The Quality of Competition Over Time

 

An Age Spectrum Analysis

 

             Regarding the Quality of Competition in Major League Baseball Over time, one objective measure that we could get is the concentration of talent around the peak ages.   The peak age for baseball player contributions, as we all know, is 27; actually, 26 and 27 are essentially equal.  26 measures as equal or slightly superior to 27 if you look at players who are established in the league by age 24 or 23 or 22 or something; 27 just measures as a little ahead of 26 in aggregate contribution because the process of players getting established in the major leagues is not 100% complete by age 26.  At age 26, a small but not trivial number of players are still rookies or are still earning playing time. 

            Suppose that you look at teams selected from different ages, and for this thought experiment we do not rely on these being major league players.   Suppose that we compare a team of 10-year-old players to a team of 13-year-old players.   Who do you think will win?   Suppose that we compare a team of 16-year-olds to a team of 13-year-olds, or a team of 19-year-olds to a team of 16-year-olds.   Of course we know that, up to a point, the older,  more mature team will dominate. 

            Or suppose that we have a team of 70-year-olds playing a team of 60-year-olds, or a team of 70-year-olds playing a team of 80-year-olds.   My point is that we know beyond any question that the closer a group of players is to the peak age, the stronger the team is likely to be.   Also, we know from copious research that the peak age for a professional player is 26 to 27, although it is likely that the peak age for non-professional athletes is somewhat younger. 

            Suppose we state this relationship, in professional terms, in this way.   A player who is 26 or 27 years old has a presumed "age strength" of 100, which is really 100%; we’ll get there.  For each year that a player is younger than age 26, we reduce the 100 by the square of the difference between 26 and the age.   Thus, as the score for age 26 is 100, the age/strength score for age 25 is 99, for age 24, 96; for age 23, 91; for age 22, 84; for age 21, 75; for age 20, 64; for age 19, 51; for age 18, 36; for age 17, 19; and for age 16 or younger than 16, zero. 

            Going forward from age 27, we do the same, but at one-half the speed.   Thus, we state the age/strength score associated with each age is as follows:

Age	Score		Age	Score		Age	Score		Age	Score
16	0		24	96		32	93.75		40	57.75
17	19		25	99		33	91		41	51
18	36		26	100		34	87.75		42	43.75
19	51		27	100		35	84		43	36
20	64		28	99.75		36	79.75		44	27.75
21	75		29	99		37	75		45	19
22	84		30	97.75		38	69.75		46	9.75
23	91		31	96		39	64		47	0

 

            24-year-olds are equivalent to 31-year-olds at .96, meaning that the difference between those ages and peak age is pretty much insignificant.  22-year-olds are equivalent to 35-year-olds at .84, a meaningful but not prohibitive barrier.  There are successful 22-year-olds in the major leagues and successful 35-year-olds, but not very many, because if you lose 16% of your ability, that’s usually enough to end your career.   20-year-olds are equivalent to 39-year-olds, at 64%.  There just a handful of players so skilled that they will own major league jobs at age 20, or at age 39.     

            At age 38, for example. . .38-year-olds are 11 years removed from their peak, which is equivalent to 5.5 full steps.  5.5 squared is 30.25; 100 minus 30.25 is 69.75, so 38-year-olds are presumed to retain 69.75% of their peak skill level.

            You will note that the chart ends at age 16 and at age 47, and you will also note, if you study it, that there are no 16-year-olds or 47-year-olds in the major leagues; yes, I know there have been a handful of such players in major league history, but it is nowhere near 1% of the total population of players at either end.   Those are meaningful zeroes. 

            These numbers are referring to groups of players, not to individuals—groups, like a team or a league.   Think of it this way:  suppose there was a league somewhere, a league in Yugoslavia or Bolivia or Portlandia, and suppose that in that league there was a 19-year-old phenom who hit .357 with 56 home runs and 171 RBI.  What would that suggest to you about the quality of the league? 

            There are events very much like that in the early history of the game.  In 1879 a 19-year-old pitcher won 47 games in the National League.   In 1880 he dropped off to 39 wins, but a different 20-year-old won 43 games, and a third 20-year-old won 34.   These events tell us something about the quality of the league competition at that time.  That level of age-aberrant performance disappeared from baseball in its early days, but over time, out-of-age-range performances have become steadily less common. 

            I am confusing there two slightly different things:  the presence of players with out-of-age range bulk performance, and exceptional domination of the league by a relatively few players.  The introduction confuses the two, but the analysis doesn’t. 

            Suppose that you take every player in a given league, and record his plate appearances, if he was a hitter, or his batters faced, if he was a pitcher, and suppose that we weight each of those by the strength score associated with the player’s age.   For the sake of clarity, what we are doing is using the age spectrum of the players in a league to indicate the strength of the league, relative to other leagues.  Let’s do the 1879 Providence Grays—the team for which Monte Ward won 47 games at the age of 19—to illustrate the process.   The Grays used only 17 players all season, only 2 pitchers. These are the plate appearances/batters faced by each of them. 

Batter	PA
Paul Hines	417
George Wright	401
Mike McGeary	379
Jim O'Rourke	375
Monte Ward	371
Tom York	361
Joe Start	324
Lew Brown	233
Bill Hague	212
Bobby Mathews	180
Emil Gross	136
Jack Farrell	51
Denny Sullivan	20
Dan O'Leary	7
Rudy Kemmler	7
Doug Allison	5
Bill White	4
Pitcher	BF
Monte Ward	2425
Bobby Mathews	779

 

                These are the ages for each of these players:

 

Batter	PA	Age
Paul Hines	417	24
George Wright	401	32
Mike McGeary	379	28
Jim O'Rourke	375	28
Monte Ward	371	19
Tom York	361	28
Joe Start	324	36
Lew Brown	233	21
Bill Hague	212	27
Bobby Mathews	180	27
Emil Gross	136	21
Jack Farrell	51	21
Denny Sullivan	20	21
Dan O'Leary	7	22
Rudy Kemmler	7	19
Doug Allison	5	32
Bill White	4	18
Pitcher	BF	Age
Monte Ward	2425	19
Bobby Mathews	779	27

 

                This adds the age/strength score for each of those players, based on his age:

 

Batter	PA	Age	Age/St
Paul Hines	417	24	96
George Wright	401	32	93.75
Mike McGeary	379	28	99.75
Jim O'Rourke	375	28	99.75
Monte Ward	371	19	51
Tom York	361	28	99.75
Joe Start	324	36	79.75
Lew Brown	233	21	75
Bill Hague	212	27	100
Bobby Mathews	180	27	100
Emil Gross	136	21	75
Jack Farrell	51	21	75
Denny Sullivan	20	21	75
Dan O'Leary	7	22	84
Rudy Kemmler	7	19	51
Doug Allison	5	32	93.75
Bill White	4	18	36
Pitcher	BF	Age	Age/St
Monte Ward	2425	19	51
Bobby Mathews	779	27	100

 

            We multiply each player’s plate appearances or batters faced by his age/strength score, and divide by 100.  We’ll call that the Age Contribution or Age/Strength Contribution:

 

Batter	PA	Age	Age/St	Age Cont
Paul Hines	417	24	96	400.32
George Wright	401	32	93.75	375.9375
Mike McGeary	379	28	99.75	378.0525
Jim O'Rourke	375	28	99.75	374.0625
Monte Ward	371	19	51	189.21
Tom York	361	28	99.75	360.0975
Joe Start	324	36	79.75	258.39
Lew Brown	233	21	75	174.75
Bill Hague	212	27	100	212
Bobby Mathews	180	27	100	180
Emil Gross	136	21	75	102
Jack Farrell	51	21	75	38.25
Denny Sullivan	20	21	75	15
Dan O'Leary	7	22	84	5.88
Rudy Kemmler	7	19	51	3.57
Doug Allison	5	32	93.75	4.6875
Bill White	4	18	36	1.44
Pitcher	BF	Age	Age/St	Age Cont
Monte Ward	2425	19	51	1236.75
Bobby Mathews	779	27	100	779

 

And here we add the batter and pitcher totals:

 

Batter	PA	Age	Age/St	Age Cont
Paul Hines	417	24	96	400.32
George Wright	401	32	93.75	375.9375
Mike McGeary	379	28	99.75	378.0525
Jim O'Rourke	375	28	99.75	374.0625
Monte Ward	371	19	51	189.21
Tom York	361	28	99.75	360.0975
Joe Start	324	36	79.75	258.39
Lew Brown	233	21	75	174.75
Bill Hague	212	27	100	212
Bobby Mathews	180	27	100	180
Emil Gross	136	21	75	102
Jack Farrell	51	21	75	38.25
Denny Sullivan	20	21	75	15
Dan O'Leary	7	22	84	5.88
Rudy Kemmler	7	19	51	3.57
Doug Allison	5	32	93.75	4.6875
Bill White	4	18	36	1.44
Total Batters	3483			3073.648	.882
Pitcher	BF	Age	Age/St	Age Cont
Monte Ward	2425	19	51	1236.75
Bobby Mathews	779	27	100	779
Total Pitchers	3204			2015.75	.629
Total Batters	3483			3073.65	.882
Total Pitchers	3204			2015.75	.629
Total for team	6687			5089.398	.761

 

            The Age/Strength Score for a team is the sum of the age/strength contributions of the players, divided by the opportunity numbers, plate appearances and batters faced.   The Age/Strength Score for this team is .882 for the batters, .629 for the pitchers, and .761 overall. 

            Suppose that we do the same analysis for every team in the National League in 1879.   For the league as a whole, 1879 National League, the Age/Strength score for hitters is .913, and for pitchers, .884.   The parallel numbers for the 2019 season (both leagues combined) are .955 for hitters, and .958 for pitchers.  However, we will not use those numbers in the subsequent analysis; actually, we will use the squares of those numbers.  It has to do with "appropriate degree of separation".    When we square these two numbers and then combine them into one, the Age/Strength Score for the 1879 season is .808, and for 2019, .915.  In essence, the 2019 major leagues are estimated to be about 13% stronger than the National League in 1879, just based on the fact that the players now are clustered more tightly in age around the peak ages of 26 and 27, with fewer players at off-peak ages, and no 19-year-olds at all pitching 587 innings. 

 

            The .915 figure from 2019 was an all-time high.   The players from 2019 cluster in age around 26 and 27 to a greater extent than they did in any previous season.   If you believe, as most people do, that the quality of competition has gotten better over time, this may not surprise you, and also, it may not surprise you to learn that the previous high-water mark was in 2018.   It may not surprise you to learn that among the ten highest figures ever for a season, the seasons of 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014 are on the list. 

            It might surprise you, however, to learn what the highest Strength Score based on Age Spectrum Analysis was, before a new high was reached in 2018.   The previous high-water mark was in 1900.   The 1900 season had an Age/Strength score of .907, a "record" that stood for 118 years.  

 

Year	Age Strength
2019	.915
2018	.912
1900	.907
2017	.906
1899	.905
1917	.905
2016	.904
1903	.903
2015	.901
2014	.900

 

            The numbers have improved over time, but not uniformly; there’s been some ups and downs.  This chart shows the Age Strength Score for every season since 1876, with low marks highlighted in brown, and high marks highlighted in green:

Year	Age Strength		Year	Age Strength		Year	Age Strength		Year	Age Strength
1876	.833		1912	.860		1948	.865		1984	.862
1877	.848		1913	.865		1949	.866		1985	.854
1878	.733		1914	.868		1950	.871		1986	.850
1879	.808		1915	.875		1951	.874		1987	.859
1880	.770		1916	.883		1952	.853		1988	.872
1881	.850		1917	.905		1953	.860		1989	.874
1882	.851		1918	.887		1954	.868		1990	.874
1883	.858		1919	.898		1955	.867		1991	.871
1884	.792		1920	.889		1956	.865		1992	.876
1885	.823		1921	.892		1957	.869		1993	.876
1886	.822		1922	.886		1958	.858		1994	.877
1887	.799		1923	.883		1959	.867		1995	.880
1888	.812		1924	.877		1960	.871		1996	.874
1889	.846		1925	.871		1961	.871		1997	.876
1890	.819		1926	.881		1962	.869		1998	.866
1891	.836		1927	.865		1963	.860		1999	.870
1892	.867		1928	.856		1964	.860		2000	.873
1893	.873		1929	.858		1965	.855		2001	.869
1894	.885		1930	.873		1966	.870		2002	.869
1895	.877		1931	.871		1967	.881		2003	.868
1896	.888		1932	.861		1968	.893		2004	.865
1897	.883		1933	.874		1969	.883		2005	.863
1898	.898		1934	.871		1970	.879		2006	.863
1899	.905		1935	.880		1971	.873		2007	.867
1900	.907		1936	.878		1972	.879		2008	.878
1901	.890		1937	.885		1973	.880		2009	.888
1902	.893		1938	.880		1974	.882		2010	.889
1903	.903		1939	.869		1975	.878		2011	.891
1904	.893		1940	.861		1976	.888		2012	.895
1905	.895		1941	.859		1977	.882		2013	.895
1906	.876		1942	.865		1978	.877		2014	.900
1907	.871		1943	.873		1979	.877		2015	.901
1908	.870		1944	.842		1980	.878		2016	.904
1909	.851		1945	.818		1981	.871		2017	.906
1910	.865		1946	.864		1982	.865		2018	.912
1911	.869		1947	.871		1983	.862		2019	.915

 

 

The line graph looks almost flat, emphasizing the point that there really has not been a huge change in the concentration of talent at peak ages over time, although there has been some change.  This graph shows the same data, but jiggles the scale to make the patterns easier to see:

 Let me interpret this chart for you, as best I understand it, warning you in advance that this leads to 16 paragraphs of not-very-interesting prose.  I feel that I have an obligation to explain the data; not saying it is something you ought to read.   When major league baseball began in 1876, there was some prehistory, some organization of the talent which preceded that, but the pathway from high school to the major leagues was in many cases a short one.  

            My language somewhat distorts the facts.   We have to remember that in the 1870s, the 1880s, most young men did not go to high school.   In my state, Kansas, very few towns HAD high schools until the early 20^th century.   Many other states have similar histories, some different, but many the same.  Young men, if they went to school at all, stopped their schooling at about ages 12 or 13, going to work to help support the family.  It wasn’t until the Depression, the 1930s, that MOST young men in Kansas finished high school, the change coming at that time because there was no work available anyway, so you might as well stay in school.  That’s a half-century after 1880.   The teenagers in the major leagues in the 1870s and early 1880s weren’t coming out of high school; they were coming out of coal mines and factories and off the farm.   

            My point, however, is that the pathway to the major leagues, for a talented young player, was in  many cases a short one, and a lot of players were playing in the National League at ages 19, 20, 21, in some cases younger.   There was, however, rapidly increasing competition for major league jobs, and this pushed the Age Strength Score up in the 1880-1883 era, up to what were then record-high numbers.    In 1884 there was an upstart league, the Union Association, which has inexplicably been included in the records as a major league (although it clearly wasn’t), and, using the commonly available records and following the conventional designation of that as a major league, this causes the strength score to spike downward in 1884. 

            The American Association was also rapidly expanding at that time, and the upward pressure on the Age Strength score was blunted for some time by what seems in retrospect to be the chaotic nature of the sport in that era, with major rules changes almost every year.  In 1890 there was another one-season shot at a major league, the Player’s League; more chaos.  With the collapse of the Player’s League and the unification of the American Association and the National League into one league, the Age/Strength Scores hit record highs in 1892, 1893, 1894, 1896, 1898, 1899 and 1900. 

            The 1900 season was a sort of super-league.  The number of teams was telescoping downward.  From a peak of 30-some teams in the early 1880s, major league baseball had shrunk to one league and the National League had contracted to 12 teams and, for the 1900 season, down to 8.  This one season of only 8 major league teams forced the weaker players out of the game, and caused the measured age/strength score to peak at .905 in 1900, the highest figure ever recorded until 2018.   There was, however, something else going on, beyond the one-season contraction to 8 teams.  The 1899 figure was also historically very, very high, higher than it was at any point from 1901 to 2017.  

            I would explain it this way.  In non-professional sports, the peak age is clearly younger than 26 or 27.  Other than professional athletes who are paid to retain and develop their athleticism, we tend to start to lose peak performance before age 26 or 27, probably more like 22 or 23.  Professionalism changes that.  There is an "amateur schedule" for athletic aging, and there is a "professional schedule." 

            In the late 1890s the shift from the amateur peak of 22-23 to the professional peak of 26-27 was clearly advancing; 19-year-old pitchers and 21-year-old superstars were basically disappearing by the late 1890s, pushing more players into the peak range.  But the other side of that transition is the older stars who maintain a professional level of athletic skill until they are well past 30.  By the late 1890s, the other side of the transition had not yet had time to develop.  There were very few stars in their 30s by then, because not enough time had passed for a significant number of players to reach the upper ranges of the professional aging schedule.  

            Also, of course, we have to remember that the major leagues at that time—and even now, although less so—are relatively small groups of athletes.   All of baseball, 1899, is not a large enough sample for the actual distribution of talent to be a true representation of the underlying forces. 

            Anyway, after the American League was founded in 1901. . .after it became a major league in 1901. . . the age spectrum changed very little until the 1920s.  The reason it changed in the 1920s was:  money.   The explosion of interest in the game at the end of World War I/Babe Ruth’s coming to New York brought money into the game, which drove salaries up, which created a strong incentive for older players to stay in the game.   Players who were making three, four thousand dollars a year in their prime now were making $10,000 a year in their 30s.   They weren’t giving those jobs up without a fight.  They weren’t retiring when they ordinarily might have. This kept many aging stars in the game in the late 1920s and into the early 1930s.  The low figures of the late 1920s result from a very significant increase in the number of older stars in that period.

            That era passed, and the age/strength spectrum—the concentration of players into the peak ages—went back up, reaching a peak of .885 in 1937, the highest figure since 1922.   It was lower than that but in the same range until 1944-1945, World War II baseball, when many of the stars of the game were in Military Service, and significant numbers of older players and very young players were in the major leagues.   Contemporary writers about that era exaggerated this effect, and portrayed baseball in that era as being the property of old men and children, which was not exactly true, but it was not 100% false, either.   The age/strength score of 1945, .818, was the lowest since 1888, the lowest in 57 years.

            After the war the age/strength score returned toward normal, reaching a peak of .874 in 1950, the highest figure between 1939 and 1967, but still not above the norms of the 1900-1920 era.  The age/strength score does not reflect increasing concentration of players at peak ages in the 1950s. 

            One thing that very few people understand or think about is that World War II impacted the talent available to the major leagues for many years, at least until 1960 and possibly after.  Many, many young men, including potential superstars, were killed in the war.  Many more lost their athletic careers because they were in the Army in the crucial developmental years, ages 18 to 23.  The talent base was thinned out.   A player who was 18 years old in 1945 would not have been 40 until 1967. 

            A second factor operating in those years was the Bonus Baby Rule, which required that an amateur player signing for a good amount of money had to spend his first two full seasons on a major league roster.  This put a small but significant number of very young players in the major leagues.  Some of those bonus babies—Al Kaline, Curt Simmons, Johnny Antonelli, Del Crandall—picked up regular playing time almost immediately, and well away from their peak age. 

            After expansion the Age/Strength Scores dropped for a few years, but then began moving forward more strongly than they had in 50 years.   Figures were high in the era 1967 to 1976. 

            Once free agency arrived, however, salaries exploded upward, causing a repetition of the Babe Ruth-era decline.   Many more older players stayed in the game as salaries went upward.   The age/strength score went from .888 in 1976 to .850 in 1986, the lowest figure since World War II.   

            From 1986 to 1995 the age/strength score recovered—that is, the concentration of players near the peak age increased—but then the steroid era started.  Steroid use extended the careers of many aging players, thus driving the age/strength score downward.  From one cause and another, the concentration of players at peak ages increased very little from 1900 to 2005. 

            Since 2006 the concentration of talent at the peak ages has increased steadily, and to record levels. 

 

            Of course, the concentration of talent around the peak ages is by no means a perfect measure of the strength of a league.   Many different things cause the quality of competition in a league to become stronger or weaker.  This is just one of those things.  This is the first of a series of three articles.   We’ll continue the series tomorrow with a study of the domination of the game by a limited number of stars. 

 

 

 

The Quality of Competition Over Time

An Index of Star Domination

            In yesterday’s article I looked at the concentration of talent in the major leagues at or near the peak ages, and at the effect that this has on the quality of competition over time.  A second objective standard for quality of competition is star domination.   A low-level league is typically dominated by a few players.   I used to coach a team of 8-year-olds.  I had one kid on my team who played shortstop, pitched sometimes, and would hit one or two home runs a game, usually hitting doubles or triples when he didn’t; I don’t know what his average was, but it was probably .700.   At shortstop, he was absolutely fantastic.   There were other kids on the team who struck out in almost every at bat.   I suspect that is common in every league of 8-year-olds. 

            By the time they are 12 or 13, half of the kids have dropped out, and the pitching and fielding have gotten good enough that that special kid probably only hits .500 or .550.  By the time they’re in high school, the High School baseball team is composed of all of those kids from all of the different 8-year-old teams, so the best player probably hits .400 or .450, and by the time you thin it out a couple of more times to make a college team, the best player in the league may be a .370 or .380 hitter and playing third base, rather a .700 hitter and playing shortstop. 

            The Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould compared the narrowing of the talent gaps in baseball, over time, to the standardization of sizes and capabilities within a species.  In nature you have animals that weigh 2,000 pounds and animals that weigh a fraction of an ounce, but within a species you would very rarely have, for example, a 4-pound adult and a 10-pound adult.  Probably you would almost never have a 4-pound adult and a 40-pound adult of the same species.    In nature there are animals that fly, animal that walk, animals that crawl, animals that swim, animals that burrow, etc., but you don’t get members of the same species, one of whom flies and the other of whom crawls.  The same in baseball:  over time, the extremes within the "species" of baseball players disappear, and skill levels converge. 

            I don’t know if that made sense, and anyway I am describing a phenomenon that probably you all understood before I started describing it.  In early baseball the best players dominated to a significantly greater extent than they do now.   How much greater?

            We can use Win Shares to study that issue.    I started with a big file of every player’s Win Shares every year or, in some cases, estimated Win Shares.  I experimented with like a hundred different ways of forming an "index of star domination" based on Win Shares, doing stuff like squaring each player’s win shares and then dividing the sum of the squares by the sum of the totals; when the best players have higher scores the ratio goes up.   None of that stuff worked as well as I wanted it to, and I came back to a very simple index. 

            In 1876 there were 8 teams in the National League, which won a total of 257 games, or 771 Win Shares; three Win Shares for each win.  The eight best players in the league (George Bradley, Al Spalding, Tommy Bond, Jim Devlin, Ross Barnes, Candy Cummings, Jack Manning and Bobby Mathews). . the eight best players in the league had a total of 293 Win Shares, which is 38% of the league total.   We define the index as "the total number of Win Shares earned by the X best players in the league, where X is the number of teams in the league."

This index declined rapidly in the 19^th century.  It dropped under 30% for the first time in 1881, and was never over 30% after 1881.  It dropped under 20% for the first time in 1888, and has never been over 20% since 1888.   It dropped under 15% for the first time in 1891, and was permanently under 15% beginning in 1898. 

            In the 20^th century this number declined gradually but slowly. . .well, here it is by decades, decade averages:

From	To	Average
1900	1909	13.7%
1910	1919	13.1%
1920	1929	13.3%
1930	1939	13.7%
1940	1949	12.9%
1950	1959	12.4%
1960	1969	11.7%
1970	1979	11.2%
1980	1989	10.8%
1990	1999	11.3%
2000	2009	11.1%
2010	2019	10.6%

 

            For the purpose of evaluating talent over time, I need a number that goes up when the league gets stronger, rather than a number that goes down when the league gets stronger.   We can create that by just subtracting this percentage from 1.000.   That creates the following chart.. . .index of star domination over time:

Year	Index		Year	Index		Year	Index		Year	Index
1876	62.0%		1912	85.4%		1948	86.9%		1984	89.2%
1877	64.6%		1913	87.3%		1949	86.2%		1985	88.7%
1878	68.9%		1914	87.1%		1950	87.4%		1986	89.6%
1879	68.5%		1915	87.4%		1951	87.2%		1987	88.9%
1880	69.1%		1916	87.5%		1952	88.0%		1988	89.3%
1881	75.6%		1917	86.9%		1953	86.8%		1989	89.2%
1882	70.1%		1918	86.8%		1954	87.0%		1990	89.7%
1883	70.5%		1919	86.7%		1955	87.4%		1991	89.4%
1884	70.3%		1920	85.8%		1956	87.8%		1992	88.9%
1885	74.3%		1921	86.8%		1957	87.5%		1993	89.1%
1886	78.7%		1922	87.4%		1958	88.5%		1994	88.1%
1887	79.7%		1923	86.5%		1959	88.3%		1995	88.5%
1888	83.1%		1924	86.5%		1960	88.6%		1996	88.0%
1889	84.3%		1925	87.2%		1961	87.1%		1997	88.6%
1890	82.8%		1926	87.7%		1962	88.9%		1998	88.4%
1891	85.1%		1927	86.4%		1963	88.8%		1999	88.2%
1892	85.8%		1928	86.8%		1964	88.3%		2000	88.0%
1893	84.1%		1929	86.5%		1965	88.7%		2001	87.8%
1894	82.7%		1930	85.1%		1966	88.5%		2002	88.6%
1895	82.7%		1931	87.0%		1967	88.4%		2003	89.0%
1896	82.9%		1932	86.5%		1968	88.0%		2004	88.9%
1897	84.3%		1933	87.0%		1969	87.8%		2005	89.4%
1898	84.7%		1934	85.6%		1970	88.5%		2006	89.3%
1899	85.7%		1935	86.0%		1971	88.4%		2007	89.3%
1900	86.7%		1936	85.9%		1972	87.9%		2008	89.7%
1901	85.2%		1937	86.2%		1973	88.6%		2009	89.3%
1902	85.7%		1938	86.6%		1974	88.8%		2010	89.8%
1903	86.0%		1939	87.1%		1975	88.8%		2011	89.3%
1904	86.5%		1940	87.3%		1976	89.4%		2012	89.6%
1905	86.4%		1941	87.0%		1977	89.1%		2013	89.6%
1906	86.4%		1942	86.9%		1978	89.5%		2014	89.6%
1907	86.8%		1943	87.7%		1979	89.2%		2015	89.3%
1908	86.0%		1944	86.7%		1980	89.4%		2016	89.5%
1909	86.9%		1945	87.6%		1981	88.5%		2017	89.3%
1910	86.6%		1946	87.3%		1982	89.4%		2018	88.8%
1911	86.9%		1947	87.8%		1983	89.5%		2019	88.9%

 

            As you can see, the index hit 89% in 1976 and has generally been over 89% since 1976, but has never hit 90%. 

OK, that basically ends what I have to say here which is relevant to my general topic, but it introduces a side point that I will make in closing.

            Up until 1969, 19^th century baseball was almost universally discounted as being "major league" baseball.  It was regarded as an antecedent to major league baseball, rather than as the genuine article.   A line was drawn in 1900.  19^th century records for things like batting average, stolen bases, runs scored and pitcher’s wins were almost universally ignored or discounted.  When the Macmillan Encyclopedia was published in 1969—a massive, groundbreaking, and thoroughly marvelous effort—but the editors of that publication decided that that was an arbitrary distinction, and that no distinction would be made between 19^th century and "modern" baseball.   Post-1970 baseball research has followed that practice, and almost everyone now regards 19^th century baseball as major league baseball. 

            This was a terrible mistake, which has polluted baseball history ever since.  19^th century baseball has basically no characteristics consistent with the description of it as major league baseball.   The argument for this mindless mis-characterization is that the 20^th century line was an arbitrary distinction, that nothing exactly happened at that moment that justifies putting everything before then in one class and everything after that in another. 

            Well, perhaps, but the line between adulthood and childhood is an arbitrary distinction, too.   Nothing EXACTLY happens EXACTLY on your 18^th birthday or your 21^st birthday that makes you a different person than you were the day before, but the fact is that childhood and adulthood are quite clearly different things with very different characteristics, even though we may have to rely on an ultimately arbitrary distinction to draw the line between them.  

            And the same here:  19^th century baseball and major league baseball are very clearly different things, even though we may have to rely on an ultimately arbitrary distinction to draw the line between them.