Well, it should be obvious to you that the sports you mentioned are all track events and are notorious for their doping scandals.

Good thing baseball isn't!

;-P

I love a sense of humor.

Well, it should be obvious to you that the sports you mentioned are all track events and are notorious for their doping scandals.

Honestly, I didn't think of this, but it's a good point.

Honestly, I didn't think of this, but it's a good point.

The progression of human achievement in those sports spikes heavily in the 70s/80s, has a dip, and in many sports is just now catching up to the level of 80s competition. Many of the dips correspond to the implementation of different new drug testing procedures.

I remember specifically the talk about FloJo. Her spike in performance was off the charts in terms of human achievement.

Look at the records for swimming, for sprinting, for distance running, for discus, pole vault, etc. Athletes do seem to get better over time

Doping aside (I don't wanna hearaboudit :) the main reason that swimmers and track athletes keep beating records by small increments is equipment, including track and pool design. That's why Andy has to let the 1927 Yankees use modern gloves when they step out of the time machine :)

The main reason to suspect that the 2005 Devil Rays could beat the 1927 Yankees is that they draw their talent from a larger pool. What the hell am I saying, the Devil Rays wouldn't know talent if it bit them. Let me revise: a big reason to suspect that the 2005 Red Sox would wipe the floor with the 1927 Yankees is that they draw their talent from a much larger pool.

But that pool is not qualitatively different in its raw athletic potential from the pool available in 1927. It's just got more members.

While it's completely plausible that Kevin Millar, Tony Graffanino, and Jay Payton represent a big improvement over Joe Dugan, Ray Morehart, and Cedric Durst, there's no reason to think that Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe Williams, or Oscar Charleston wouldn't be huge stars in MLB in the 2000s. That's the main reason why I think that a team with great stars, like the 1927 Yankees or the 1932 Crawfords, would be pretty competitive today.

The progression of human achievement in those sports spikes heavily in the 70s/80s, has a dip, and in many sports is just now catching up to the level of 80s competition.

They still haven't caught up in some of the heavy throwing competitions.

Here are the shot put top 10 results. Look at most of those dates, particularly for the "women":


Mark Athlete Nationality Venue Date
23.12 Randy Barnes United States Westwood May 20, 1990
23.06 Ulf Timmermann East Germany Chania May 22, 1988
22.91 Alessandro Andrei Italy Viareggio August 12, 1987
22.86 Brian Oldfield United States El Paso May 10, 1975
22.75 Werner Günthör Switzerland Bern August 23, 1988
22.67 Kevin Toth United States Lawrence April 19, 2003
22.64 Udo Beyer East Germany Berlin August 20, 1986
22.54 Christian Cantwell United States Gresham June 5, 2004
22.52 John Brenner United States Walnut April 26, 1987
22.51 Adam Nelson United States Portland May 18, 2002
[edit]
Women
Mark Athlete Nationality Venue Date
22.63 Natalya Lisovskaya USSR Moscow June 7, 1987
22.45 Ilona Briesenick East Germany Potsdam May 11, 1980
22.32 Helena Fibingerová Czechoslovakia Nitra August 20, 1977
22.19 Claudia Losch West Germany Hainfeld August 23, 1987
21.89 Ivanka Khristova Bulgaria Belmeken July 4, 1976
21.86 Marianne Adam East Germany Leipzig June 23, 1979
21.76 Li Meisu China Shijiazhuang April 23, 1988
21.73 Natalya Akhrimenko USSR Leselidze May 21, 1988
21.69 Vita Pavlysh Ukraine Budapest August 15, 1998
21.66 Sui Xinmei China Beijing June 9, 1990

Doping aside (I don't wanna hearaboudit :) the main reason that swimmers and track athletes keep beating records by small increments is equipment, including track and pool design. That's why Andy has to let the 1927 Yankees use modern gloves when they step out of the time machine :)

This is probably not true, Bob. What BL said is more indicative of the real culprit, whether you want to discuss it or not. BL and I have had these conversations before, and you may have been party to them, but the doping scandals coincide with the major breakthroughs; testing caused those breakthroughs to cease or diminish, and now in track events you see records ROUTINELY thrown out (object lessons for baseball and other sports) upon confirmation that an athlete cheated. The Tim Montgomery thing recently is most telling: they threw his records out w/o a blood test confirming he had cheated.

Daryn (et al)
here and here.

Brace yourself, because I was just re-reading it, and it's brilliant work ;-)

stuck?

The "human achievements in track" is discussed in teh above threads.

Just castng my vote with Andy on the relative ability of teams now.

Oh, and Daryn, when you finish reading Chris's articles I'll explain why he's wrong. Actually, if he linked to the original threads my comments may still be in there.

I did, and you never said why you mistakenly think I am wrong.

IIRC, you still hadn't found the smoking gun.

Here are the shot put top 10 results. Look at most of those dates, particularly for the "women":

Seems most of the "women" were pinko commie bastards too.

He can't be wrong, he already told us the articles are brilliant.

including track and pool design

Its those pebbles on the track that allowed Owens to beat Martinus Osendarp.

Seriously, most every researcher that I recall looking at this concludes equipment and nutrition are small precentage points in the model. And the cluster models of WR performance don't line up to a newly known technological innovation.

Um, I said "doping aside." Probably the two most futile words ever uttered :-D

Anyway, the doping issue merely supports my point. If the only difference between Roger Bannister and Hicham El Guerrouj is that the latter was shot full of hop, then Bob Meusel would hit .337 today. So there!

the main reason that swimmers and track athletes keep beating records by small increments is equipment, including track and pool design

BTW: Even were this true, this would basically confirm Chris's point - the athlete hasn't changed as much as we think; instead the environment around the athlete has changed. Give the earlier athlete the same equipment (the squarer pool, the slicker water), and he'll do better too.

Absolutely, JC. I've been agreeing with Chris, for a change :)

Absolutely, JC. I've been agreeing with Chris, for a change :)

That's the problem: So was I. I'm so used to disagreeing with Chris, I couldn't imagine that there'd be another person on his side as well.

I did, and you never said why you mistakenly think I am wrong.

I was being subtle and polite. You have no idea how much effort that took.

If the only difference between Roger Bannister and Hicham El Guerrouj is that the latter was shot full of hop, then Bob Meusel would hit .337 today. So there!

No, because that doesn't take quality of competition, as impacted by a greater pool of talent that MLB draws from, into consideration.

Baseball isn't an individual-against-the-clock-or-tape-meausure competition like T&F;. Even if Meusel today is exactly the same guy (with nutrition/conditioning/equipment factored in), he's facing pitchers drawn from a vastly deeper pool of talent than he was in 1927. How big an impact that has is debatable, but it can't be dismissed.

Give the earlier athlete the same equipment (the squarer pool, the slicker water), and he'll do better too.

I would be interested to know how you could design a pool to be more conducive to faster swimming. Isn't a concrete bowl filled with water a concrete bowl filled with water?

Well, no, Steve, I was being facetious. I don't think that Meusel would hit .337 today, and I don't think that Babe Ruth would hit 60 home runs if he played in Yankee Stadium today, though if he'd played in Coors Field in 1998 I think he would have hit 70.

The more interesting issue is whether Meusel would hit like Trot Nixon (well, a right-handed Trot Nixon) -- that is, hold his own in a strong modern lineup -- or whether he would hit like Gabe Kapler. (I was going to say "or worse," but I don't think it's possible to hit worse than Gabe Kapler.) I don't know whether that's a decidable issue, but it represents the debate over whether these past teams are even on the same planet as their modern equivalents.

Brace yourself, because I was just re-reading it, and it's brilliant work ;-)

After the big sell, I was expecting to be convinced and somewhat disappointed that it was not convincing at all.

To get one thing out of the way, it is clear that man has not evolved in a tangible way since 1900.

But technique and conditioning have changed greatly over the last 100 years. Players used to work at regular jobs during the off season. Now they have intense regimens. The same Roger Clemens born in 1900 would not have thrown as fast as the real Roger Clemens due to everything the real one has learned about training, conditioning and pitching technique.

Baseball is more of a business than it was which makes the participants better at it. They devote more time to it. They devote more thought to it and have better resources that allow their time and thought to be worth more.

The standard deviation comparison doesn't work well for a sport where players are competing against each other. If the two groups (1930s players and 1990s players) en masse get better or worse, it doesn't effect the SDs.

Maybe, I'm wrong about the effect of conditioning and a developed knowledge base, but I'm not convinced I'm wrong.

Plus, of course, the talent pool is better, but that matters more to the question of whether the 2005 Rays could beat the 1927 Yanks than to the more interesting question of whether Walter Johnson and Lou Gehrig would be stars in 2005.

I would be interested to know how you could design a pool to be more conducive to faster swimming. Isn't a concrete bowl filled with water a concrete bowl filled with water?

Without looking into it or doing any research, I would say there are two big areas that are vulnerable to scientific study:

1) The shape of the pool. When people are swimming, they create all sorts of ripples and waves and whatnot; it would seem that some pool shapes would result in wave patterns that are more beneficial to fast swimmers.

2) The consistency of the water. It's never been straight H2O, since there's chlorine in there anyway. Surely something can be done to the water to allow swimmers to cut through it faster.

I would be interested to know how you could design a pool to be more conducive to faster swimming. Isn't a concrete bowl filled with water a concrete bowl filled with water?

I was joking about the squarer pool and the slicker water. I don't know enough about swimming to know what they can or do do, and what effect whatever they do actually has on the results. My 2 oldest kids swim, and even at their level, their coaches use an underwater camera to record and view their strokes. I find it funny b/c it's so precise and yet one of my children still can't even dive in properly. The bellyflop, initial paralysis, and start w/o momentum is killing her time more than some glitch in her stroke.

In swimming, the most dramatic improvements have come from improved techniques, so much so that there is a move to ban or limit certain kicks off the turn. The time competitive swimmers spend underwater has dramatically increased since 1985.

The time competitive swimmers spend underwater has dramatically increased since 1985.

THat's really interesting. I've noticed how long they stay under from watching meets. Again, I know nothing about swimming, but it struck me as odd that swimmers were permitted to swim underwater so long, the older ones seeming to remain beneath the surface for half the pool. I love watching my kids do the flip turn, though.

But technique and conditioning have changed greatly over the last 100 years. Players used to work at regular jobs during the off season. Now they have intense regimens. The same Roger Clemens born in 1900 would not have thrown as fast as the real Roger Clemens due to everything the real one has learned about training, conditioning and pitching technique.

Baseball is more of a business than it was which makes the participants better at it. They devote more time to it. They devote more thought to it and have better resources that allow their time and thought to be worth more.

All true, plus sports medicine has improved immensely, allowing players to recover from injuries better and faster and thus play more closely to their optimum ability.

There are all sorts of pool-design elements that affect swimming speed: the depth of a pool, the width of the lanes, the shape of the lane dividers, the vents, the walls, the consistency of the water temperature. In a sport where records are set by hundredths of seconds, these things are big deals ... I didn't know any of this this either till I met a competitive swimmer who clued me in when I asked "so is a pool faster because the water is thinner?" or something like that ...

The same Roger Clemens born in 1900 would not have thrown as fast as the real Roger Clemens due to everything the real one has learned about training, conditioning and pitching technique

I don't know about that. Is Bobby Jenks the result of superior training conditioning and technique? I don't buy that for a second.
ANd how in the world are all these dominicans dominant? Have you seen teh quality of life in that country (wrt training, conditioning and technique)?

None of that makes these guys better. Throwing a baseball is about torqueing your arm and holding hte ball just so. It is alomst natural to these guys.

You say "they didn't train in teh offseason" - so? Does that really mean anything? For throwing a baseball hard?

Pitchers are freaks, and freaks are freaks. Randy Johnson? Training? Conditioning? Technique? I just don't buy it for hte vast majority of pitchers - and it *might* affect career length, but not seasonal quality.

The bellyflop, initial paralysis, and start w/o momentum is killing her time more than some glitch in her stroke.

I use a cannonball. Sure, I start slow, but it really rocks the pool and slows down everyone else.

Without looking into it or doing any research, I would say there are two big areas that are vulnerable to scientific study:

1) The shape of the pool. When people are swimming, they create all sorts of ripples and waves and whatnot; it would seem that some pool shapes would result in wave patterns that are more beneficial to fast swimmers.

2) The consistency of the water. It's never been straight H2O, since there's chlorine in there anyway. Surely something can be done to the water to allow swimmers to cut through it faster.

I guess it's possible, but I'm not convinced it's really a big deal. It's like saying that we saw so many stolen bases in the 80's because the consistency of the infield was so much better.

The same Roger Clemens born in 1900 would not have thrown as fast as the real Roger Clemens due to everything the real one has learned about training, conditioning and pitching technique.

Baseball is more of a business than it was which makes the participants better at it. They devote more time to it. They devote more thought to it and have better resources that allow their time and thought to be worth more.

These are nice assertions, but there is no evidence for that (in baseball).

And it requires that pitching and hitting improve *at the exact same rates*.

And if SD won't show a difference among populations - why does it? It certainly does show that from 1900-1940.

I believe the techniques and *arm* conditioning were just as good in the 19402-present day.

Or are tou asserting that these things advanced up to 1970 and then stopped? Because all tehpitching coaches teach what they think, and they pitched then.

Tom Seaver wrote a nice book on how he trained - and that was 35 years ago - over half of the time I claim players haven't (noticeably) improved.

People used to say silly things like "Ruth would never see a Zambrano slider." Well, Rob Neyer wrote that line, but then published a book about pitchers that had the slider well-developed at the time (George Uhle most famously).

Besides, it's just a curveball variant. No, it really is just that.

Ok, I should have refreshed before posting. Since I know very little about swimming, I'm willing to believe Bob.

So.....how bout that El Nino, huh? Really allowed Bonds to break the HR record!

All true, plus sports medicine has improved immensely, allowing players to recover from injuries better and faster and thus play more closely to their optimum ability.

I'd suggest this leap has occured post 1980. DO you see a significant improvement in the quality of play? Is Carlos Beltran really that much better than Willie Mays?

I just don't buy it for hte vast majority of pitchers - and it *might* affect career length, but not seasonal quality.

You may be right that it doesn't matter much (about to paraphrase) before someone turns thirty. But I think it matters a great deal for career length, late career success and avoidance of injury. Think of all the post-TJ surgery stars -- they don't have careers 70 years ago. Medicine/healing is another factor I lumped in with nutrition. Its incredibly significant.

A partner of mine just had the same stroke Ariel Sharon had and is back at work in a demanding business 6 months later. I got to thinking how often in the last 15 years we hear stories about famous people having these huge strokes/heart attacks, and why I don't remember stories like that from prior to 1980 or in the history books.

Part of the answer is that the headline used to be "Ariel Sharon dead at 77". No questions asked. Dean/Joss/Chapman, several others, might have had very different lives if they had the fortune to be born the year I was, 1969.

Oh, and JC, since you're still here, this comment from a couple of days ago made me laugh:

You have certainly summed up one clique nicely.


They're actually easier to identify by their mortarboard icons, but if my summation helps, glad to be of service.

Not that I claim membership in either side, but I like to point out a good zinger.

All true, plus sports medicine has improved immensely, allowing players to recover from injuries better and faster and thus play more closely to their optimum ability.

Optimum ability, or "true talent level?" ;-)

Some quick comparisons. In 1924 the winning Olympic 100m time was 10.6. In 1964 it was 10.0. In 1928 the winning discus throw was 47.32m. In 1964 it was 61m. In 1928 the winning shot put was 15.87m. In 1964 it was 20.33.

It's very clear that performance improved dramatically from Ruth's day to
Mays's. If improvement since then were linear at the same rate -- I doubt that it has been -- then Vaux would be right. Even if the rate slowed down, it's clear Andy is right. And that's without even considering improvements in gloves, sports medicine, etc.

Is Carlos Beltran really that much better than Willie Mays?

My favourite player in the late 70s was Willie Stargell. One of my favourites since 1990 has been Carlos Delgado. I'd be willing to bet that Carlos ages better than Willie (who aged fantastically well for a guy who started his career in 1962) for many of the reasons listed in post 924. I actually have some concern about him playing half his time in Shea, but it shouldn't effect his OPS+. 500 homeruns will be easy for him and 600 aren't out of the question.

I guess it's possible, but I'm not convinced it's really a big deal. It's like saying that we saw so many stolen bases in the 80's because the consistency of the infield was so much better.


Most of the research that I have seen over the years has used the following as contribution to increases in human performance (and these are their words, not mine):

(1) Sociological Endogamy/Synergistic Eugenics
(2) Population Increases
(3) Changes in Technology
(4) Changes in Training
(5) Doping

I have also read one study that takes a more psychological approach that stated increases were based on clusterization. That humans view the current limit of human performance as the training target, and once that has been eclipsed, they start training toward another target.

It seems that most of the studies conclude that tech changes are far more impactful to injury prevention than pure human performance. Some of these do vary; for instance pole vault correlates highly to hp increases. Certain innovations also correlate higher, e.g. Fosbury flop.

improvement since then were linear at the same rate -- I doubt that it has been -- then Vaux would be right. Even if the rate slowed down, it's clear Andy is right.

And backlasher will be wrong no matter what. That is just a rule of the site.

Synergistic Eugenics

The top two high-school pole vaulters in New York State are identical twins: the DiCesare brothers.

That's all I know about genetics and athletics :)

The top two high-school pole vaulters in New York State are identical twins: the DiCesare brothers.

That's all I know about genetics and athletics :)

When I was in high school, a friend of mine was a pretty good pole vaulter his junior year. He sucked his senior year. The only difference that I saw was that he started getting laid his senior year.

That's all I know about pole vaulting.

And backlasher will be wrong no matter what. That is just a rule of the site.

You should join a union or somethin'.

That humans view the current limit of human performance as the training target, and once that has been eclipsed, they start training toward another target.

Isn't that accepted as fact now? That was the whole basis of the 4 minute mile barrier and then quick drop. There was a 9 year wait between 4:01 and 3:59 when it, in retrospect, is clear that the human body without any particular training or medical advances was all along capable of getting down to 3:51 or so. The WR was broken 8 more times in the next dozen or so years. The drop from 3:50 to 3:43 has been infinitely harder than the drop from 4:01 to 3:54, mostly, I'd say, because of that psychological barrier.

Think of all the post-TJ surgery stars -- they don't have careers 70 years ago. Medicine/healing is another factor I lumped in with nutrition. Its incredibly significant.

But the problem then, IMO is that the advances in medicine from 1977 to 1987 were astronomical. You basically have to assert teh players of today are significantly better than -well, Mike Schmidt - or that Schmidt couldn't play today (or he just wouldn't be as good). I don't buy that.

Pitchers simply are freaks. They aren't well-oiled machines. Mark Prior is, and look how often he breaks down. The biggest fattest slobs are some of the best guys (Livan, CC, Wells, Jenks).

And my articles say - since 1937 or so - yes, 1927 is a little worse than today, but 1940 isn't.

And the change has been "Sociological Endogamy/Synergistic Eugenics"

Well, I don't know what that means, so I don't know - it's because baseball became a viable profession, respected and very well paid - by teh 1930s the money was so great it was worth honing your skills. Ted Williams, like many others, grew up saying "I'm going to be the best f###### hitter ever. I'm Ted F#CKING WILLIAMS!!"

That attitude existed and really got going in the 20s and 30s when Ruth really turned baseball into "the good life". As such, you got the best players, and the skillset in baseball hasn't changed that much. Players simply arent' any bigger than they were, and even the small ones now are the best players (Giles', Pedro, Wagner).

"In most individual sports, we see that the all time records are being broken all the time. Look at the records for swimming, for sprinting, for distance running, for discus, pole vault, etc. Athletes do seem to get better over time and thats why I would tend to support the idea that, color barrier or no color barrier, today's teams could beat the greatest teams of the past."

"humans view the current limit of human performance as the training target, and once that has been eclipsed, they start training toward another target."

baseball can't be directly compared to these individual sports. success in baseball is relative. it's a zero-sum game. there is no singular goal one can strive to equal and surpass as a baseball player. it requires disparate skills to help a team win, not a maximizing of individual performance in one discipline. you can aim for 70 HR, but you will never be hitting those HR against the same pitchers or in the same parks as Ruth or Maris. you can aim for 70 HR but it may well be at the expense of other parts of your game. hitting 71 HR does not automatically make you the gold medal baseball player.

i'm sure baseball players have improved, but i don't think you can assume it is at the same rate as athletes in track, field, swimming, etc.

Well, I don't know what that means

I don't think I can say what that means on the new Disnified Primer without violating the new TOU.

But think Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi.

Isn't that accepted as fact now?

I don't know. I'm not even real sure who the canonizing body would be. Nevertheless, its persuasive and plausible if you do not have to reach the question of contemporaneous or serialized causation.

There is little doubts in the clusterization. And its very persuasive that an element of psychology is a factor.

However, its also completely plausible that equipment changes will cause an increase in human performance. Now its possible the change in record begets the technology. There is a new record to beat, so we find every advantage we can to beat the record. Necessity being the mother of invention, etc. Its also plausible that the two occur independent and simultaneous to each other.

If you don't worry about that question, you can realize that both influence human achievement. Doping is the one thing that makes everything really nonlinear, or linearly clusterized.


One thing that sticks in my memory is Bjorn Borg after he made his comeback. He was dubbed, "the best player in the world with a wooden racket." I always analogized that to music, and the experimentation of when electronics actually became a part of the music. The same is going to be true for equipment. You can't just take a 1920's player and give him the benefit of new equipment and expect he will see the same advance in human achievement. Modern players have learned how to optimize the technological advances to make them part of the human achievement curve, not just a seperate enhancement that applies to all. A modern glove doesn't increase everyone's defense equally because older players will still have techniques that are rooted in substandard equipment.

A modern glove doesn't increase everyone's defense equally because older players will still have techniques that are rooted in substandard equipment.

That's exactly right. From a fielding perspective, players from the 20s and earlier were actually playing a different game with quite different skill sets than exist now. This is particularly true of the no glove days of the 19th Century. Same of course with pitching prior to 1893 and even prior to the intro of the mound (1903?).

i'm sure baseball players have improved, but i don't think you can assume it is at the same rate as athletes in track, field, swimming, etc.

Why not? Is there something special about training to be a world class athlete in track/field/swimming that makes them better able to improve over time than an athlete in baseball, or basketball, or football?

I understand that we can't look at records and stats to determine if baseball players are better, simply because there are two forces that act against each other. You're not competing with yourself, you're competing against the other team. In theory, you're both evolving and improving at the same level.

Athletes in track/field/swimming have gotten better as the years go by. What this improvement is attributable to, whether it be drugs,technology or squarer pools, is up for debate (BL has pointed to a few studies that would shed light on this).

Regardless, if track/field/swimming athletes can improve over time to the point where it is clear that today's athletes are better than the athletes of the '20s and '30s (as Mefisto points out), why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that baseball players are as well?

balls, did you completely miss my point?

or did i phrase it so poorly that it made no sense? fearing it's the latter, i won't bother to re-read it.

runners have a specific # to shoot for. yes, they also compete against others in the races, but in training they can race against the clock, know how they directly compare to the best ever, and precisely measure their improvement against that standard. in baseball, the only real way you can measure your improvement is relative to your peers, not against some historical standard. without the same goals of individual achievement to push you, it should not be assumed individuals improve at a similar rate.

i'm sure i clearly said i believe baseball players are better now. but i do not believe that if since 1950 sprinters are 10% faster, marathoners are 10% faster, javelin throwers throw 10% further, that baseball players must be 10% better as well. i don't know, maybe they're 50% better! i simply don't believe you can extrapolate the absolute improvement in athletes in those types of sports over to baseball players.

So, mommy, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the nature of individual sports does a better job of "pushing" athletes to new highs?

Or are you just saying that athletes will improve at different rates if they have different goals?

simply don't believe you can extrapolate the absolute improvement in athletes in those types of sports over to baseball players.

I agree with your sentiment mommy. Nevertheless, what you have seen is an increase in human achievement across the board. Increases in speed, increases in strength, increases in endurance, and increases in precision (re: archery).

Now some of that you can discount to goal objectifying/clustering, some of that you can discount on non-integrated advancements in technology or training. But if any of the remaining is left to pure advancements of time: (1) integrated advancements in technology; (2) population increases (3) endogamy; etc. than those advancements would also apply to baseball players.

Since all of those items are components of baseball performance, than baseball performance would necessarily increase, unless there are some other skills that have been equally retarded.

In addition to the training and equipment changes, let's not forget about the advent of more advanced scouting, including video and more detailed records on hit charts and player tendencies. The baseball players of today have a lot more tools at their disposal to hone their crafts. Give a student of hitting like Ted Williams some of this stuff and I'm sure he'd be just as good today as he was.

I would be interested to know how you could design a pool to be more conducive to faster swimming. Isn't a concrete bowl filled with water a concrete bowl filled with water?

No. During the 1972 Olympics, the pool the Germans built had an innovative design that lacked sides, so the swell generated by the thrashing swimmers was dissipated rather than reflected back toward the swimmers, reducing drag. I remember commentator Donna DeVarona commenting that she swam in it and remarked how fast the pool was.

That was the Olympics that Mark Spitz went berzerk and several other swimmers, like Shirley Babashoff and Shane Gould, also distinguished themselves.

Shirley Babashoff

She should get an honorary Union membership.

Another design innovation during that Olympics was sported by the women swimmers of East Germany. They had these skintight swimsuits. They were also designed to reduce drag. But the main thing I remember about them is they left absolutely to the imagination, they were so paperthin.

That was the first Olympics where the East German swimmers became competitive monsters.

That was the first Olympics where the East German swimmers became competitive monsters.

That was more than just swimsuits.

I think a few years ago, Science Magazine had a classroom project for kids to project the 2004 Olympic swimming times based on improvements in swimsuit technology. Thankfully, their was no mention of sample size in the problem.

"Babashoff was 19 as the 1976 Olympic Games opened in Montreal, just about as close as this nation could come to offering up a female Mark Spitz, or, in today's terms, a female Michael Phelps. Swimming in all four of the glamorous freestyle races and both relays, she could have won six Olympic gold medals.

She won only one. In one crushing defeat after another, Babashoff finished second four times and fifth once. Every time she lost, she was beaten by an East German, swimmers who were later found to be the product of a state-sponsored program of systematic cheating through the use of performance-enhancing drugs. To make matters worse, in two Olympic Games (1972 was her other) and two world championships, Babashoff won 13 silver medals. In 10 of those races, an East German touched the wall first."

Shirley Babashoff is a hero of mine.

And she was stunningly beautiful, too.

Just as an FYI. Those that are interested in (for lack of a better term) Olympic-type sports; you may want to visit this site. Its a nice jumping off point for lots of analytical and metric based studies in Athletics.

You want find any time-machine pieces; lots of rhetoric; or advocacy pieces, but they do collect some interesting studies from time to time. The "bounds of human achievement" is the real holy war in that space.

And she was stunningly beautiful, too.

She has aged well also.

Athletes in track/field/swimming have gotten better as the years go by. What this improvement is attributable to, whether it be drugs,technology or squarer pools, is up for debate (BL has pointed to a few studies that would shed light on this).

I have a theory about swimming, due to some reading I've done about Spitz. Goggles helped improve times. Not because they made swimmers faster directly, but because they allowed swimmers to train longer. Chlorine is an eye irritant and the lenth of training sessions before goggles depended on how long you could stand your eyes burning.

Just a theory, but it seems to make a little sense.

But the main thing I remember about them is they left absolutely to the imagination, they were so paperthin.

Count the Hairz! TM

endogamy

This is like, if Trey Griffey marries Shikari Bonds? Or what? :)

BL, that's a picture of Christine Brennan.

In Munich, Gould would eventually swim in twelve races over an eight-day period, logging 4,200m of competitive swimming in the process. She began with the 200m individual medley, in which she used her freestyle strength to take the lead after 170m and win her first gold medal by breaking Claudia Kolb's four-year-old world record. The next day, Gould finished third in the 100m freestyle behind Americans Sandy Nielson and Shirley Babashoff. It was Gould's first loss at the distance in two years. She rebounded the next day to win the 400m freestyle easily, breaking her own world record by more than two seconds. Two days later, Gould earned her third gold medal and set her third world record in five days when
she won the 200m freestyle by holding off Babashoff's strong finish. Gould closed out her Olympic performance with a second place finish in the 800m freestyle. A year later, Shane Gould retired from competition at the age of sixteen and disappeared completely from public life for twenty-five years. After raising four children on a farm in Western Australia, she reemerged and was welcomed as a national hero at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.


Shane sounds like a keeper too.

Yeh, Shirley Babashoff is a tall blonde with a great smile.

The time competitive swimmers spend underwater has dramatically increased since 1985.

THat's really interesting. I've noticed how long they stay under from watching meets. Again, I know nothing about swimming, but it struck me as odd that swimmers were permitted to swim underwater so long, the older ones seeming to remain beneath the surface for half the pool. I love watching my kids do the flip turn, though.

In '88, David Berkoff destroyed the backstroke record by swimming 35 meters before surfacing, and FINA passed a rule restricting the dolphin kick to the first ten meters off the wall. It was changed to 15 meters in '98.

BL, that's a picture of Christine Brennan.

Yeah, mea culpe.

Since all of those items are components of baseball performance, than baseball performance would necessarily increase, unless there are some other skills that have been equally retarded.

Sort of. The bases are the same distance apart as always. If speed were a significant factor, we'd see batting averages increase - just from infield hits. I don't think we do.

We'd see players cover more ground in the OF, and catch a higher percentage of balls - I don't think we do (but we might) - and is it a significant increase?

I just don't see the changes in the game that these improvements would create.

I completely understand that "it has to", but were are the results created from increased performance?

"So, mommy, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the nature of individual sports does a better job of "pushing" athletes to new highs?

Or are you just saying that athletes will improve at different rates if they have different goals?"

hmm. i think i'm saying both.

having a concrete goal to try to equal or surpass focuses one's training. that doesn't exist in the same way in baseball.

having one specific skill to master focuses one's training. baseball requires one to integrate many different skills, and based on the game situation, one may have to focus on performing a lesser skill for the greater good of the team.

just to reiterate, i DO believe the major leagues have improved. i just don't believe we can ASSUME the best players have improved the same amount as the record setters in more "pure" athletic endeavors.


"The baseball players of today have a lot more tools at their disposal to hone their crafts. Give a student of hitting like Ted Williams some of this stuff and I'm sure he'd be just as good today as he was."

but the pitchers have those tools as well, to stop him. or do you believe Williams, as a "student" of hitting, could take greater advantage of these advances than the average player (specifically, avg pitcher)?

I completely understand that "it has to", but were are the results created from increased performance?

Increased ability is right out on the field. Performance would stay the same if both offense and defensive increases stayed in equilibrium or you changed the game to force equilibrium (e.g. lowering the pitching mound, drug testing after cartoonish home run displays).

Human acheivement has definately advanced.

but the pitchers have those tools as well, to stop him. or do you believe Williams, as a "student" of hitting, could take greater advantage of these advances than the average player (specifically, avg pitcher)?

Good point. I'm sure some players take more advantage of this type of thing than others, like Tony Gwynn. I assume Williams would be the same way, but it's also true as you state that pitchers could probably use this to their advantage too. I wonder who benefits more? Intuitively it would seem hitters would benefit more than pitchers.

pp.29 The Science of Hitting...he deals with "proper thinking" and he deals with pitching sequences and "guessing"...this is one area where video would benefit the hitter.....later in the book he deals with pitchers having a "book" on hitters as to their weaknesses ...edge pitcher as video would assist there...and he pounds home the importance of paying attention and watching the delivery before the at bat ....my guess is that anyone who is so inclined would benefit from the overall tech advances .....studying and immersing yourself in the craft...

Just catching up with the recent posts here.

While it's interesting to read all about analogies with track and field and swimming, and to pore over Chris's elaborate charts, all this still begs the perhaps unanswerable question, which I posed earlier:

How would the 1927 Yankees would fare today, and why?

This is the 1927 Yankees as they were then I'm talking about (plus modern gloves), not the 1927 Yankees as we would project their inherent talents in the light of modern conditioning and knowledge.

Would they be on a par with their 1998 counterparts? With the 2005 Red Sox? The 2005 Brewers (81-81)? Or would they have their hats handed to them by the Devil Rays, as one poster has (perhaps facetiously) claimed?

You have to start by acknowledging that the best you can do is to make a fairly educated guess. But the better the questions, the better the answer. And these are some of the questions I think need to be addressed.

1. Are the players bigger and faster today?

2. Does it matter all that much if they are? The argument here is that hitting is not an "athletic" talent in the same way that track and field is, or certain other team sports such as basketball or football, where sheer muscle mass and size usually provides a substantial advantage over weaker and shorter players. In what seems to be a carryover argument from the deadball era, hitting is seen as an independent innate skill which requires the sort of reflexes and timing which are somehow immune to improvement by additional muscle.

3. Or does whatever added muscle modern players have "add" to their reflexes, in that it increases their bat speed and lets them wait on a pitch for an extra split second?

4. How much bigger is the talent pool in absolute terms?

5. How much bigger is the talent pool relative to the increased size of the leagues?

6. When did we see large spurts in the size of the talent pool from new sources (white Latino, African American, black Latino, Asian)? To what extent did the best players from these newer pools replace the worst players from the previous pools? Given the expansion, how much would this influx of new talent add to the overall quality of the game compared to earlier generations, with fewer players and a smaller talent pool? Have these new players added new dimensions to the game which were either not present before, or which had lay dormant, such as the stolen base in the 40's?

7. Even conceding the sheer majesty of Babe Ruth, to what extent are his numbers reflective of the exclusion of not only African Americans, but of the talent from sources which were unknown (to baseball) at the time? The fact that these sources had not developed the sort of quality baseball as they have today is really irrelevant, since the fact remains that this means that even the potential pool would have been much smaller then. Which would mean that even had the Major Leagues been "integrated" in 1927, the talent pool from which it would have likely drawn from would still be smaller (in both relative and, of course, absolute terms) than it is today. The fact that the Dominican Dandies weren't even that plentiful in the Dominican Republic itself back in 1927, and that their admission into the Majors wouldn't have added that much to the talent pool, does not mean that Ruth's numbers wouldn't have benefitted from that lack of development of Dominican baseball. This seems pretty clear if you just think about it for a minute.

8. To what extent has the potential baseball talent pool been diminished by competition from other sports? How many basketball and football players really have the sort of talent which would translate onto the baseball diamond? This is really a sort of corollary question to the first three questions above.

9. To what extent has the potential baseball talent pool (and that of other sports as well) been expanded by the exponentially added sums of potential cash and worldwide fame?
In past generations, many All-American athletes (including several Heisman trophy winners) bypassed professional sports careers because the potential earnings weren't great enough---can anyone even dream of something like that happening today?

10. Is the disproportionate domination of offensive leader boards over the past 50-odd years by "previously ineligible" athletes (or previously untapped potential talent pools of athletes) completely unrelated to the question of the true quality of the Jim Crow Majors?

There are lots more questions like this, and to be honest, I think they address the issue better than looking at times for the 100 meter dash or Olympic swimming. You don't address these questions, you're really just farting in the wind, IMO.

To put all this together, I have six strong hunches.

1. The great players of Ruth's era, in their raw form, would be standouts today, but not nearly to the extent that they were then. Why? My answer would begin with question #7 and question #10.

2. Those same players, however, had they been introduced to the modern game as youths (i.e. if they'd been born in 1970), would have been stars almost (but not quite) to the extent that they were in their real lifetimes. Why? Because they were inherently exceptional athletes who were stunted in the full development of their potential by a serious lack of true competition, not through any inherent lack of ability.

3. The average team from 1927, in its raw form, would have no chance against any Major League team of today. They would be lucky to win 40 games. Water rises, midgets drown.

4. The average (meaning .500) team from 1927, with proper handling and competition from birth, might win maybe 50 games if put into today's game. Still relatively mediocre, but occasionally capable.

5. The 1927 Yankees, in their raw form, would have their moments, but in truth I think they'd be fortunate to finish much above .500, if that. Still big fish, but forced to swim in a much bigger pond.

6. The 1927 Yankees, with proper handling, conditioning, competition from childhood, etc., would be a pretty damn good team---maybe the equivalent of the Red Sox from the late 90's. But they wouldn't have the depth to go beyond that. The Curse of Cap Anson would live on.

Again, these are obviously just educated hunches. But I'd seriously doubt anyone who claims anything more than an educated hunch about any of this.

And of course all this has zero to do with "who's the greatest team ever?" This is a completely independent question, which has to do with how teams competed within their own era.

How would the 1927 Yankees would fare today, and why?

An equally interesting question is:

What if Hitler had B-2 bombers and atomic warheads?

What if Hitler had B-2 bombers and atomic warheads?

Alle wir würden das Sprechen deutsch und Besprechen des Fußballs sein.

BTW, here's a 1984 quote from Specs Toporcer, who was born in 1899 and who played for the Cardinals from in the 20's. It's on p. 128 of The Hidden Game of Baseball.

"[Most people] do not realize that the reason....that those amazing statistics [of the first decades of the 20th century] were achieved [was] because the rank and file players were far inferior to those of today, thus enabling the stars to stick out like a sore thumb."

An equally interesting question is:

What if Hitler had B-2 bombers and atomic warheads?

Well, then the Master Race might have given a more convincing argument as to its mastery, with candy and nuts to go along with their ifs and buts.

Performance would stay the same if both offense and defensive increases stayed in equilibrium or you changed the game to force equilibrium (e.g. lowering the pitching mound, drug testing after cartoonish home run displays)

That doesn't seem responsive. Do you believe that these skills move in equilibrium?

What would be the equilibrium to offset infield hits? Stronger throwing arms?

The lowering of the mound offset a strike zone change IIRC. And the increase in offense really coincides with that. Isn't that a simpler explanation than exact rates of concurrent changes in hitting/pitching/fielding?

Your explanation still seems to be "it has to."

Your explanation still seems to be "it has to."

No, you keep saying that because you presume it gives you rhetorical power. I didn't observe the 1927 Yankees, and I seriously doubt you did either. Therefore, any inference that is drawn is going to be from the record. I could just as easy classify your view as "Well it isn't."

I can plainly and easily observe that players are bigger from when I was a kid. I can plainly and easily observe that more home runs are hit. There is no real counter to either of these plainly visible attributes. In the past, you have talked about "average height of the population" as some sort of explanation for the first one not being true. But in doing so, you have shown that of the entire population, the average height has increased. You also have been given an explanation as to why population height fits that dynamic, and you have done nothing to show that it effects the population of baseball players. And for every list that someone throws out like "well what about Harmon Killebrew"; I could throw out a list of bigger players today. None of those lists tend to be very probative.

To my knowledge, no one has average population information for baseball players at any given time regarding size, strength or speed, so there is no direct evidence on that point. There is ample evidence of the increases in human achievement though.

That doesn't seem responsive. Do you believe that these skills move in equilibrium?

Its directly responsive. There is no way to be more responsive. I presume you must think that the only responsive answer would be, "I was wrong." because there are few little ways that one could answer the question of "where are the results of increased performance" except acknowledging that its a rhetorical question. If you change the game's participants or the game then the output from the increase in skills isn't directly discernable by comparing it to the output of a different game with different skills.

And as for equilibrium, I do imagine some things are kept in equilibrium by the game changes, some are kept in equilibrium by the population, and some skew out of equilibrium. Your hypothesis would have odd results. You would have to assert that there has been no change in football player ability too through the years because of the "results of increased performance" Which means that you think those 200 pound lines would perform equally well against those 300 pound lines. Which of course is going to lead someone to saying, "Yeah, but, but, but baseball is different because ...." which I don't doubt. Nevertheless, this is your hypothesis that changes in ability must show a pervasive change in the performance record.

What would be the equilibrium to offset infield hits? Stronger throwing arms?

Probably, and also greater range with the ability to make accurate throws from those positions. If not, let me ask you this, Do you think Ty Cobb could hit .420 if he played today? If not, why not. Unless you say yes, the answer is going to have to include some better ability to prevent Ty Cobb hits, which shows an improvement in the game. So then we are back to the components.

And as for "infield hits" why don't we get it to a level where you can see if speed will make a difference. Because I don't think a speed increase is going to help you on balls right to infielders. I think most people are going to get IF on a ball fielded deep in the 3b/ss hole. If you want to see impact, why not talk about this zone by zone.

Andy,

I really don't know the answer to most of your questions. The inference that players are better today than yesterday seems to be more supported. After my response to Dial, I did look at some size differences between the Drays and the '27 Yanks. I don't know if said Yanks were suppose to be big or little for their day. But every starting player on the Drays is bigger than their Yanks counterparts except for little Damon Hollins. Across the starters, its an average of a little more than 1 inch and 8 pounds. Carl Crawford is bigger than the Babe.

I could just as easy classify your view as "Well it isn't."

I agree. But that isn't my view. My view is "I don't see the evidence, and it doesn't "have to be"." Because it doesn't. 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.

I can plainly and easily observe that players are bigger from when I was a kid.

We're the same age. The players in the 70s were 73 inches 188 pounds. Now they are 73.3 inches and 192 pounds. You can "plainly and easily" observe that? That's a keen eye.

In addition, players are actually getting *smaller* with the influx of Latin players.

There is no real counter to either of these plainly visible attributes.

Oops.

Size is included (using weight as a proxy).

And with the increase in Latin players there are more and more less "cut" players (which is what I assume you are saying by "clearly and visibly" stronger).

Your hypothesis would have odd results. You would have to assert that there has been no change in football player ability too through the years because of the "results of increased performance"

Uh, there are marked increases in stats due to increased size and speed in football. That's why I would assume we would see those changes in baseball.

And baseball doesn't change the rules as often as football (who tries to rein it in).

Nevertheless, this is your hypothesis that changes in ability must show a pervasive change in the performance record.

Actually, I'm saying hte shape would change, not necessarily the total record. If players were faster *in a meaningful way*, then they would beat out more infield hits. There's no good counter for that, as you would say. Thatmay mean fewer other hits, resulting in a net "no change", so I am not demanding some pervasive change, I'm saying if players *must* be better, then there should be some indication *since players are not phyically larger than tehy were 50 years ago (in a significant manner).

You football example is a lame strawman because the same exercise that I performed on baseball (ht/wt changes) would show insanely high changes. You *again* misrepresent my position by saying I claim there has to be pervasive changes making a ridiculous NFL comp. No, in the face of teh fact that players are not larger by any percentage (0.5%), there should be some otehr manifestation of better players.

It's clear in football where players are 25% larger. Your example is preposterous. (And I'd like it if you said "I am wrong about that analogy").

If not, let me ask you this, Do you think Ty Cobb could hit .420 if he played today? If not, why not.

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

Do I think Ted Williams could hit .408? Yes, I do. And he didn't get any infield hits either...

I agree there are some nice throwing arms, and possibly fielders are quicker to the ball. But the balance would be so perfect? Se, that's a problem for me. And Ichiro certainly gets a lot of infield hits.

One thing we keep missing is that I *DO* think baseball ability has significantly increased since Cobb's day (the teens) - just not since 1935-ish.

Yes, that could mean the 1927 Yankees aren't as good - except they were one of the teams that stood head and shoulders above everyone at a time when the talent was beginning to approach today's skills.

Really, the change in the gloves, starting with Hank Greenberg's first baseman's mitt in the mid-30s up tothe A2000 in teh 50s is what changed the game the most - by a wide margin. But the players using the junky gloves in 1952 and the good gloves in 1953 *had the same ability*.

Mind you, I'm not saying today's players *can't* be better- I just want someone to think up some evidence and help *me* demonstrate it. Hell, BL, I tried to prove they were better using an accepted method (if flawed). Note: By accepted method, I mean statheads used to use Gould's work as proof that players were better. Now when his work breaks down, they want a different test. Fine - tell me what to test.

It's a conundrum, but I don't accept "it has to be" as a sufficient explanation. I think anyone that does is cheating himself.

BL,
if you go to teh second link above, I've done all the ht/wt comparisons for the eras.

1. Are the players bigger and faster today?

2. Does it matter all that much if they are?

Well, pitchers are sure bigger than they were in 1927, that's the main difference. The 1927 Yankees list three pitchers as six-even, Bob Shawkey at 5'11", Urban Shocker at 5'10". The 2005 Devil Rays had numerous guys at 6'3" and 6'4" -- every team does, nowadays -- and a couple of guys much taller than that, not that Seth McClung and Mark Hendrickson are Exhibits A & B in the "Taller is Better" object lesson. (And their two best pitchers, Kazmir and Fossum, are '27-Yankee-sized ...)

Does it matter? is a really fascinating question. The move toward bigger pitchers has meant that almost every pitcher in the majors in 2006 throws really hard, all the time. There are a very few pitchers left who have built careers around off-speed pitches -- Trevor Hoffman, Tim Wakefield -- and of course there's the great exception of Pedro Martinez, who shows that control and changing speeds are more important than size or brute strength (though Pedro threw pretty fast in his prime).

But in the mid-20th century, lots of guys were basically junkballers. I mean, throwing hard was always at a premium (Johnson, Vance, Grove, Feller, &c; Joe Williams, Satchel Paige), but there was a bunch more variety in pitching doctrine.

Does that mean that pitchers nowadays are better athletes and therefore better baseball players? Or is it more a matter of the style of play, an aesthetic thing? It is an open and much-debated question whether knuckleball and submarine and offspeed pitchers could flourish in an environment that now features almost monochrome power pitching. Much-debated among statheads, that is; scouts and managers seem to have decided the issue in favor of pure speed.

The move toward bigger pitchers has meant that almost every pitcher in the majors in 2006 throws really hard, all the time.

Does that mean they batters out better? Greg Maddux doesn't agree.

And moreover, does this leap apply to 1970s to 2000s?

That's a big gap, and much of the training/conditioning/technique changes have been *sinec* then. SO the improvement, if it were due to these things, we would see a larger change from the 1970s to the 2000s as we did from teh 1930s to the 1970s (for that matter, the time between eras is about as great).

Chris, if you remove HRs [(H-HR)/(AB-HR)], the NL in 2005 batted .239. In 1927 it batted .275. Teams in 2005 averaged 102 errors each. In 1927 they averaged 195 (in a shorter season). That's a TON of balls on which plays were not made.

If we move up to 1940 the relevant figures were .252 and 174.

The pace of improvement is slowing, as we'd expect, but it's still happening. Reverse Andy's Gedankenexperiment: imagine reducing each league today to 8 teams. Do you believe the '27 Yankees could compete in those leagues? I sure don't.

In 1927 they averaged 195 (in a shorter season).

Graph all that, Mefisto and tell me where the line stops sloping - or nearly so.

If you note, the change is the gloves - I've only said that about 1000 times.

heck, I'll try to graph this all out and see.

But I think we need to find a better way to compare parks - I mean look at Camden Yards HRs vs Memorial Stadium from 1991 to 1994. Look at the Astrodome compared to Enron Field. Look at Coors versus Baker Bowl. How is GAB vs Riverfront? TBiA vs whatever it was called. (Counterly - Tiger stadium changes). Mostly, parks are made more HR friendly *even if not hitter friendly*.

Home Runs sell, so what BL suggests above - the game is changed to accommodate, it may have specifically to make players *look* better, not necessarily *be* better.

Do you believe the '27 Yankees could compete in those leagues? I sure don't

I don't think teh 2005 DRays could compete if transported back to 1927. They wouldn't be able to hit or field.

BTW, Mefisto, this is why I don't talk to you anymore - you create more work for me - I have enough research projects - I don't need you making up new ones for me!

I don't know where you got your .239 - or why it is different from DER. Oh, strikeouts. That's not part of fielding. Your numbers really just indicate strikeouts are a big percentage nowadays. Good try though.

I knew Studes had looked at this before

But what you can see in teh fourth graph is that today's fielders are the same as Ruth's fielders wrt BIP. Why? Because it's the change in teh ball - not the players.

I would *almost* concede that teh slope of teh line from 1940 to 1990 indicates improved athletic ability.

I'd suggest that is something I said should be an indicator, and lo and behold, it appears to have a negative slope - I can eyeball it to see that.

But suddenly the numbers drop off the table again. You'll want to offer a different explanation between teh two drops - one is inexperience, while the other is due to good athletes, but we're not going for that without some other causal offering.

Thanks Studes, even if you didn't know you were doing it!

Wooooo! Baseballgraphs.com!

here you can see a variety of graphs involving teh changes in teh game.

Notice ML HR/game has been on the increase since 1920. Just continuous - maybe the occassional dip here or there, and I don't think the slope of the line has changed much from the 1920-1940 to now.

Plus, teh hits/game has been about the same. the 1940 mark and the 2005 marks are the same. the slope from 1940 to present is flat - but HRs are up.

It is up some in teh AL due to the DH, but the NL isn't. Even in the high offense era (although down some in teh 60s).