User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5389 seconds
59 querie(s) executed
Dialed In — Saturday, July 11, 2009Steve Austin is not a Baseball PlayerWe are NOT bigger, stronger and faster. I know that flies in the face of human progression, but many analysts forget the economies of developing countries when considering the growth of baseball. Yes, scouts do a better job in Latin America, both the Caribbean and South America, and Latin America (which in grade school I learned was Mexico and the myriad of countries between Mexico and South America. Of course, that was 1974, and that may be completely inappropriate these days.) Every analyst is quick to point out that baseball is better these days because we draw from a larger talent pool, and that athletes are bigger, faster and stronger in other sports. Both of those things are true in general, however, they have a point of conflict. Yes, we, in the US have benefited from a better diet and healthcare system since World War II. For that matter, a few million extra kids were born from 1946-1964 to only enhance the baseball talent pool from the USA. Also, once Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, teams could more freely use Latin American players, and many did, picking up players like Luis Aparicio and Roberto Clemente. But even then these players were still like the gaijin in Japan: a few players per team. However, the age of the 1960s changed the culture of America, and the influx of minority players increased dramatically. That has continued to this day, as the ratio of white US players to minority player has decreased significantly. It is easy, and sloppy, to say “athletes are bigger, stronger and faster” than they were 30 or 50 years ago. Mark Spitz, who won seven gold medals in the 1972 Summer Olympics, had times that college women can beat today. [Ed. Note: not quite] Javelin and discus throws are longer. Sprinting races (100m, 200m) are done much faster than in the past. All of these events lead people to conclude that MLB players MUST be “bigger, stronger and faster”. If baseball, MLB, were as lily-white as it was in 1946, then I might be inclined to agree. But it isn’t. The percentage of minority players has grown dramatically since 1947. As the search for more talented players has grown, and the net is cast wider, we gather in players of all sizes and skills. And what we learn is that as the minority population of MLB grows, the *size* of MLB players *decreases*. It’d be nice to emphasize that enough, but I do not believe I can. As MLB uses a greater talent pool, the size of the players decreases. Were MLB to stick with US-born players for the last 50 years (going by birth date), the average player, born after 1964, would be 73.76 inches and weigh 197 pounds. But they do not, and I believe we are all in agreement that the talent of MLB is better off for expanding the talent pool and drawing on players from all cultures. Just using the Latin American countries (Caribbean, South America and Mainland Latin America), we see that the average of LA players (born after 1964) is 72.54 inches and 184 pounds. That size and weight coincides with players that *debuted* from 1950-1954 (and were born some 20 years before). This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a tremendous surprise. The socio-economic conditions of the countries often approaches the US in the 1930s. The size of the players is reflective of that. Does that mean the quality of their play if equal to that of the 1950s? Absolutely not. They play on better fields and have better equipment, and since joining an MLB team are better fed with better healthcare. What it absolutely does mean is that today’s players are NOT “bigger, stronger, faster”. Yes, many of them are, but the influx of foreign players lessens that every day. The fact of the matter is that MLB is getting *smaller*. Players making their debut from 1990-1994 averaged 73.46 inches and 193 pounds. Players that made their debut from 1995-1999 averaged 73.44 inches and 192 pounds. You may shrug and say that’s nothing (and maybe it is, because the database is older now), but the only two other times the sizes dropped were during WWI and WWII. That isn’t something we have these days, so for even the tiniest drop to occur is significant. In a nutshell, MLB is getting smaller, not bigger. Maybe it is getting faster and stronger (highly unlikely), but it is NOT getting bigger. So the next time someone wants to assert that a player today is better than a player from yesteryear, do not accept that players are bigger, stronger and faster than then - because they aren’t. You can read more about the changes in the game and players in these older articles, here and here.
|
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsSteve Austin is not a Baseball Player
(159 - 12:27am, Jul 07) Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter) Defensive Replacement Level Defined (41 - 1:20pm, Mar 14) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Reconciliation - Getting Defensive Stats and Statheads Back Together (30 - 1:42pm, Apr 28) Last: GuyM Handicapping the NL East (77 - 2:02pm, Oct 15) Last: The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Landing Buerhle a Great Move (79 - 8:43am, Feb 04) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru July 19, 2010) (3 - 2:47pm, Sep 27) Last: Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! You Have Got To Be Kidding Me (8 - 3:52am, May 01) Last: Harris Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru July 4, 2010) (2 - 4:05pm, Jul 11) Last: NewGrass Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru Jun 29, 2010) (5 - 12:47pm, Jul 04) Last: Harveys Wallbangers Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats Thru Jun 13, 2010) (15 - 1:51am, Jun 16) Last: Chris Dial Weekly DRS Update (Defensive Stats through games of June 6, 2010) (17 - 7:08pm, Jun 14) Last: Foghorn Leghorn Daily Dose of Defense (41 - 8:31pm, Jun 04) Last: Tango 2009 NL OPD (Offense Plus Defense) (37 - 11:22pm, Feb 17) Last: Foghorn Leghorn NOT authorized by Major League Baseball or its Member Teams (40 - 7:32pm, Feb 16) Last: GregQ 2009 AL OPD (Offense Plus Defense) (35 - 9:05pm, Jan 05) Last: Foghorn Leghorn |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.5389 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Take any sport in which you have a bunch of amateurs taking it only half seriously, in that they don't train full out day in and day out, and then turn it into a big money competition and you'll see a huge improvement in quality of competition. Almost all sports in their early days have one or two guys who were absolute giants in the infancy of the sport and then they enter into a period of tough competition from many.
But nobody is doing that. Not here, and not in the real world. Nobody's asserting that players are bigger (you two pulled that one aside, I assume for a reason), they're saying it and it is backed by evidence. I suppose a guy or two might not actually know it to be true, but how would we know? The evidence is clear, it's up and down the thread. They're bigger, end of story.
Rey Ordonez replaces Jeff Keppinger (for instance). That's important.
Which means that the claim that began this whole discussion...
is demonstrably false. But while it's hard to imagine how anyone ever could have believed this in the first place, nevertheless I'm glad to see that so many people here (Dr. I in particular) took the time and trouble to dig up the database and post it here for anyone to see. This is one of those threads that's worth saving, just in case anyone tries to make a similar false claim sometime down the road.
No, it isn't. The percentage of LA PAs is increasing (pardon my assertion). Those players are absolutely smaller than their US-born competition. Yet, they are winning those PAs. The US-born players are bigger then the players from 1950 (I don't specify US-born 1950 players because due to segregation so many were), and are thusly better. They are BFS. The conditions in which they have grown up are better, etc. etc.
Since the 1980s, the LA influence has continuously increased, and *those* players are only the size of the 1950s players. Why are the BFS US-born players losing ground to the LA players? The environment in which these LA players are growing up (socio-economically) isn't better than the US back then.
Yes, the average US player has increased enough to presently swamp out that effect (or stabilize it), but as the LA % grows, the size of the league stalls or decreases.
Now, the argument will say, those players aren't necessarily weaker, slower. Necessarily, no, but the argument above is that bigger generally means stronger (Generally).
Pedro Martinez is significantly smaller than Walter Johnson. *Why* does he *have* to be better? It is generally argued "because he faced better players with similar relative success". Why is that properly asserted? Because his leagues are drawn from a larger pool and are BFS. But do we then argue, as MLB size decreases (or stalls), that these players are now worse?
If we were to replace the LA group with the available US-born group, a group BFS, would MLB be better or worse?
I contend that it would be worse. So if MLB were larger, and I think it is inarguable that replacing LA players with the available US players wouldn't make the league BFS (maybe not F), the league would be *worse*.
There is definitely a selection bias on who gets chances, as Dr. I suggested, and where that selection bias for size breaks down, allowing teams to select for skills, rather than size, MLB improves.
This has not happened. American players are bigger than 50 years ago. Latin players are bigger than they were 50 years ago. Having a greater % of Latin players does bring down the average height/weight, but even with that, the average size of MLB players has increased.
"Bigger" and "stronger" are positively correlated, this should be obvious to all. But do we need to include "faster"? Within eras, size is negatively correlated to speed. If players are bigger than 20 years ago, maybe part of it is choosing Adam Dunns over Lonnie Smiths to be your crappy fielding outfielder.
Usain Bolt's speed relative to Carl Lewis probably means nothing for the speed of a population of ballplayers increasingly selected for their ability to hit homers.
http://www.sprintic.com/articles/how_much_faster/
"But materials do make a big difference. Gideon B. Ariel, one of the fathers of biomechanics and the founder of the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, compared the performance of Jesse Owens with that of Carl Lewis. In 1936 Owens ran the 100-meter event in 10.2 seconds, much slower than the 9.86 Lewis achieved in 1991. “Of course, what Jesse Owens was running on was not the same surface that Carl Lewis ran on,” Ariel explains. Owens ran on a clay track that absorbed more energy than the modern tracks on which Lewis set his record. “Imagine you’re running on the beach in very deep sand. Your joints might be very fast, but you don’t make the progress. If you run the same on the road, you will be faster. You’re really not faster, you are more efficient - you don’t lose as much energy.” Ariel was able to analyze films of Owens running and determine that his joints were moving as fast as Lewis’s. He determined that had Owens and Lewis run on the same track the results would not have been nearly as lopsided, although Lewis would probably still have run faster."
Chris, it's in the numbers. The average player is bigger and heavier now than they were. I'm not saying that means they're better, I've gone to great pains to note that. But they *are* bigger.
Yes, the average US player has increased enough to presently swamp out that effect (or stabilize it), but as the LA % grows, the size of the league stalls or decreases.
Cart, horse, assumption, presumption. I don't see what the hypothetical has to do with it.
Why is that properly asserted? Because his leagues are drawn from a larger pool and are BFS. But do we then argue, as MLB size decreases (or stalls), that these players are now worse?
No, because, once again, there are other traits and skills that are valuable. Bringing in other populations expands the skillset in theory, while in the same theory perhaps dropping the average size. As long as multiculturalism isn't forced, then teams will typically favor that which favors them, and if these new skillsets outweigh the lesser size, they'll take them. And the league will be more skilled.
They are that size now but in ten years they'll be the size of ballplayer from the late 60's early 70's. Unless something really drastic happens ballplayers will alway be bigger than they were in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's. LA players will not shrink MLB height to the point that they are below the 50's height since LA players are already bigger than 50's height.
But he is still bigger than the average ballplayer of Walter's era.
There's always openoffice and I can vouch for the fact that it can open the files just fine.
Though like Chris I use the database almost exclusively in Excel mode.
So that at some point in the future we won't be able to say that baseball players are bigger than they were at some point in the past. But right now we can say that.
my db sn't as nice as yours. Can you combine posts 72 and 73 for the "MLB averages". My averages come up with a slight decrease from 90-00. Can you provide two decimals to avoid the issues you mentioned earlier?
Having worked with dozens of Mexicans I can tell you that despite rumors, baseball is not in fact very popular there. Most Mexicans - especially those from Mexico City and points south and east - don't pay any attention and possibly don't even know the rules.
Dec Height Inc
1870 68.95
1880 69.52 0.82%
1890 69.88 0.52%
1900 70.16 0.41%
1910 70.56 0.57%
1920 70.69 0.18%
1930 71.42 1.03%
1940 71.76 0.48%
1950 72.20 0.60%
1960 72.52 0.45%
1970 72.61 0.12%
1980 72.91 0.41%
1990 73.02 0.15%
2000 73.14 0.16%
Decade Pitchers Hitters
1870 69.79 68.92
1880 69.92 69.52
1890 70.67 69.83
1900 71.49 70.08
1910 72.31 70.40
1920 72.11 70.55
1930 72.53 71.30
1940 72.88 71.64
1950 73.01 72.09
1960 73.61 72.37
1970 74.00 72.42
1980 74.38 72.67
1990 74.44 72.72
2000 74.54 72.78
And thanks a bunch (which other forum?)
Do you mean on a yearly basis?
For post 122
yearID
1871 68.58
1872 68.71
1873 68.69
1874 68.87
1875 68.97
1876 69.24
1877 69.00
1878 69.26
1879 69.05
1880 69.40
1881 69.54
1882 69.36
1883 69.45
1884 69.34
1885 69.44
1886 69.55
1887 69.57
1888 69.74
1889 69.63
1890 69.89
1891 69.85
1892 69.87
1893 69.93
1894 69.74
1895 69.77
1896 69.87
1897 70.00
1898 69.98
1899 69.86
1900 69.94
1901 69.79
1902 69.90
1903 69.99
1904 70.06
1905 70.16
1906 70.28
1907 70.31
1908 70.43
1909 70.47
1910 70.46
1911 70.49
1912 70.60
1913 70.51
1914 70.45
1915 70.64
1916 70.77
1917 70.63
1918 70.50
1919 70.57
1920 70.58
1921 70.52
1922 70.51
1923 70.50
1924 70.54
1925 70.64
1926 70.71
1927 70.92
1928 70.99
1929 70.96
1930 71.15
1931 71.18
1932 71.20
1933 71.35
1934 71.46
1935 71.47
1936 71.49
1937 71.59
1938 71.61
1939 71.65
1940 71.74
1941 71.75
1942 71.73
1943 71.65
1944 71.65
1945 71.55
1946 71.91
1947 71.83
1948 71.94
1949 71.86
1950 71.95
1951 71.99
1952 72.03
1953 72.10
1954 72.26
1955 72.22
1956 72.30
1957 72.30
1958 72.38
1959 72.34
1960 72.48
1961 72.38
1962 72.46
1963 72.50
1964 72.58
1965 72.58
1966 72.54
1967 72.54
1968 72.56
1969 72.57
1970 72.54
1971 72.49
1972 72.50
1973 72.51
1974 72.53
1975 72.61
1976 72.67
1977 72.70
1978 72.74
1979 72.77
1980 72.77
1981 72.81
1982 72.88
1983 72.88
1984 72.94
1985 72.94
1986 72.96
1987 72.96
1988 72.98
1989 72.92
1990 72.95
1991 72.91
1992 72.95
1993 73.05
1994 72.95
1995 72.96
1996 73.03
1997 73.08
1998 73.12
1999 73.13
2000 73.11
2001 73.11
2002 73.04
2003 73.07
2004 73.04
2005 73.13
2006 73.21
2007 73.28
2008 73.26
Baseball-Fever.com
Thanks a bunch McCoy. This is a strange thing.
Not really
Cal Ripken 6'4"
Paul O'Neil 6'4"
Mark McGwire 6'5"
Jose Canseco 6'4"
so on and so on
The average height of the top 25 (>150 PA)retiring players was 73.52 inches. The average height of the top 25 players debuting in 2002 is 72.58 inches. I think it is reasonable to assume that there are going to be some yearly anomalies.
http://www.nba.com/news/survey_2004.html
Players may not be taller, but they are bigger, and by visual evidence, faster (certainly) and stronger (probably). 'Better' game? That is entirely up to what type of basketball you like to watch. Too many rule and emphasis changes to compare the 80's to today.
Team Height Weight Age Exp.
1985-86 6’ 7.36” 214.40 26.72 3.85
1986-87 6’ 7.62” 215.46 26.53 3.83
1987-88 6’ 7.38” 215.61 27.01 4.10
1988-89 6’ 7.31” 215.58 26.92 4.01
1989-90 6’ 7.09” 214.82 26.79 3.95
1990-91 6’ 7.16” 216.16 27.01 4.08
1991-92 6’ 7.04” 216.47 27.09 4.20
1992-93 6’ 7.06” 219.86 27.19 4.15
1993-94 6’ 7.34” 221.68 27.26 4.28
1994-95 6’ 7.19” 221.50 27.43 4.56
1995-96 6’ 7.27” 223.66 27.56 4.42
1996-97 6’ 7.20” 223.67 27.74 4.63
1997-98 6’ 7.11” 222.95 27.82 4.82
1998-99 6’ 7.10” 222.85 27.82 4.81
1999-00 6’ 7.26” 224.68 27.95 5.20
2000-01 6’ 7.03” 223.47 27.75 5.01
2001-02 6’ 7.26” 224.05 27.47 4.82
2002-03 6’ 7.40” 225.40 27.34 4.73
2003-04 6' 7.31" 225.45 27.22 4.76
2004-05 6' 7.26" 224.29 27.03 4.61
Not sure how to format this all pretty like.
I'm not seeing it. Where is this "jump up and ease down" for 1993? Then after the 1998 expansion it takes 4 years to have a noticeable drop and that drop happens because a lot of tall players retired at once. Like I said it happens, on a year to year basis we should expect some dips here and there but the trend is clear, people are getting bigger.
The 60's saw the rise of LA players and those players dragged down the numbers of the 60's since those players were as big as players from the 20's and 30's. Now then there are more LA players playing now but these LA players are bigger than the LA players of the 60's. So it isn't like the LA player's height are constants throughout the decades. They too are getting bigger.
two link
This starts in 1947, where almost all players are use born (that stayed true until about 1954. The top line is US-born players (form post #73, the Overall size from post #126 and Non-US born from post #72.
LA players have been 72.5 for a decade now, approximately the same as US-born players from 1956.
"And what we learn is that as the minority population of MLB grows, the *size* of MLB players *decreases*. It’d be nice to emphasize that enough, but I do not believe I can."
Are you saying that is absolutely and totally wrong?
I thought we were all on that page.
But it takes me awhile to get there, a lot of effort to work through the qualifications. The simple, generalized statement does not appear true.
And if you wait for the passage of time to naturally increase the # of Latin players, it is not true that they are decreasing the size of MLB players. Because both US born and Latin players are bigger. And even the decrease in US born players from 90% to 70% has not stopped the trend of the average player getting bigger.
No, because it isn't true. Not now and not likely in the future. Not unless LA experiences a huge soul crushing economic depression and famine that alters growth rates. LA players are getting bigger every year and even if in 10 years they somehow become 50% of the baseball population baseball players will still be bigger than they were in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. The reason being that at the very least LA players will be at similar heights as American born players were in the 1970's and American born players will probably be a little bit taller as well.
At no time has the size of MLB players decreased over any sizeable amount of time. Minorities, or I should say smaller minorities, have been a growing trend now for decades and they still haven't altered this basic fact. Yes, if somehow tomorrow all US players were replaced with LA players the size of baseball players would decrease but how is that fact important?
This only becomes true if the minority population grows at a rate sufficiently fast enough to offset the general trends in height of the MLB selected population. In other words:
<ht> = f x <ht,us> + (1-f)<ht,row>
leads to:
d<ht>/dt = df/dt x (<ht,us>-<ht,row>) + f x d<ht,us>/dt + (1-f) x d<ht,row>/dt
where <ht>, <ht,us>, and <ht,row> are the mean heights for all players, US born players, and non-US born players. f is the fraction of players in the league who are US born. d /dt is a rate of change.
Even with df/dt < 0 (pop of US born players falling) this can easily be offset by increasing heights. All evidence suggests that so far it has more than offset these changes.
..........
We are currently in an era where the hitters arriving in MLB are much taller than they were 20 years ago. It is reasonable to think that hitters derive advantages by being taller. Some of the evidence for this is that MLB hitters on the whole contain a disproportionately high number of guys over 6'3", 6'4", and 6'5" relative to the US population as a whole. This is despite the increasing influx of foreign players, who slow this growth.
.........
Could just be a small sample size, but in the table I posted in #91, the hitters who debuted between 2000-2005 appear to have a bimodal distribution of heights. One mode is roughly centered around 72 inches, and the second around 74 inches. If you plot the data by decade, this mode seems to have gradually emerged starting from about the 1960's. If you believe this two mode argument (and I am not sure that I do), the 2000-2005 data show the modes to be roughly equal in peak height for the first time.
If there really is a bimodal distribution of position player heights, I am sure we could all make arguments as to why this would be.
US born players are getting bigger every year which means the LA players are primarily taking the jobs away from the smaller US born players. The LA players are as big or bigger than them on average.
Based on the graph you posted there are a couple of points where the average height decreases from its previous high for a few years, only to recover eventually and continue to climb. Just eyeballing the plot, there is a dip in the early 1990's, a dip in the late 60's to early 70's, and maybe a brief dip in the early 60's. There are some fairly long stretches of time where heights plateau. But the overall trend is up. We can find some selected endpoints where the trend looks slightly down, but this requires pretty selective endpoints.
Well, Rey Ordonez is 5'9", which in fact means that the percentage of MLB players who preceded him that were shorter than he was is pretty low. So chances are pretty decent that Rey Ordonez replaced a player who was taller.
But so what? David Eckstein is 5'6", and almost certainly replaced a taller player. Joe Mauer and Adam Dunn probably replaced guys who are shorter than they are. There are always going to be some shorter guys taking away jobs from some taller guys. It happens in the NBA, too. On average the trends indicate that there are more tall guys coming in as time goes on. I really don't understand how that could be up for dispute.
As for projecting into the future? Well, I have no idea.
This is accurate. The basic average trends are things go flat, then things go up. But we don't see prolonged downward trends that are as large in magnitude as the large upward trends in: 2004-present, 1994-98, early 70's to mid 80's, 40's to 60's. The rest of the graph of the average is basically made up of plateaus with brief downward blips.
Hey, they're saving up for the surgery, but that's a lot of money and they don't let you buy one at a time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090717090829.htm
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main