Username:	Password:

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?

Print Email

Home>Articles

Time and the Gap

By Bill James

September 8, 2009

Hey Bill:

In the past (maybe in the Historical Abstract?) you did some work on developing a formula that would be indicative of quality of play in the major leagues over time. This was part of a project to determine whether or not the quality of play in MLB was improving over time (it was). I associate that trend with a narrowing of the gap between the best and worst players and the average player, and I would like to know whether or not such a narrowing has actually occurred. So here's my question: Over time, has the gap between the best players (defined as the top 10%) and worst players (defined as bottom 10%) narrowed in recent years? Is there a way to measure this?

Evan

I’m not sure what work of mine you’re referring to, but the gap between the best players in baseball and the worst has certainly narrowed over time, and this fact was central to the great Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould’s assertion that the quality of play had improved over time and was continuing to improve. However, as you asked the question, I realized I couldn’t cite any recent data on the issue, so I did a little research.

I went into Retrosheet, and got the performance on each team by position and by batting order position. . . for example, the St. Louis Cardinal Leadoff men in 2008 hit .289 with 10 homers, 58 RBI, .733 OPS, whereas in 1954 they hit .298 with 15 homers, 84 RBI, .803 OPS.

Team	Year	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Cardinals	1954	159	664	109	198	28	10	15	84	69	.298	.365	.438	.803
Cardinals	2008	205	709	111	205	28	6	10	58	59	.289	.345	.388	.733

75 strikeouts in 1954, 91 in 2008, 15 stolen bases in 1954, 16 in 2008; I had to cut some of the data to make it fit here. The Cardinals primarily leadoff men in 1954 was center fielder Wally Moon, whereas in 2008 it was left fielder Skip Schumaker.

New York Yankee Left Fielders in 2008 hit .284 with 18 homers, 92 RBI, .776 OPS, whereas in 1954 they hit .258 with 11 homers, 76 RBI, but 89 walks, .731 OPS:

Team	Year	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
Yankees	1954	178	565	78	146	21	6	11	76	89	.258	.356	.375	.731
Yankees	2008	188	644	83	183	32	3	18	92	60	.284	.349	.427	.776

70 Strikeouts in 1954, 108 in 2008, 7 stolen bases in 1954, 17 in 2008. In 1954 that was primarily Gene Woodling and Irv Noren, whereas in 2008 it was Johnny Damon and Xavier Nady.

There were 128 “positions” in 1954, not including pitchers and not including 9^th-place hitters; that’s 16 X 8. There were 254 positions in 2008, not including pitchers and not including 9^th-place hitters in the National League (30 X 8, plus 14 for the Designated Hitters.) Studying the data in this way contains the otherwise perplexing problem of figuring norms and standard deviations for players playing all different numbers of games and at bats.

With the exception of a huge jump in strikeouts, the average performance of a position has not changed all that much from 1954 to 2008. This was the average of the 128 batting order positions in 1954 and in 2008:

Year	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	GDP	SB	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
1954	591	79	160	25	6	15	74	66	63	14	5	.270	.343	.407	.751
2008	622	86	167	34	3	19	82	62	119	15	11	.267	.337	.424	.761

Nor has the performance changed very much, of course, of an average player if figured by position:

Year	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	GDP	SB	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
1954	582	77	158	25	6	14	72	64	62	14	5	.270	.343	.407	.750
2008	615	84	165	34	3	19	81	61	116	15	11	.268	.337	.425	.763

The numbers for each year compared to itself are not quite identical because we eliminated 9^th-place hitters from the one part of the study and pitchers and pinch hitters and pinch runners from the other part. These are largely the same groups but not exactly the same groups; it makes some little difference which approach one takes.

In 1954 these were the leaders and lasters by field position:

At Bats 687, Chicago Cubs leadoff hitters (Bob Talbot)

510, Cincinnati Reds 8^th place hitters

; (Their catchers—Andy Seminick and Ed Bailey)

Runs 137, New York Yankees 3^rd place hitters (Mickey Mantle)

; 34, Washington Senators 7^th place hitters (Ed Fitzgerald)

Hits 206, Brooklyn Dodgers 3^rd place hitters (Duke Snider)

117, Cincinnati Reds 8^th place hitters (Seminick and Bailey)

Doubles 44, St. Louis Cardinals 3^rd place hitters (Stan Musial)

12, Cincinnati and Washington 8^th place hitters

  Andy Seminick and Ed Bailey for Cincinnati

Wayne Terwilliger for Washington

Triples 16, Chicago White Sox 3^rd place hitters (Minnie Minoso)

  0, Philadelphia As leadoff hitters (Spook Jacobs)

Home Runs 46, Cincinnati Reds cleanup Hitters (Ted Kluszewski)

0, Philadelphia A’s leadoff hitters (Spook Jacobs)

RBI 140, Cincinnati Reds cleanup hitters (Ted Kluszewski)

31, Boston Red Sox leadoff hitters (Billy Goodman)

Walks 136, Washington Senators leadoff men (Ed Yost)

  30, New York Giants #2 hitters (Alvin Dark)

Strikeouts 107, New York Yankees 3^rd place hitters (Mickey Mantle)

; 15, Chicago White Sox #2 hitters (Nellie Fox)

Stolen Bases 34, Milwaukee Braves leadoff hitters (Bill Bruton)

0, Four-Way tie

B Average .337, Brooklyn Dodgers 3^rd place hitters (Duke Snider)

.211, Pittsburgh Pirates leadoff hitters (Curt Roberts & Gair Allie)

On Base % .418, Brooklyn Dodgers 3^rd place hitters (Duke Snider)

.286, Philadelphia A’s #7 hitters (Joe DeMaestri)

Slugging % .637, Brooklyn Dodgers 3^rd place hitters (Duke Snider)

  .265, Philadelphia A’s leadoff hitters (Spook Jacobs)

OPS 1.055, Brooklyn Dodgers 3^rd place hitters (Duke Snider)

; .559, Philadelphia A’s leadoff hitters (Spook Jacobs)

That’s right; Philadelphia A’s leadoff men were the only position in the majors not to hit any triples and also the only ones not to hit any homers. Their primary leadoff man was Spook Jacobs, who actually wasn’t all that bad, but Jacobs hit better while in the #2 spot than leading off, and the A’s alternative leadoff hitter was Jacobs’ double play partner, Joe DeMaestri, who usually batted seventh but didn’t hit no matter where you put him.

Washington leadoff men (Yost) led the majors in walks drawn by 22, over Red Sox left fielders. This is the same data, but broken down by fielding position, rather than batting order position:

At Bats 662, Detroit Tigers shortstops (Harvey Kuenn)

  516, Chicago Cubs catchers (Joe Garagiola)

Runs 132, New York Yankees center fielders (Mickey Mantle)

36, Baltimore Orioles catchers (Clint Courtney)

Hits 214, New York Giants right fielders (Don Mueller)

102, New York Yankees shortstops (Phil Rizzuto)

Doubles 41, St. Louis Cardinals right fielders (Stan Musial)

  11, Cincinnati Reds catchers (Andy Seminick and Ed Bailey)

Triples 15, Washington Senators first basemen (Mickey Vernon)

  1, Three Tied

Home Runs 49, Cincinnati Reds first basemen (Ted Kluszewski)

  0, Philadelphia A’s second basemen (Spook Jacobs) and

  Cincinnati Reds second basemen (Johnny Temple)

RBI 143, Cincinnati Reds first basemen (Ted Kluszewski)

  29, New York Yankees shortstops (Phil Rizzuto)

Walks 151, Boston Red Sox left fielders (Ted Williams)

23, New York Giants right fielders (Don Mueller)

Strikeouts 107, New York Yankees 3^rd place hitters (Mickey Mantle)

13, Chicago White Sox #2 hitters (Nellie Fox)

Stolen Bases 34, Milwaukee Brave leadoff hitters (Bill Bruton)

  0, Four-Way tie

B Average .337, Brooklyn Dodgers 3^rd place hitters (Duke Snider)

  .211, Pittsburgh Pirates leadoff hitters (Curt Roberts & Gair Allie)

On Base % .418, Brooklyn Dodgers 3^rd place hitters (Duke Snider)

  .286, Philadelphia A’s #7 hitters (Joe DeMaestri)

Slugging % .637, Brooklyn Dodgers 3^rd place hitters (Duke Snider)

  .265, Philadelphia A’s leadoff hitters (Spook Jacobs)

OPS 1.066, Brooklyn Dodgers center fielders (Duke Snider)

1.062 New York Giants center fielders (Willie Mays)

; .573 New York Yankees shortstops (Phil Rizzuto)

I don’t know why I love that stuff. Here’s the same data for 2008:

At Bats 709, St. Louis Cardinals leadoff men (Skip Schumaker)

532, Arizona Diamondbacks 8^th hitters (No regular or near-regular)

Runs 135, Florida Marlins leadoff hitters (Hanley Ramirez)

41, St. Louis Cardinals 8^th place hitters (often the pitcher)

Hits 218, Seattle Mariners leadoff hitters (Ichiro)

114, Houston Astros 8^th place hitters

(Brad Ausmus and Humberto Quintero)

Doubles 57, Baltimore Orioles leadoff hitters (Brian Roberts) and

Boston Red Sox #2 hitters (Dustin Pedroia)

17, Kansas City Royals 9^th place hitters

  Tony Pena and Joey Gathright

Triples 19, New York Mets leadoff hitters (Jose Reyes)

  0, 23 positions

Home Runs 47, Philadelphia Phillies cleanup hitters (Ryan Howard)

1, Milwaukee Brewers 8^th place hitters (Jason Kendall)

RBI 146, Philadelphia Phillies cleanup hitters (Ryan Howard)

  37, Los Angeles Angels leadoff hitters (Chone Figgins)

Walks 115, Tampa Bay Rays 3^rd place hitters (Carlos Pena)

18, Seattle Mariners 9^th place hitters (Yuniesky Betancourt)

Strikeouts 199, Arizona Diamondbacks 5^th place hitters (Mark Reynolds)

56, San Francisco Giants 4^th hitters (Bengie Molina)

Stolen Bases 68, Colorado Rockies leadoff hitters (Willy Taveras)

; 0, Four Teams with

B Average .342, Atlanta Braves 3^rd place hitters (Chipper Jones)

  .195, Washington Nationals 6^th place hitters

  (Whoever hit their struggled)

On Base % .437, St. Louis Cardinals 3^rd place hitters (Albert Pujols)

  .253, St. Louis Cardinals 8^th place hitters (Many pitchers)

Slugging % .616, St. Louis Cardinals 3^rd place hitters (Albert)

.285, Kansas City Royals 9^th place hitters (Tony Pena, Jr.)

OPS 1.053, St. Louis Cardinals 3^rd place hitters (Albert Pujols)

.551, St. Louis Cardinals 8^th place hitters (Including the pitchers)

I did a thing recently on the doubles record, which has been held for 80 years by Tris Speaker, becoming a more vulnerable record. In 1954 the only two major league positions that accumulated 40 doubles were St. Louis Cardinal third hitters (Stan Musial), and Brooklyn Dodger third place hitters (Duke Snider); the Cardinals got 44 doubles out of that spot, and the Dodgers 40.

In 2008 there were 65 batting order slots that got 40 or more doubles, including five teams that got 40 or more doubles out of their seventh place hitters, and one (Cleveland) that got 40 doubles out of their eighth place hitters. Eight positions in 2008 produced 50 or more doubles, and two had 57. Further, the data will show (later on) that most of the largest relative increases in doubles have come not to the weak hitters, as was stated in a comment posted along with the other article, but among the best hitters. The weak hitters have increased their doubles by 25 to 30%; the good hitters, by 35% and more. On the other hand, in 1954 only one spot failed to produce a triple. In 2008 there were 23 positions that failed to produce a triple.

But it is really kind of amazing how little things have changed in 54 years. Batting averages run from .200 to .340, in 1954 and 2008, home runs from zero to just short of 50, RBI from 30 to 145, on base percentages from .270 to .250 to .450, slugging percentages from just short of .300 to .600, hits from just over a hundred to just over 200. A lot of the standards are about the same. This is the 2008 leaderboard by field position:

At Bats 706, New York Mets shortstops (Jose Reyes)

513, Los Angeles Angels catchers (Napoli and Mathis)

Runs 133, Florida Marlins shortstops (Hanley Ramirez)

  41, Houston Astros catchers (Ausmus and others)

Hits 220, Washington National shortstops (Cristian Guzman)

  105, Houston Astros catchers (Ausmus, Towles and Quintero)

Doubles 56, Orioles and Red Sox second basemen (Roberts and Pedroia)

12, Kansas City Royals center fielders (Joey Gathright)

Triples 19, New York Mets shortstops (Jose Reyes)

0, 24 Tied

Home Runs 48, Philadelphia Phillies first basemen (Ryan Howard)

1, St. Louis Cardinals shortstops (Cesar Izturis) and

San Francisco Giants shortstops (Omar Vizquel)

RBI 146, Philadelphia Phillies first basemen (Ryan Howard)

31, St. Louis Cardinals shortstops (Cesar Izturis)

Walks 111, Tampa Bay Rays first basemen (Carlos Pena)

  24, Four Tied with

Strikeouts 211, Arizona Diamondbacks third basemen (Mark Reynolds)

47, St. Louis Cardinals catchers (Yadier Molina)

Stolen Bases 75, Colorado Rockies center fielders (Willy Taveras)

; 0, 24 Tied

B Average .345, Atlanta Braves third basemen (Chipper Jones)

  .201, Houston Astros catchers (Ausmus and company)

On Base % .431, Atlanta Braves third basemen (Chipper Jones)

.259, Baltimore Orioles shortstops

(Juan Castro, Alex Cintron and Freddie Bynum)

Slugging % .588, St. Louis Cardinals first basemen (Albert Pujols)

  .276, Baltimore Orioles shortstops again

OPS 1.016 St. Louis Cardinals first basemen (Albert Pujols)

.535 Baltimore Orioles shortstops

OK, all of this (above) is just yard art. The question here is whether the gap between the best hitters and worst hitters has narrowed.

It has.

Let’s do the batting order position chart first. In 1954, the standard deviation of runs scored by batting order position was 22. In 2008, it was 18.

In 1954 the standard deviation of RBI was 25. In 2008 it was 21.

In 1954 the standard deviation of walks was 18. In 2008 it was 16.

In 1954 the standard deviation of batting average was 26 points. In 2008 it was 24 points.

In 1954 the standard deviation of on base percentage was 31 points. In 2008 it was 28 points.

In 1954 the standard deviation of slugging percentage was 67 points. In 2008 it was 59 points.

In 1954 the average OPS was .751, and the standard deviation was .092. In 2008 the average was .761, and the standard deviation was .081.

The differences are slightly larger, for some reason, when we look at the data by field position. In 1954, the standard deviation of runs scored by batting order position was 21. In 2008, it was 17.

In 1954 the standard deviation of RBI was 24. In 2008 it was 20.

In 1954 the standard deviation of walks was 21. In 2008 it was 18.

In 1954 the standard deviation of batting average was 29 points. In 2008 it was 24 points.

In 1954 the standard deviation of on base percentage was 34 points. In 2008 it was 28 points.

In 1954 the standard deviation of slugging percentage was 72 points. In 2008 it was 58

points.

In 1954 the average OPS was .750, and the standard deviation was .099. In 2008 the average was .763, and the standard deviation was .080.

There is no question but that the long process of players converging toward a common level of ability has continued since 1954; however, the differences are not huge.

The reader asked specifically to compare the top 10% to the bottom 10%. When the standard deviation decreases, what that means is that the bottom moves closer to the top. However, answering the question directly, this chart gives the average performance of the top 10% of the hitters in 1954 (13 out of 128) versus the bottom 10%, hitters by batting order position, sorted by OPS:

Year	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SB	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
1954	592	108	182	30	7	31	116	82	6	.306	.390	.538	.929
2008	587	57	139	20	4	5	48	55	4	.237	.303	.311	.615

And this chart gives the same data for 2008, top 10% versus bottom 10% (26 out of 254. 25 would be closer to 10%, but 26 out of 254 is much more parallel than 13 out of 129 than is 25 out of 254):

Year	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SB	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
1954	624	108	184	41	3	33	110	83	11	.295	.381	.527	.908
2008	599	64	139	26	3	8	55	47	12	.231	.292	.324	.616

The difference between the top 10% and the bottom 10%, if measured by OPS, has shrunk since 1954 from 314 points to 292.

This is the same data, with the players sorted by fielding position:

Year	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SB	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
1954	583	107	184	29	7	32	110	86	6	.315	.401	.556	.958
2008	579	58	138	19	5	4	43	48	5	.237	.297	.308	.605

1954	621	106	184	41	3	32	108	80	12	.296	.380	.527	.908
2008	596	65	142	25	3	8	54	48	14	.238	.299	.328	.627

Sorted by fielding position, in 1954 the 10% best-hitting positions had an OPS 353 points better than the weakest-hitting 10%. By 2008 that gap had narrowed to 281 points. Also note that in the above, there is a 41% increase in doubles by the strongest hitters (from 29 to 41), whereas there is a 32% increase by the weaker hitters (from 19 to 25).

As a sport becomes stronger, there are fewer weak players, and the sport becomes more difficult to dominate. If a football game is won 97-3, what do you think? Is that high school football, or is that the NFL? It’s high school, of course; NFL teams are not that easy to dominate.

COMMENTS (18 Comments, most recent shown first)

ventboys
Stram built his teams extremely well. I don't know about what you are talking about, I will assume that you have that right. I didn't know that Garret was a little guy. I assumed, because he was a stud at a major college, that he was bigger. I would have to do some research.

Ahmad Bradwshaw had a run this weekend that illustrated my point, going down almost to his knees to get under a taller defender, using it to turn a 15 yard run into a 38 yard run. I am excited by this paradigm shift, because it is fun to watch.
2:02 AM Oct 1st

evanecurb
ventboys:

Hank Stram was ahead of his time with Mike Garrett, Warren McVea, Tank Holmes, and the tiny guy (Nolan Smith?). What were they called? The scat backs?
10:16 PM Sep 20th

ventboys
Agreed, Bill. I'm trying to think of other baseline measurements that might work, coming up empty so far. As an aside, I'm telling everyone that I talk to about football that I believe we are in the middle of a trend change at running back.

With defensive players getting taller, it's come to a place where short running backs with low centers of gravity are being used more and more, with a lot of success. Ahmad Bradshaw, Darren Sproles, Leon Washington and several others are proving to be able to run in between the tackles more and more, slipping under the overhanging tree of massive humanity. The three that I mentioned by name are backups to taller backs with established reputations, yet the smaller backups are consistently more effective, even in traffic. I am predicting that Sproles will challenge or even break the NFL record for all purpose yards this year, if he continues to return kickoffs. Ok, lol, sorry, back to baseball...
2:02 AM Sep 20th

bjames
I get really frustrated by the height and weight data because it is so inaccurate. The SABR committee which tracks height and weight data, which has become a standard part of every encyclopedia, doesn't (or didn't, years ago, when much of the data was collected) document their sources, plus the idea of one weight for each player, throughout his career, is slightly fantastic. . ..sort of like allowing each player to have only one batting average. I think heights and weights are difficult to study because the data is suspect.
2:11 PM Sep 17th

TudorFever
Doesn't it seem likely that a contributing factor here is that, in 1954, it was more likely that the best players trapped in the minors were better than some of the regular players on the bad teams in the majors? There was a huge gap between the "have" and "have not" teams in 1954. The AL had 3 teams with 94 or more wins, and the A's finished 60 games below the Tribe. The Pirates finished last by 44 games.

I wonder if you would get the same results if you used 1958, which as you pointed out featured the smallest difference in history between the best and worst teams.
11:16 AM Sep 12th

hotstatrat
That would be an interesting study, ventboys. Of course, that would not take into account experience. Players from 1946 had way more experience than current day college players and probably more than modern Major Leaguers not from the Domenican Republic.

But then training techniques have improved. Batting and pitching motions have been studied almost scientifically to generate the most power with the most control. That and weight training probably weighs more than diet and, perhaps, medicine.

I have no idea what point Stephan Goldleaf is making. This is about checking deviations from the norm to identify overall league ability - not by looking at absolute achievements. Hence, improvement in pitching is already being considered and is assumed to go hand in hand with improvements in hitting.
11:42 AM Sep 11th

Steven Goldleaf
Gotta figure, tho, that the pitchers got bigger and stronger too, don't you?
7:28 AM Sep 11th

ventboys
The variables that have to be dealt with when looking for competitive balance between players are vast, and even Bill couldn't get to them all if he took a year to research it. For a thumbnail study this is just fine.

I'm pretty sure that adding Hispanic, Black and Japanese players to the mix is the largest factor difference between WWII and now, with advancements in medicine and diet coming in 2nd. Those factors alone, in my mind, can't be less than enough to improve the quality of the individual player even if they expanded to well over 100 teams.

I am not one to do studies, but if someone was it might be worth a shot to look at average height/weight, and find where the line is in 1946, and how far down the curve we would have to go to find that same average in 2009. It's not perfect, with guys like Pedroia kicking butt, but it's a decent thumbnail base. My guess is that the average major college player today is a good bit larger than the average major leaguer in 1946. The line won't be a straight one, of course.
1:10 AM Sep 11th

hotstatrat
P.S.: . . . as in "Whoever hit their struggled"?
12:19 PM Sep 10th

hotstatrat
To Bill James:

Thanks for another entertaining article, but this effort was a little sloppy it seems.

One finger wag for using "their" instead of "there".

More seriously I was confused by your last charts. As stated I thought they were comparing the top 10% and bottom 10% for each year studied by batting position and by fielding position. Yet, the chart shows one year on one line and the other year on the other line of each of those charts. That labeling makes no sense to me. I am assuming the bottom years are mislabeled.

Perhaps, even more serious is you choice of comparing American League data from a DH season to a non-DH season. I would think that would have a significant impact on the data whether comparing hitting stats by batting position or fielding position. Having a DH could mean one extra player of superior defense on the field than it would otherwise messing up your "by fielding position" data. Similarly, having the DH could directly mean having one more top notch bat in the line-up than otherwise messing up your batting order comparisons as you have conducted them.

I was afraid to say all this, because I enjoy your writing very much and don't wish to discourage your prolific work, but this article was deserved a calling out.
4:42 PM Sep 9th

hotstatrat
To Jon Wilt:

That expansion has made the playing talent overly dilluted, I agree, is bunk. However, expansion has made it much more difficult for fans with jobs and other things to do keep a handle on the history and assets of every player on every team as before. Fantasy baseball has driven many of us to try to know everyone anyway (or has it merely provided an outlet for our prodigous amounts of time and energy spent studying players?) Nonetheless expansion has made baseball a more daunting sea of names with statistics. The reason many of us are baseball fans or even sports fans in general is that it is a microcosm of the real world - one small enough for us to have an illusion of some handle on it. Expansion has made that increasingly impossible.

4:25 PM Sep 9th

hotstatrat
To Trailbzr: don't forget the Negro Leagues, where many of the best players were up until the Majors gradually accepted players of dark skin from the late 40s to the early 60s. Hence, not even all the superstars were in the Majors back then.
4:16 PM Sep 9th

evanecurb
Martin:

That was it. The variables that I remember that correlate to higher quality of play are number of double plays as pct. of balls in play, number of errors per game, etc. A narrowing of the gap between the best and worst players is another indicator of higher quality of play.
4:53 PM Sep 8th

jwilt
This is more data indicating that the theory of "expansion kills baseball" is bunk. As Bill noted there are twice as many major leaguers now as in 1954, but the distance between the best and worst players is smaller today than ever. Unless you can come up with some kind of reason why the best players are much, much worse than in the past you have to conclude that expansion has almost no impact on quality of play when done in a reasonable, controlled manner.
4:35 PM Sep 8th

wovenstrap
I'm pretty sure Evan was referring to an article Bill did in which he described levels of baseball starting from minor league and tracing the steps all the way up to the big leagues. Bill presented a long list of attributes that would indicate how "serious" a given league was. One of them was, likelihood that the best hitter is also a pitcher, for example. They were mostly things like, tolerance for tie games, number of errors per game, number of umpires on the field. If you're watching a game with just one umpire, you're probably watching a high school game or lower, that kind of thing.
3:29 PM Sep 8th

Trailbzr
Another important difference between 2008 and 1928 is that during the earlier era there were more career "minor" leaguers than now. MLB has 750 roster spots today, and I bet almost all of the potentially 500 best MLB players are in the majors, unless they just retired or are about to enter the majors. During the Cobb/Ruth era, there were a lot more MLB-caliper players in other leagues, which were not principally farms for MLB yet. The superstars were all in the majors, but the ordinary regulars were more scattered than today, hence increasing the distance between the top players and the ordinary regulars.
11:49 AM Sep 8th

rtayatay
I think the material Evan is referring to is the backup info for why Bill put in a 'time constant' when evaluating players in the historical abstract... I think Ken Griffey and someone else, Ty Cobb maybe, were used as examples. I don't remember the exact details off the top of my head, but it's the kind of thing that pushed Mantle ahead of Cobb, etc.

It would be interesting to run this experiment between, say, 2002 and 1928... for the very reasons that Evan noted, specifically, that steroids would have produced an inordinate number of 'high achievers' compared to normal times. 1928 or so would be intersting because you know you've got Babe Ruth near the top of his game in that time period, and offense around the leagues has picked up by then.
11:32 AM Sep 8th

evanecurb
Thanks Bill. That answers my question. I had sensed a divergence from this trend in the past ten years due to some of the historically high adjusted ERA+ and OPS+ totals that had been posted by top players (particularly Bonds and Pedro Martinez). I had wondered if the gap had been widening, which is what prompted my question. Apparently the gap has continued to narrow.
11:18 AM Sep 8th

Time and the Gap

COMMENTS (18 Comments, most recent shown first)

Leave a comment

Report inappropriate comment


Type of Abuse:
Comments: