Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Re: Cobb's records
Message-ID: <662@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Jun-85 11:27:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.662
Posted: Sat Jun  8 11:27:14 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 03:29:43 EDT
References: <2046@cornell.UUCP> <6158@umcp-cs.UUCP> <649@fisher.UUCP> <347@philabs.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton University Department of Statistics
Lines: 127

[">>" and "" => David Rubin; ">" => Paul Benjamin]

>> The greatest myth perpetuated by the old-timers!  Those 16 teams were
>> lily-white.  Since there no more white players today in the majors
>> then there were pre-Robinson (then: 16*25=400; now, at most: 
>> .6*26*25=390) and since baseball is a much more attractive profession 
>> in real financial terms then it was in Cobb's day, we can conclude
>> that there is NO evidence that talent has been diluted.  Indeed, there
>> is reason to believe that talent is more concentrated then it was then.

> Although I tend to agree with the assertion that today's athletes are,
> on the average, better than yesteryear's, your arguments aren't very 
> good that old records are much less meaningful. You might try arguing 
> that the population increase has increased the concentration of talent, 

First, that posting was a response to a claim by someone else that
talent was not as concentrated today as in Cobb's day, and I sought to
refute it in the easiest fashion possible.  But now that you mention
it, yes, I believe that old records are less meaningful, for two very
different reasons:

	(1) In the modern era, there have been no superstars of the
	    statistical magnitude of a Cobb, or a Ruth, or a Williams.
	    If the men who were capable of such feats were simply
	    opting out of baseball, then we could expect a DECLINE in
	    the number of these extraodinary careers, rather than the
	    apparent lack of them entirely.  Why, then?  Simply put,
	    the TYPICAL ballplayer of today is better than the typical
	    ballplayer of yesteryear, thus closing the gap between league
	    performance and the best men are capable of.  It is just
	    harder to shine under such circumstances then it was in
	    the past.  Unless you wish to explain the lack of Cobb-type
	    careers as species degeneration, I see no alternative to
	    the conclusion that the best of each generation are of
	    comparable ability, with the apparent differences in their
	    performances due to the caliber of the competition.

	(2) The environment in which the players operate can change
	    dramatically as changes in the way the game is played
	    alters the balance between offense and defense.  The
	    league average for the NL in 1930 was over .300;
	    Yazstremski led the AL in 1968 with an average of .301. To
	    state therefore that in 1968, Yazstremski demonstrated as
	    much skill as the average 1930 National Leaguer is absurd.
	    Intergenerational comparisons should be made, if at all, on
	    the basis of relative, not absolute, performance.

Now back to your specific points:

> BUT:
> 
> 1) Back then, such sports as football and basketball did not draw away
>    so much of the athletic talent as they do now. Back then, baseball
>    was THE game.
 
First, football draws very little talent away from baseball.  Careers
in football are brutish, short, and not particularly lucrative.  Thus,
those who have solid prospects in both overwhelmingly choose baseball.

Basketball is more of a problem.  Basketball "enjoyed" its salary
explosion a few years ahead of baseball (do the salary caps also
portend baseball's future), and there is likely to be some loss.
There are perhaps half a dozen major league baseball players (e.g.
Winfield) who were offered a chance at a basketball career; perhaps if
we knew how many basketball players passed up on opportunities in
baseball, we'd know the two sports relative strength in attracting
those who would excel at either.  I know of no basketball players
presently playing who had that choice, although I think DeBusschere
actually pitched for the White Sox in the late '60s.

> 2) Your above argument does not show that old-timers were less talented
>    than present ballplayers - there are black and latin players in the
>    majors now, but there are also more players total, too. Thus, there
>    could easily be the same overall level of talent as 75 years ago.
>    To disparage old records, you need to show clear superiority of
>    present talent.

I am not disparaging old records; I am merely pointing out that the
improvement in the mediocre players has made the excellent ones stick
out somewhat less.  I would never argue that Cobb was LESS talented
then Rose, only that it was EASIER for Cobb to shine, and differences,
e.g., in batting average are due in no small measure to the different
environments the two played in.

> 3) The assertion that the records of old-time stars are meaningless
>    implies that NONE of the dominant players of previous eras (Cobb,
>    Ruth, Gehrig, Cy Young, etc.) would have been superstars today.
>    You are making a basic error in applying group characteristics to
>    individuals. The exclusion of black and latin ballplayers no doubt
>    kept fans from seeing many great players, but that is irrelevant
>    to the abilities of the white stars. The fact is, there have always
>    been white superplayers in every era of baseball (Sutter, Murphy,
>    Schmidt, etc.) There have also always been many very good white
>    players, and many good ones, etc. Nobody worth listening to would
>    claim that the old-time numerical records should be compared with
>    today's. The vast differences in the game ensure that such comparisons
>    are meaningless (different fields, gloves, night baseball, artificial
>    turf, planes instead of trains between games, ...) but to say that
>    the dominant players of previous eras would not also be great stars
>    today is to say that there were no super white players in those eras.
>    That's rubbish.

You misunderstood me.  My assumption is that Ruth, Gehrig, etc. are
about as talented as Schmidt, Aaron, etc., and the difference in their
records is due largely to where and when they played.  They are not
meaningless when used for comparison with other players of the SAME
era.  I am not criticizing those who say "Cobb was a great hitter
because he hit about 70 points higher than the rest of the league"; I
am criticizing those who say "Cobb was obviously a better hitter than
Rose, as his lifetime average is 60 points higher".

> So, Cobb's records are still phenomenal. To be able to set career records
> in so many areas (average, batting titles, stolen bases, hits, ...) in
> the professional level of the major national sport of his era shows that
> he was a tremendous talent, and would have been in any era. The moment
> that Rose passes Cobb in total hits means nothing. They accomplished
> their feats in totally different ways, and times. The same applies to
> Aaron and Ruth. I personally feel that comparing players of the
> very highest caliber is a worthless exercise. How many hits would Cobb
> have had in the 1970's and 1980's? Who knows? Who cares?

I agree whole-heartedly with every word in this paragraph.  I suspect
you were responding both to my expressed sentiments and those you
imagined I have.  It appears we agree very much.

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david