte early 1990s; so they changed the ball.

Look at these gloves and tell me they didn't improve *practically every year*.

Are *the athletes better*? Is it significant - so that the 1946 Red Sox suddenly are a sub-.500 team? The players today are twice as good? That's not likely.

If defense improves -- and this is indisputable -- then batters MUST get better or offense dies.

Oh, I didn't see teh "indisputable" part. Please disregard Sam's, GGC's and my posts disputing it.

Oh, the baseballgraphs link has Errors per game on ther - duh. Sorry, Mefisto, you didn't need to do that.

As I look at it, it *appears* that the fielding "errors per game" was pretty linear from 1947 to 1980, and then started plummeting pretty quickly.

But I'm checking the actual numbers

Look at these gloves and tell me they didn't improve *practically every year*.

What do you think is the huge improvement between say Bob Feller's glove of the late 40s and Dom Dimaggio's glove of the 30s. There seems to be some improvement on the pocket that connects the thumb to the other 4 fingers, but all in all they look pretty similar to me.

Are *the athletes better*?

I'd imagine they're much stronger because of weight training. Training has gotten so specific I imagine hitters (and pitchers) can do training that specifically targets improvements that would be realized in baseball. Mainly bat speed. What do you think?

As I look at it, it *appears* that the fielding "errors per game" was pretty linear from 1947 to 1980, and then started plummeting pretty quickly.

When did the Latin movement in baseball really take off? It seems like that would correlate pretty well, which would show increased competition correlating with errors. Otherwise I think the errors/game would look a lot differently when a lot of the African Americans were first coming in.

Me: When did the Latin movement in baseball really take off? It seems like that would correlate pretty well, which would show increased competition correlating with errors. Otherwise I think the errors/game would look a lot differently when a lot of the African Americans were first coming in.

I left out a sentence.

When did the Latin movement in baseball really take off? It seems like that would correlate pretty well, which would show increased competition correlating with errors. But I don't think that can be the whole (or even necessarily the main) explanation. Otherwise I think the errors/game would look a lot differently when a lot of the African Americans were first coming in.

There seems to be some improvement on the pocket that connects the thumb to the other 4 fingers, but all in all they look pretty similar to me.

This is a HUGE difference.

This is a HUGE difference.

The pocket still doesn't seem very good, and there was a (bad) pocket before. Then again, I've never tried to catch with either of these gloves.

Well, what do you know....

You know that perfectly linear improvement in errors per team from 1950 to 2005? It's hogwash. It doesn't exist.

Using the NL data (no DH distortion), from 1950 to 1986, the minimum Err/Team was 134.4 in 1971. The max was 158.6 in 1964. Yes, 1950 was 150.5. Yes, 1960 was 140.5. Unfortunately, everything was a big jumble.

Avg 1950-59 = 142.5 (low 135.25, hi 150.5)
Avg 1960-69 = 148.0 (138.9, 158.6)
Avg 1970-79 = 143.9 (134.4, 154.9)
Avg 1980-86 = 139.6 (135.1, 143.1)

Overall = 143.8 with an RSD of 4.5%

Yes, the highest of the decade of the 1950s was 1950.

The AL had similar things, but was odder: 138.1, 136.1, 140.3, 129.8 total 136.5 RSD 5.4%

Yes, there are spikes in the expansion years. However, from 1952 (for some reason, 49-51 avged 150 errors, but 52-55 avged 144, and 56-59 was in the 138 range) to 1982, the slope of the line is flat. Completely flat. y = 0.0034x + 143.92. R-sq of 2E-05. Really flat.

There's a small step down from there, but in 1987, something changed. As noted above, the average in the 1980-86 was 139.6. From 1987-92 (before expansion in 93), the average was 127.4 *with a max of 134* The highest it got was 5 errors less per team than the previous 6 seasons. Maybe the guys playing from 1980-1986 were a lot worse than the 1987-1992 players, but I seriously doubt it.

But Chris, what's the slope of the line from 1983 to 2003?

y = -1.497x + 264.07
R2 = 0.8319

Zoinks! That's HUGE. Have players improved that much in just 20 years? I seriously doubt the equipment has improved that much.

To me, there is a clear change in perception among MLB scorers that has created this downturn in errors. The average error per team has gone from:

Have players gotten that much better from 1983 to 2002? There has been a decrease of *40* errors per team in 20 years as compared to a decrease of 0 in 30 years? Is it training? Is it technique? Is it MLB scorers?

I totally kicked ass in Calvinball when I was 12. I was the best I ever saw and was competing in the only recognized Calvinball circuit on the face of the planet--we represented over twenty players strong. I was also super fast, not at all fat and quite tall for a twelve-year old--perfect qualities for Calvinball.

Now let's say next year Nike starts a $500 million Calvinball circuit that attracts nearly every person on the planet's interest. As with most leagues, there are some dominant players. Will they be better than I was? You better have a time machine to prove it!

To put it simply, Ruth was not created by God to play baseball. He was a random sampling of genes and experience (possibly created by God) who happened to be a great ballplayer in his time. He was probably one in ten-thousand, maybe one in a million. It's really, really unlikely that he was one in a billion.

Finding a grandmaster of a human being at any skill requires a few things:
1) Amazing education
2) Maximize your population training at the skill and pull from the largest pool.

I think it's pretty clear we have better sports education (instruction, coaching, etc.) now. Are we pulling from the largest pool? Obviously the competition from other sports is a factor, but the internationalization and integration of the game would appear to dwarf that factor.

It's not just that the lower players would be swapped with the higher quality players of now. That's illogical. It doesn't make any sense that Ruth and our heroes popped out ready to play and were ten times better than the other players. It's possible, but it's complete against all odds.

The pick of a pool of several million people could be on the par with the pick of a pool of several hundred million people. But not too often. To argue that it happened in the one reality we have is like believing that the lotto ticket in my pocket is the winning one for tomorrow drawing--it could be true, but it's a fool's bet.

First of all, I don't believe Eraser was that good at Calvinball, whatever the hell that is.

Second, Chris, the more you argue, the less persuaded by your position I become. I think in fact BL accurately represents your position, and I do find that every time you're pushed, you resort to either (1) appeal to authority, or (2) gross generalization (the tiny Latins are coming! the tiny Latins are coming!).

Whether Andy plays golf has nothing to do with his point. And I don't find Sam's response quite on point. The point was not really how would Jack have done having to compete against Tiger; if that were the point, then Sam's reply would be spot on. Instead, the point was how would Jack have done playing against a pool representing not just a small portion of the general public, but a larger portion of the general public (which goes to Eraser's comment)? The issue is not whether he would have won more or less majors, and Sam is right that maybe Jack needs to be removed from the conversation (though I agree w/BL, I just doubt he was that divine). More competition breeds more quality, generally. This is why the line b/w the truly stellar performers and the merely great is so fine, and why the stakes are so high (and why cheating is so critical). When virtually EVERYBODY in any sport trains year round, that raises the bar. When, then, someone gets hurt training (e.g., pulls a muscle) and can't train, they lose ground. This strikes me as manifestly different from ages when ballplayers trained significantly less. And I don't think the issue is even primarily strength/size; it's refinement of skill.

E-X,
that's not how natural selection works. The skills have to be desirable, and something that *drives* selection.

Is there a significant population of "related" athletes in MLB? The Boones and the Bells. Barry Bonds is a great example. That's not compelling. What about just baseball players whose parents excelled elsewhere? JT Snow, I guess.

MLB players (and MOST athletes) marry *good-looking* women - not great athletes (that and there is no female comparator to baseball).

Sure, Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi, but there's where there is an exact female sport. Maybe basketball now - but do they marry one another and procreate?

The basic problem all of you seem to be having with my position is that you are reducing it to what you think it is.

As Backlasher points out - my data shows players getting bigger and play being improved - I agree that baseball players have gotten better since hte turn of the century. A lot better. I believe they have gotten significantly better since 1927. What I do not believe, and do not see supported in the data is that players have gotten so much better since 1947 that the worst MLB team in 2005 would mop the floor with Ted Williams' Red Sox.

I don't believe they would mop the floor with the 1927 Yankees.

Backlasher said "Carl Crawford was bigger than the Babe.", as if that means anything with respect to their performances. Carl Crawford isn't a "Babe Ruth" because he doesn't have the eye-hand coordination, bat speed and plate discipline that Ruth had. CC is definitely faster and able to bench press more, but he can't hit a ball as far as Ruth, nor as far as often - not even in a HR derby. HE CANNOT. Does anyone dispute that?

So size, while mattering isn't some panacea to sucking at baseball. And Carl Crawford is a *good* 2005 player. He just blows compared to Ruth. BECAUSE HIS SKILLS ARE LESS, despite his training advantages, his conditioning advantages, his technique advantages and his equipment advantages (and due to being born later, his genetic advantages).

In BP, Crawford can't hit like Ruth could in game action. He simply doesn't have the ability to hit HRs like McGwire does in BP (BTW, which is how Ruth did it in games).

And the 1927 Yankees had a bunch of good players. So, could teh 2005 Devil Rays mop the floor with the 1927 Red Sox - I don't care, but yes, probably the DRays are better than those guys by a wide margin.

Now my point is that since integration (really since the late 30s, but as soon as that data is formed, WWII screws it up, so we'll take "just after the War"), the athletes were about as good as the ones today. The selection process for baseball players while not maximized was very, very close to the top by the mid-50s.

The players may be better, but not in such leaps and bounds as you guys all claim. Any ioncrease in talent is completely washed over by developments of gloves, balls and parks.

What's annoying is that some of you know that players *DID NOT* all get better between 1992 and 1994, despite seeing the largest changes in fielding, slugging, hits per game, singles per game in 50 years.

You *know* that wasn't a jump in talent level, and it is a much larger change than the difference between 1950 and 1992, and yet you blithely say "the players are better and these changes (fielding, slugging, HRs/g, etc) demonstrate it."

There isn't even any gradual improvement from 1950 to 1980, either. Maybe that's a point for your side - Really -wtligfting and specialized training didn't even start until then The advent of the computer as a universal tool. And teh quality of play has improved so much from 1982 to present that you guys are all correct. Which of course would mean that there really cannot be any truly great players from before about 1982.

Which makes Barry Bonds - even pre-steroids, the greatest player ever - and that is indisputable.

The skills have to be desirable, and something that *drives* selection.

$$$$$$$$$

Here's my amended version:

MLB players (and MOST athletes) marry slip around with *good-looking* women - not great athletes (that and there is no female comparator to baseball).

Have you ever taken a look at old-time yearbooks and seen those Family Day photos? If you had, you wouldn't have written that. There was some serious skank on display there.

gross generalization (the tiny Latins are coming! the tiny Latins are coming!).

That isn't a gross generalization. MLB players have gotten smaller over hte last decade. Okay, poffer a different reason, but the huge jump in Latinos as a percentage is a good place to start.

It's a *fact* teh avg ht and wt has decreased.

The issue is not whether he would have won more or less majors,

You are correct, because that's not really what golf is about. See, you are drawing the wrong line as a definiton for skill in golf. Skill isn't "winning majors", skill is shooting a low score. There's no defnese in golf - Jack may not have won more tourneys (or majors), but that's not his skill. His skill is to shoot a very low golf score. It doesn't matter who else is playing for that. At all. That he won *is* a testament that there are more players now, *but* that does nothing to speak to Jack's ability to shoot 65. More players don't prevent him from shooting 65. He won in 1962 and he won in 1986 - both times because *he* shot a low score.

Second, Chris, the more you argue, the less persuaded by your position I become.

That's okay.

I think in fact BL accurately represents your position,

Gasp! Really? You agree with BL? I'm shocked, utterly shocked. What's next, kevin and Andy agreeing with BL? cats and dogs living together?

Whether Andy plays golf has nothing to do with his point.

Are you claiming this is my appeal to authority? BEcause I'd like to see another example of it since "that's always what I do".

Effects on scoring in golf due to the conditions of the course isn't some crazed appeal to authority. It's a fact. Andy made statements about how the course have gotten longer, after he said "it's about putting, not driving". Even though he doesn't play - well, then how does he know? Has he done studies that demonstrate that the lower scores don't correlate to teh longest drivers, but the player with the lower putting average? Here's a free hint - teh top long drivers are Tiger, Phil, Vijay (and a few otehrs). The top putters are Brad Faxon and guys like that.

You don't "drive for show, putt for dough" on the tour. You drive so you can hit a shorter iron into the green and thus have a more accurate approach shot, thus having a shorter putt *which is infinitely easier to make*. The talent differential of the guys on tour is small, so the guy who gets to hit the shortest club into the green is going to have the best chance (they shorter the club, the greater the accuracy).

Nicklaus hit the ball very far. he tomwered over his peers in that respect. Playing the same course as players today play (St. Andrews), Nicklaus drove the ball as far with equipment that was embarrassingly inferior to today's equipment. That says a lot about his ability - not to win tournaments- but to shoot low golf scores. Which usually wins golf tournaments.

I used to be a decent golfer - I had a handicap index around 11. But age really slowed me teh last few years, and my handicap index was creeping up to 13.5. I use TopFlite XL 2000s which aren't really known for their feel around the green, but what I saw as my problem was my drives had gone from 275 to 250. I couldn't make as full of a turn as I once could. I am older, fatter, and just generally less flexible. I purchased a R580 XD. *Instantly* my drives are up to 280-290, with a few in teh 300s. I'm the same fat guy, and this club is a legal club and was used on tour (the R7 is now available), and now my index is 9.5. The equipment matters a lot - even for the pros.

Tiger has stated that if the course get so long he can't win *then* he'll switch to graphite shafts (scary, huh?).

The way to level the playing field is narrower fairways and tougher greens, not longer courses. You have to put a premium on shot-making - which, when golf courses were not the pristine things they play on today, was the case.

Heck, players today can't even swing a 1-iron, much less hit Hogan's shot in 1000 tries.

$$$$$$$$$

Are you saying pro atheltes don't marry the best *looking* women they can find, but the most athletic so their kids can become great pros and make lots of money?

There was some serious skank on display there.

So those skanks were good athletes for breeding a super race of ball players?

Oh, in case it wasn't clear, in strike years on my work above, I prorated to 162 games.

Chris, my "indisputable" comment had to do with the improvement in defense only. AFAICT, no one is disputing that. What you and, to some extent Sam, are disputing is my conclusion that hitters "must" have gotten better in order to account for that. Sam's point is well-taken logically (not factually, though, unless he thinks Dodger Stadium is smaller than Ebbetts Field, etc.).

Your post 1051 isn't that far off my own view in terms of the amount of improvement (I disagree that "technology" is the only driver of the change). There certainly was a peak of ability in the late 50s/early 60s as MLB integrated. Expansion did dilute competition since then. I do believe there has been improvement since then, but the pace has slowed.

When I do historical comparisons I use the following rough estimates. Using 1960 NL as the baseline, reduce 1900-10 by 25%, 1910-20 by 20%, 1920-40 by 10-15%, postwar AL by 2-5%. I'd guess modern players are about 2-3% better than 1960 NL.

2%?

So teh 1961 Yankees would win 105 games in 2006?

So I understand what you are saying : when you wrote "If defense improves -- and this is indisputable -- then batters MUST get better or offense dies. "

How is that not disputed by changing the rules? The Batters do NOT have to get better or offense dies. That disputes it.

If you are saying it is indisputable that defense has improved, then why "If defense improves"?

I guess the sentence construct threw me (and Sam and GGC).

I disagree that "technology" is the only driver of the change

So do I, but I think it is the primary driver, and large renough to mask any real effect of a eye-hand coorcination/etc position.

Tiger has stated that if the course get so long he can't win *then* he'll switch to graphite shafts (scary, huh?).

He made the switch last year. Driving distance jumped from 301.9 to 316.1.

See what happens when I leave the country?

BTW, last night at 2 AM I handtyped in a spreadsheet each league's games played, innings pitched and errors from The Baseball Encyc from 1940 to 2003.

I love being crazy.

He made the switch last year. Driving distance jumped from 301.9 to 316.1

Clearly a 5% change in distance is a function of his better training from 2004 to 2005, rather than the equipment.

Of course, he *could* have gotten better slightly, but there'd be no way to tell due to being swamped by the technology change.

Are you saying pro atheltes don't marry the best *looking* women they can find, but the most athletic so their kids can become great pros and make lots of money?

People marry for all kinds of reasons, many of them totally irrational.

The other is that, in most cases, great athletes are made not born. Ted Williams father was a professional photographer, for god's sake. Bonds and Griffey are the exceptions, not the rule.

In my experience, the best player on the team was not the coachs' son but the kid with a chip on his shoulder who had something to prove.

The basic problem all of you seem to be having with my position is that you are reducing it to what you think it is.

No, its not that at all. I think you are dealing with a pretty decent lot here. This isn't your "glory days of usenet" crowd. We all understand perfectly what you are saying. But there are two things at work. First, you like to argue. Second, you have this style of throwing everything on the sun out there to see what sticks.

On the first point, that is ok, because you are also dealing with a crowd that likes discussion and even spirited discussion. The second point is also ok, because I'd much rather deal with someone like you who will stand behind a point, and actually proffer evidence and arguments, than some blowhard who says "this is the way it is" and makes false appeals of common sense and insults behind emoticons.

But when we do take on your peripherial points, then you claim:

(1) We don't understand you.
(2) You rebut by giving us a position that we have never stated.
(3) Make that position look absurd.

No one has said "it has to be" and no one has said, "the biggest ballplayer is the best ballplayer" You are imposing that argument and using those words. You were the one that brought up size in your link. On any individual micro comparison, size will be pretty meaningless. When you look at it across a population, it probably provides some information on strength, iff the variance isn't too large.

But you don't even need to go there, because strength is a component, and you have direct evidence on the increase of human achievement. In fact, I'm no upper percentile athlete, but I imagine I'm probably stronger than many of the '27 baseball players simply because of the weight training that was introduced to us in high school, and mandated even by the club sports that I played in college. And little Marcus Giles would probably dessimate me in any type of strength contest.

Saying a 1927 team would do x against any set of competition is plausible. There is no way you can prove that under all set of circumstances x wouldn't happen. Therefore the inference is valid. Its just as not as well supported that the team as some of the others you have seen.

I have very sparse information on the 1927 Yankees. Any precise inference that they would go 81-81, or some exact quantification would just be pulling something out of my ass. Saying that they would fair worse against today's competition, saying that they would lose more times than not against today's Yankees, etc. is not, and it looks to be the most supportable inference.

I'm not going to slow you down, because you post, posit, and reveal all kinds of delicious information when these discussions get going. And if you are only able to do that by throwing in some of the rhetoric, I'm rarely emotional anyway, so I'll endure. I can tell you though, things like:

<

To me, there is a clear change in perception among MLB scorers that has created this downturn in errors.

are very revealing. It seems that in any change in performance you will blame it on ONE causal factor. And the problem is that there is always going to be multiple factors at play and you can't explain all of them away by something new all the time. Your inference could be true, but it doesn't explain every change in the human performance curve, any more than "its the gloves" explains every inference. To wit:

What's annoying is that some of you know that players *DID NOT* all get better between 1992 and 1994, despite seeing the largest changes in fielding, slugging, hits per game, singles per game in 50 years.


We have already explained multiple times, that large increases in human performance are generally explained by a large agent, e.g. Fosbury Flop, new equipment, doping. We don't think there is ONE and ONLY ONE cause for everything we see.

What is INDISPUTABLE has been the human achievement curve. I'm very interested in why, and I don't think anyone has struck the grand unifying theory as to all the causes. However, the ones that seem to have legs are the muliple cause hypothesis of endogamy, population, tech, doping, and clustering. Its much more plausible than any single cause analysis or multiple, but distinct cause analysis. And I don't care what you think, you are definately arguing the latter, and that is what I'm addressing.

Moreover, your opponents were fairly benign. The only hypothesis they have offered wrt baseball is that based on the human achievement curve, its likely this is true for baseball. Some have taken this an extrapolated it to the performance of particular players or particular teams. This is where you jumped in. If you don't disagree with that position, you can simply say, I agree. Then you can spin whatever theory you like that is tangential and we will likely respond to it. We will also likely diverge in our opinions.

But one of the reasons you are seeing some unity is that you are attacking that inference directly, ascribing a position to us that is much broader than we state, and when we rebut any of your points claiming we don't understand you.

I understand you fine, you are just overplaying your hand.

So teh 1961 Yankees would win 105 games in 2006?

You have to ding them another 2-5% for the AL's lack of integration. If I were a cautious analyst trying to make a conservative estimate, I'd say they'd win 95-100 assuming the same amount of luck they actually had that year. In my heart of hearts, I don't think they could.

I guess the sentence construct threw me (and Sam and GGC).

Yes, it was ambiguous. I intended the word "indisputable" to refer to the opening clause, but you all read it as referring to the conclusion. My bad.

The way to level the playing field is narrower fairways and tougher greens, not longer courses.

Of course they’ve also been doing that. See that link I gave above to the 1999 Masters for one example of many. And I don't have to play golf to be able to read about that.

There certainly was a peak of ability in the late 50s/early 60s as MLB integrated. Expansion did dilute competition since then. I do believe there has been improvement since then, but the pace has slowed.

I’m sorry to keep harping on this, but how many black Latins were in the Majors in 1960 compared to today? How many Asians? The African Americans may be almost a wash (since they peaked in the 70’s), but the ability to speak English as a first language isn’t really that much associated with baseball skills. And this doesn’t even take into consideration factors like conditioning, both in season and offseason.

So I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the late 50’s represented any sort of a peak, unless you’re strictly comparing it to the immediate post-expansion years of the early 60’s. The explosion of the talent pool really took place sometime during the late 70’s to mid-80’s, when all the teams started scouting Latin America, not just a handful of teams. You don’t expand the talent pool to the extent that the Majors have since 1960 and see only a 2% or 3% improvement in talent.

I have very sparse information on the 1927 Yankees. Any precise inference that they would go 81-81, or some exact quantification would just be pulling something out of my ass. Saying that they would fair worse against today's competition, saying that they would lose more times than not against today's Yankees, etc. is not, and it looks to be the most supportable inference.

My sentiments exactly. No Major League team with the talent to go 114-44 is going to embarrass itself in any era. But their 1927 opposition was missing a huge chunk of its potential talent, which would be found now, and then some. “Saying that they would fair worse against today's competition, saying that they would lose more times than not against today's Yankees, etc.” is a pretty good and succinct way of expressing this.

I’m sorry to keep harping on this, but how many black Latins were in the Majors in 1960 compared to today? How many Asians? The African Americans may be almost a wash (since they peaked in the 70’s), but the ability to speak English as a first language isn’t really that much associated with baseball skills. And this doesn’t even take into consideration factors like conditioning, both in season and offseason.

So I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the late 50’s represented any sort of a peak, unless you’re strictly comparing it to the immediate post-expansion years of the early 60’s. The explosion of the talent pool really took place sometime during the late 70’s to mid-80’s, when all the teams started scouting Latin America, not just a handful of teams. You don’t expand the talent pool to the extent that the Majors have since 1960 and see only a 2% or 3% improvement in talent.

I have no doubt that the talent pool has expanded enormously. However, expansion has doubled the number of roster spots. In essence, I'm asserting that talent has more than doubled, but not by a huge amount. In part that's me being cautious; I could be convinced it's more.

BTW, the number of black Latins in 1960 was minimal unless you wanted to play for the Giants.

Oh, another interesting point. About 2 weeks ago I watched a replay of the FA Cup final from 1977 or so (Man U v. Liverpool). My daughter, who is an excellent player and and even better judge of the game, came in, watched for a few minutes, and then commented on how bad they were compared to teams today. Her view was that a good college team today would beat either one.

Both teams were not only all British, they were all white. Expanding the talent pool can change the game very dramatically.

Nicklaus drove the ball as far with equipment that was embarrassingly inferior to today's equipment.

A lot of guys on tour don't always try to drive it as far as they can, because the courses still aren't *that* long for a lot of them and the rough is so ridiculous on many major courses. Being able to drive 310 yards instead of 290 would be nice, but it's risky, since the harder you hit it the more likely it is to find the rough (and roughs on a lot of these major courses often force you to just pitch it back into the fairway). I think Nicklaus would realize this. BTW, wasn't it said up thread that the rough is much worse now?

I don't really think most of these guys are gripping it and ripping it.

Mark,

I think if you averaged out your last two posts (yours and "your daughter's"), we wouldn't be all that far apart. Though I doubt if the best college teams of today would be able to beat the 19777 Blue Jays....

BTW, the number of black Latins in 1960 was minimal unless you wanted to play for the Giants.

Exactly. And it was the inferred basis of my last post.

You know that perfectly linear improvement in errors per team from 1950 to 2005? It's hogwash. It doesn't exist.

So what do you think - do you think that maybe the gloves didn't really improve much from 1950-~1980? Or do you think the defenders got worse? Or some other explanation?

BTW, wasn't it said up thread that the rough is much worse now?

No. It's been roughened at a particular course. Watch a Briticsh Open from teh 70s on ESPN sometime, compared to what you see in Pinehurst. Really only the US Open has rough like you can't believe.

No one has said "it has to be"

That's your position isn't it though:
"Its pretty simple. All available evidence shows an increase in human achievement over the passage of time. Such changes do not coincide with changes in equipment alone, and tend to spike when there is an external factor. There is no counter evidence this wouldn't be true in baseball. "

That reads to me to be synonymous with "Human achievement has improved everywhere else (dmonstrated). There's no reason it hasn't in baseball." Isn't the same as saying since it has everywhere else, then it must have in baseball -it has to have - or since htere is no reason it shouldn't have, it must have.

You aren't saying that? How does your statement *not* mean that?

To me, there is a clear change in perception among MLB scorers that has created this downturn in errors.


are very revealing. It seems that in any change in performance you will blame it on ONE causal factor.

No, I'm just not being overly precise. You say " We don't think there is ONE and ONLY ONE cause for everything we see." But you claim I do.

I've had to go back and clarify because I don't get the same benefit from you that I give to you, and only through oversimplification of your position can I get you to see you are oversimplifying mine.

Of course I don't think scorers are the only cause - can you proffer another significant cause for the change in errors? Andy? Mefisto? JC?

No change for 30 years and then dropping off the table in the last 20?

You also just said "We have already explained multiple times, that large increases in human performance are generally explained by a large agent, e.g. Fosbury Flop, new equipment, doping"

So I apply that view by saying it's likely the scorers (becuase it has to be a universal change and a large agent), and you accuse me of making too broad of a causal statement("It seems that in any change in performance you will blame it on ONE causal factor.").

Of course I'm not blaming hte entirity on one causal staetement I never am - work from that assumption that I mean the most significant factor.

Do I also have to say "In my opinion..." because of course it is in my ####### opinion.

And if you think people in this thread haven't claimed teh 2005 Devil Rays would mop the floor with the 1927 Yankees, you aren't reading closely. Of course, I use "mop the floor" loosely, and no one else may have typed those words exactly (so you don't have to over-read my writing).

BTW, "This isn't your "glory days of usenet" crowd. We all understand perfectly what you are saying." You say this, but then go on to say this: "It seems that in any change in performance you will blame it on ONE causal factor."

You do NOT know what I am saying, or you would understand that I am referring to the greatest effect on said change - I don't think you think all the players got better from 1992 to 1994. I would like you to state that so I am not misrepresenting your position. What happened in 93-94? The ball is juiced. And no, BL, that's not teh sole contributing factor it is just by far teh most significant.

So what do you think - do you think that maybe the gloves didn't really improve much from 1950-~1980? Or do you think the defenders got worse? Or some other explanation?

I do think the gloves improved considerably. One thing about those numbers - since HRs and Ks have increased throughout, I suspect over that period errors on BIP actually increased.

The way players are taught to field (now) one of the training techniques is to use a pocketless glove. SOmetimes even just a cupped board, teaching the player to use the glove as little ars possible and focus on just stopping hte ball with teh mitt and catching with two hands.

Well, that's all you *could* do with the old gloves, so it's possible that from a technical basis, the infielders (where the most errors are) in the 50s-60s were *better* fielders, albeit with less reach (gloves couldn't really snag a gb going by like the newer gloves allowed. You still see/hear today "He couldn't get it out of his glove" Well that didn't happen with the old gloves.

Overall, I think the defense improves/could improve with the new gloves, but only with players who work crazily on the glovework.

As kevin states upthread, $$$$$$. Chicks dig the longball, and so do arbitrators and GMs. They shrug off defense (at over half the psoitions), so guess what everyone works on?

No Major League team with the talent to go 114-44 is going to embarrass itself in any era

What? Didn't you say earlier in the thread that the 1927 Yankees would be dogmeat in this era? (oh, they weren't 114-44)

Calvinball: Calvinball was the made-up game in Calvin and Hobbes :) Sorry, I was just trying to point out that pool of selection size is vital--you can't be the best arm wrestler in a group of four and then claim to be as good as the world champion from next year.

As kevin points out, it's not only the internationalization of the talent pool, but the $$$$. There are plenty of players who quit sports to do something more secure and lucrative than play baseball. Like being a history professor or owning a tire shop or something or the sort. Or hell, to play in some semi-pro league for more money.

I'm still unclear on your Yankees arguments--are you saying that if you transported the '27 Yankees here today and they played tomorrow, they could compete, or are you saying that with today's advantages they could compete? The first is unlikely because of lack of practice, the second assumes that they would actually work hard during the off-season rather than just sit around drinking beer.

Today's stars not only represent what could be highly unlikely genetic ability, but also, on the average, a much longer path of training. If Griffey Jr. doesn't pick up a bat until 25, he's not a ballplayer. He's probably not even a softball player.

If you transport yesterday's stars to today, they lose by 50 on a daily basis. If you give them time to hone their skills, some of them get good and others give up. Does Ruth make it? None of us know, but I certainly don't think that you can say he's an odds on favorite based on his psych profile. He's probably got a life sentence by 25.

In terms of talent pool, today's baseball is like 6a football versus the tiny enrollment schools. It's possible that you had a crazy good assemblage of skills and talent, but most likely, they just didn't have the personnel.

No change for 30 years and then dropping off the table in the last 20?

Chris, when I look at that errors graph, I see a "best fit" line that's very consistent downwards. I do not see the pattern you suggest.

One thing about those numbers - since HRs and Ks have increased throughout, I suspect over that period errors on BIP actually increased.

Then why has fielding % gone up over that time? It was .975 in 1950, it's .983 today.

Chris, when I look at that errors graph, I see a "best fit" line that's very consistent downwards. I do not see the pattern you suggest.

I can email you the spreadsheet. Wait - I can't find it. I hope I didn't delte it at 4 am.

I saw that too - heck, I stated it earlier. But then I looked *closely*. Look at the approx value at 1950. Then look at the approx value at 1980. That's close to the same (with some up and down in between).

I suspected it was flat over that period from looking at that.

The AL errors clearly drops some.

Which puzzles me. If the quality of play was so much higher in teh NL from 1955-1965, why is the defense better?

Then why has fielding % gone up over that time? It was .975 in 1950, it's .983 today.

Dunno. Those graphs might be wrong? See why I verify everything?

And if you think people in this thread haven't claimed teh 2005 Devil Rays would mop the floor with the 1927 Yankees, you aren't reading closely. Of course, I use "mop the floor" loosely, and no one else may have typed those words exactly (so you don't have to over-read my writing).

I think Vaux was the one that was the first one to say something like this, but I'm not sure. The wordcount on this thread seems to be approaching the wordcount of Moby-Dick.

The funny thing is that this is in a Yankees blog and I think that the only Yankee fan who has posted in it this week is Andy. Anyways, I'm off to watch some playoff football. Even though none of these teams could beat the 1969 New York Jets, they should be exciting games.

Those graphs might be wrong? See why I verify everything?

I did doublecheck this. It's correct.

If the quality of play was so much higher in teh NL from 1955-1965, why is the defense better?

My guess, and it's only that, would be different GB/FB ratios.