Strikeout Record Watch

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Thats a crock and you know perfectly well that it is. I didn't expect intellectual dishonesty from you, but here it is.

There are a few things that are known with verifiable certainty, but most issues that arise here are not. Each poster goes in with a certain bias toward a position that will always be an unknown.

To answer your earlier question, of course, there are very very many positions that I take for which I have less than absolute certainty of my correctness. Not because I "think I am wrong", but because I suspect that, given new data, I might discover that I am. But I say them anyway, because I think they represent points that could lead to an understanding of the issues. But I have taken the trouble to think about my position and that of others, and I offer arguments in support of what I think might be reasonable. When other posters counter my arguments, and pay attention to them, and sometimes adjust my own position. I look forward to responses to my posts that often lead me to adjust my position. It is discouraging to see a repsonse that is nothing more than a one-liner accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, merely for being here and offering a point of view that challenges an absolutist assertion.

It is even more discouraging that you cannot even imagine being wrong, and raise points only where you have absolute certainty that you are not wrong. In fact, it seems to astonish you that any person could offer an opinion with less than absolute certainty that it is correct. Which is frightening.

[Grandstander]

jtur:

It is even more discouraging that you cannot even imagine being wrong, and raise points only where you have absolute certainty that you are not wrong. In fact, it seems to astonish you that any person could offer an opinion with less than absolute certainty that it is correct. Which is frightening.

This is the boring part, the part where you make up positions I never took and then condemn me for them. That I think that I am right before I assert something in a post is a given, it would be nonsensical to post without believing that there is truth to your post. At no point did I make any statements about never being wrong or not being able to imagige I'm wrong, that's just your little character assassination. Your typical response when called out on this stuff is to act all wounded and above the fray and that is awfully damn boring as well. That whole lie and act hurt act used to be a Bucky specialty, but at least he grew out of the habit.

Anyway, it's more intellectual dishonesty from you and you really ought to be ashamed.

[Grandstander]

nan:

Between the late 1950s and continuing through the 1960s MLB batting went into a slump bordering on pathetic, with 1968 being an excruciating example in an era of league BA @ .240 or lower. It was the word hitting season since 1908. By 1973, one League had opted for a DH. In the interim, MLB decided to lower the pitchers' mound. The pitching strikeout model had risen but not yet exploded. Pitchers were simply blowing the hitters away

When you include this sort of information as part of a point, it would be good to not simply mention it without acknowledgement of the known cause and in this particular case, there is no mystery.

The causes were Roger Maris and expansion. When Maris blasted his 61 homeruns and Mantle was on a pace to hit as many or more until a late season injury confined him to 54, and in that same year Norm Cash went crazy with an incredible year at the plate, and Killibrew and Colavito also topped 40 homeruns, overreaction followed.

Commissioner Ford Frick and the owners, not the sorts to sit around doing nothing when the situation called for hysteria, quickly identified the problem... baseball was out of whack and the cause was expansion. All that added lesser talent had generated conditions where someone who had no right to break the immortal Babe's record, had done so anyway. In their minds, clearly Maris would have done nothing of the sort had it not been for his ability to feast on watered down pitching. They spent a year arguing about it among themselves, and they did not have the patience to wait and see if things balanced out on their own as the expansion teams developed. In 1963 they acted, they enlarged the strikezone quite a bit with the deliberate, and successful intent, of reducing offense. At the same time, two new stadiums on the west coast were opening and each would prove to be parks which helped pitchers tremendously.

The result of all this tinkering was of course the big hitting freeze of '63 through '68. After five years of pitching domination, they finally realized that they had badly overreacted to the Maris business and they took steps to restore traditional offensive levels, they lowered the mound and shrunk the strikezone. The result was improved offense, more or less at levels corresponding to earlier norms.

So, those particular ups and downs were the product of deliberate intervention to alter conditions, and as such, are not reflective of any revealing rise or fall in talent. You attribute it to "pitchers simply blowing hitters away" and I suppose this represents your notion of how the old timers "knew how to pitch." They of course did not know anything special about pitching, they blew hitters away because they were getting strikes called at the top of the shoulders and the bottom of the knees. Notice how the moment this was taken away from them in 1969, all these guys suddenly forgot how to pitch so well. Strange coincidence, huh?


So, that, along with other chunks of reasoning, is why I cannot take these long, ponderous history lessons from you in any sort of serious manner. You rely on this sort of tainted information and later insist you made some hot, unassailable point and demand to know why I didn't accept it as proof. And that is annoying. I think that you should try and be more careful with these sorts of sermons.

An argument such as "the old timers knew how to pitch and modern ones do not" is just silly. You may as well be arguing that no one knew how to hit homeruns until the smart homerun hitters of the 1920's came along. Or that between 1930 and 1960, players forgot how to steal bases.

[nanwynn]

That last post of yours is a pip, dragging in Roger Maris and expansion as causes for the batting slump of the 1960a, a post that reveals no grasp of hitting realities between the end of WW II and the adoption of the DH more than a generation later.

Your tawdry, vapid, personal attacks serve only to call attention to yourself. Your last diatribe, windy and distended, is simply GS in the echo chamber, listening to himself, and requiring no further response at all.

[Grandstander]

You failed to address any of my points, and substituted more character analysis. I suppose that is your idea of victory.

[nanwynn]

If we return to the thread and its key topic, the focus is the high batting strikeout rates in to day’s game as contrasted with seasons past. Three players are presumably closing in on the single season K record for batters, hardly an accomplishment one wants to be the most pronounced accomplishment in a MLB hitting resume.

Relative to the topic, in historical context, I pointed out in some detail a decline in batting performance that climaxed in the awful 1968 season, when the entire AL sported a BA of .230, while the NL came in at .243. This evoked an animated response from GS, who alleged that I had arrived at convenient explanations without devoting enough attention to context and the history of the times.

GS then proceeded to fix the slump first on two major factors, Roger Maris 1961 record-breaking, asterisk winning 61 HR season over an extebnded schedule; and expansion. In addition to Maris, GS cited the bursts of power by Harmon Killebrew and Rocky Colavito, two Maris contemporaries, somehow connecting all the dots as an aggravated and intolerable assault on Babe Ruth’s hallowed HR record.

Roger Maris

OK, let’s look at Roger Maris, his 1961 season and the NY climate in which he played. First, I’d suggest we look at Maris alongside teammate Mickey Mantle. In doing this, let’s also bring in Killebrew and Colavito in the same context.

Season…………….Player…………..HR

1956………………Maris………….…n/a
1956………………Mantle…………...52
1958………………Maris…………….14
1958………………Mantle…………...42
1958………………Killebrew………..n/a
1958………………Colavito…………41
1959………………Maris…………….16
1959………………Mantle……………31
1959………………Killebrew………..42
1959………………Colavito…………42
1960……………….Maris……………39
1960……………….Mantle…………..40
1960……………….Killebrew……….31
1960……………….Colavito…………35
1961……………….Maris…………….61
1961……………….Mantle……………54
1961……………….Killebrew………..46
1961……………….Colavito…………45

Some observations are reasonable and must be addressed to put this whole “Maris” factor in context:

• There was no sudden concern as to spoilage of the “Babe’s” 60 HR record. NY Yankee management, ownership and the fans were thrilled at the prospect of a Yankee system homegrown farm system “kid” might break Ruth’s record. Mantle, in 1961, was at his peak; he had already hit 52 HRs and exceeded 40 twice, so when the M&M boys started chasing the “Babe” it was two Yankees, in tandem, doing so. Maris had never given any evidence of being a slugger, nor ever suggested his BA would be much out of a .250-.260 range. He was the good-looking young fielding flash with golden hair and an arm very nearly so. Roger was neither home-grown off the Yankee farm system. He was a guy the Yankees traded to get, a guy having already, by age 24, played for two teams before coming to the Yankees, to replace a favorite, Hank Bauer.

• From 1958 [1959, Killebrew] through 1960, Rocky Colavito and Harmon Killebrew had already presented their credentials as bona-fide sluggere. Or at least, sluggers in the making. There was no shock by either, since 35+ HR production was nothing new to the big leagues. In fact, since Killebrew and Colavito were right-handed sluggers, any threat to hallowed HR records was diminished by two factors:

-more right-handed pitchers to face, thus the like-handed batter challenge;
-the prevailing ballpark architecture that had dimensions favoring lefty hitters

3. Bottom line is that, when the dust had settled at the end of 1961, the WRONG Yankee had re-written the record book. Had Mantle hit 61 or more, the brouhaha caused by the shock of Roger Maris would have been all but eliminated.

The Freeze of 1963-1968; Expansion

In the 1901-present history of MLB the aggregate BA has gravitated to a level +/- .260. Anything +/-5% of that norm like, .273 recaptures the pre-WW II years like 1941 with Williams’ .406 and DiMaggio’s 56 game hit streak making headlines. Anything on that – range, @ .247 or so is regarded as a lighter hitting climate. A decade like the 1920s with league Bas @ .287 is a period of outlying performance, with a an NL 1930 [.303] being an outright anomaly.

So, periods with averages @ .253 - .267 ranges are not particularly astounding and the game batting dynamics are, overall, close to the norm.

So let’s look at a few years that may reasonably lead us into the 1960s.

By 1949, WW II is over, with many careers ending as a result of the War, and a general turnover to “new blood” taking to the diamond. If we take 1959 as a decade marker apart from that 1949 checkpoint, and with no expansion taking place [but Korea taking a very few stars], we can segue into and through the 1960s.

Season…………….AL BA………………….NL BA

1949………………. .263…………………… .262
1959………………. .253……………………. .260
1960………………. .255……………………. .255
1961………………. .256 [AL now 10 teams]. .262
1962………………. .255……………………. .261 [NL now 10 teams]

NOTE: In actual year OF expansion[s], AL and NL average were UP

1963……………….. .247…………………… .261
1964……………….. .247……………………. .254
1965……………….. .242……………………. .249
1966……………….. .240……………………. .256
1967……………….. .236……………………. .249
1968……………….. .230……………………. .243

In point of fact, the “freeze” was not uniform to both leagues, nor was it a tidy linear decline for the NL at all. In three of the six seasons, the NL actually hovered to normal averages very close to those that prevailed, post WW II in the earlier-mid 1950s.

The marked decline was peculiar to the AL, and suggests that franchise management of farm systems may have had as much to do with talent pool dilution as expansion did. One might well expect dilution to result from expansion, but only when two factors bring it about:

-expansion exceeds capacity to absorb it;

-expansion is abrupt with insufficient planning

Expansion & Population

Many factors enter into expansion planning, including geography, transportation infrastructure and population clusters, generally measured by the Government is terms of Statistical Metropolitan Areas [SMSA]. However, basic to expansion is the population available to support the expansion.



U.S. Population………….Year………..MLB Franchises………POP/Franchise
[millions] [millions]

123.2…………………….1930………………..16………………...7.7
132.2……………………..1940……………….16…………………8.3
150.5……………………..1950………………..16…………………9.4

If demographers were competent enough to project the 18.5% population growth between 1950 and 1960, to 179.3 million, they might have encouraged MLB and prospective franchise owners that expansion held promise for sound returns. If they arrived at 8.0m POP per franchise, their math might have gone something like this:

179.3 million people @ 8.0 POP/Franchise = 22.4 franchises supportable by 1960 projected population. That would make expansion to 20 teams a conservative move, all other dynamics being in place.

However, as I mentioned above, farm system structure must be in place, so a purely “inside the organization” factor must be addressed, one over which demographers have no control at all.

If performance statistics are notably skewed by expansion; and, if one League is notably less effected, then the problem lies with franchise farm management, not available talent pools. Some franchise owners heard the call of the cash register before they heeded the call to player development. The impact was not immediate, but delayed. It was also more League specific in both nature, slope and depth of decline.

Tinkering with strike zones and mound elevations [1969]to raise offense levels apparently worked by 1970 when the AL rose to .250 and the NL climbed to .258.
Maris, Killebrew, Colavito and company had little or nothing to do with batting declines than began to be noted, for real, three full years after the “insult” to the record book.


GS then turns to the strike zone, which he describes as “TOP of the shoulder [caps mine]
to BOTTOM of knees” [caps also mine].

In reality, here’s:

Rule 2.00 - The Strike Zone

“The Strike Zone is defined as that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball]. “

Please NOTE: The officials rules clearly identify a horizontal MIDPOINT between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants. To any competent reader, that is a far cry from the upper part of the shoulders; and in the 1920s and 1930s, the midpoint was taken to be the batter’s armpit. Eventually, as uniform lettering became more pronounced, “the letters” became the upper level horizontal line of the strike zone. The lower limit has roughly been interpreted in a departure from the strictest interpretation of the rule, as written, such that, in practice, a strike is “at the knees.”

Since the 17” width of home plate has not been modified, the width of the strike zone [where the ball crosses the front of the plate, relative to the width of the plate, varies ONLY with the generosity or austerity of the umpire on “close ones,” on the line or at the corners..
GS, then alluding to old-timers whom I mentioned as “knowing how to pitch” not looking so hot when, in 1969 their strike zone was shrunk. His punch line” “Stange coincidence – huh?”

I’d say, not only “strange” but miraculous, since many of the guys I spoke of were dead by 1969.
The rest of the post, of guys not being smart enough to hits HRs between 1911 and Babe Ruth, or guys forgetting how to steal bases between 1930 and 1969, is a bit too “Alice through the Looking Glass” for me.

This post is written mostly because I find the topic interesting and because there may be others, as interested, who may want to pick up the debate, whether in agreement or disagreement with my own points. It is decidedly NOT intended to engage in childishness with a poster more interested in garthering attention to himself than participating in a discussion.

So be it.

[Grandstander]

nan:

GS then proceeded to fix the slump first on two major factors, Roger Maris 1961 record-breaking, asterisk winning 61 HR season over an extebnded schedule; and expansion. In addition to Maris

You did not read very carefully, did you? I did not fix the blame for the "slump" on Maris and expansion, I fixed it on the commissioner and owners overeaction to Maris and expansion. Go back and read it again, it is as I say. My argument was actually that there never was a real slump of any sort, not one where any fault could be placed on the hitters suddenly being less talented. Talent remained the same, conditions were altered greatly when the strike zone was expanded. The results for the next five seasons scream the obvious, well, obvious to all save apparently you.

See nan, you are all puffy and ponderous and reactionary...and you aren't even reacting to what was actually argued. Again, you make it very difficult to take your lengthy presentations seriously when you evidence such sloppy habits with regard to comprehending that which was presented. Because you screwed up in understanding what was said to you, and there isn't any excuse for it, then you render all that you write suspect. Proving that something I wrote is incorrect first requires you to actually grasp what I wrote and then argue against that. Arguing against your own misinterpretation or misrepresentation, well, that's an awfully big waste of time, isn't it?

You are driven by some hyper sensitivity demon which requires you to try and answer every single tiny point made by the opposition, and this seems even more ridiculous when people notice that you missed out on the big picture entirely.

I know that you will not listen to me nor will you accept any criticism from me, nor will you ever even consider for a moment that the problems you seem to have with me are entirely of your own making.

But you should....otherwise you remain a time wasting, boring poster.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

nan:

You did not read very carefully, did you? I did not fix the blame for the "slump" on Maris and expansion, I fixed it on the commissioner and owners overeaction to Maris and expansion. Go back and read it again, it is as I say. My argument was actually that there never was a real slump of any sort, not one where any fault could be placed on the hitters suddenly being less talented. Talent remained the same, conditions were altered greatly when the strike zone was expanded. The results for the next five seasons scream the obvious, well, obvious to all save apparently you.

If nothing else, I've revealed you for the insecure, attention-seeking @$$ you inevitably reveal yourself to be. I enjoyed about two hours of reviewing baseball's past in light of your post; and as I made clear, my INTENT had little to do with responding to your nonsense, item by item, but with keeping the thread going on a higher plane.

See nan, you are all puffy and ponderous and reactionary...and you aren't even reacting to what was actually argued. Again, you make it very difficult to take your lengthy presentations seriously when you evidence such sloppy habits with regard to comprehending that which was presented. Because you screwed up in understanding what was said to you, and there isn't any excuse for it, then you render all that you write suspect. Proving that something I wrote is incorrect first requires you to actually grasp what I wrote and then argue against that. Arguing against your own misinterpretation or misrepresentation, well, that's an awfully big waste of time, isn't it?

Perhaps a course in succinct writing will help you here. Your diatribes, which vacillate between personal attack and imaginary reference, make your arguments those of one in a schizophrenic episode, not making it clear whose ideas you are expressing at any one time, or to what purpose.

You are driven by some hyper sensitivity demon which requires you to try and answer every single tiny point made by the opposition, and this seems even more ridiculous when people notice that you missed out on the big picture entirely.

I might very well be the LEAST driven person in your acquaintance. I retired many years ago, right at the moment a "dream job" within the organization was mine for the asking, and in which two years of added career years would have earned me 5 years of pension basis. After 30+ years I just shrugged and suggested to my wife, "Why bother?" She agreed; and off we went to Florida.

However, your typical, and unknowing "observation" about me, does touch on something about which I care a great deal. That is, good company.

Whether it's in personal social settings, small or large, I love being in with good people who care about each other, are interested in any wide, weird or fanciful topics of discussion, who know how to listen [as well as converse] and who possess enough civility and maturity for me to seek their company. I can then be genuinely flattered just realizing the appreciation is mutually shared.

I'm not talking "deep" and pensive people here, either. We can talk baseball, math, Lost or rehashed episodes of Seinfeld, or current events; and there are some elevated moments of disagreement. Fits of giggles are broadly welcome. You just don't come away from those exchanges feeling as if you've been bitten by fleas and mites in a sandbox.

I know that you will not listen to me nor will you accept any criticism from me, nor will you ever even consider for a moment that the problems you seem to have with me are entirely of your own making.

No. By this time I feel sorry for you. The topic is NEVER about the topic; it's about Grandstander. For a long time I accepted this as a personal and private issue best left in your own personal care. When you attempted to lace into me I always tried to repond with a degree of civility until your unreason took over. Then you usually retreated with a predictable parting shot like, "I'm done with you. I wash my hands of you."

I always referred to this as "taking your bat and ball and going home." [And you know this. I called that pattern on you, even before you did it, too many times to remember]. [And, only when your personal sliming of those disagreeing with you got too putrid to bear].

But you should....otherwise you remain a time wasting, boring poster.

This last bit [what I should] having to do with my "issues" with you being of my own making, is ludicrous.

It's a little like Mike Mazurki's scene in "Murder, My Sweet," when Moose Malloy shows his single social bit of politeness, when he says to the B-girl, "So far you rate me polite, right?"

Well, unlike Moose Malloy. I choose to be polite without wrecking the joint and dismembering the owner. I'll leave the nasty and childish tantrums to you, if it helps get the bile out of your system.

Anyone else want to discuss the topic? I'm done with any and all personal tangents and off-topic diatribes wrought by petulant self-centered brats of any age. [Yes, Virginia, there are 50 year old + brats among us].

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

nan: The causes were Roger Maris and expansion. When Maris blasted his 61 homeruns and Mantle was on a pace to hit as many or more until a late season injury confined him to 54, and in that same year Norm Cash went crazy with an incredible year at the plate, and Killibrew and Colavito also topped 40 homeruns, overreaction followed.

P.S. This is EXACTLY was GS wrote.

[Grandstander]

Well, nan, exacly as I indicated, you were seized by some need to defend every single tiny thing, and you also showed yourself to be rather immature with the name calling.

Geez, aren't you the oldest guy in all FanHome? You post on a high school level of emotional hysteria.

No one is reading these lengthy posts of yours, not me, not anyone. Are you not aware of this?

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Well, nan, exacly as I indicated, you were seized by some need to defend every single tiny thing, and you also showed yourself to be rather immature with the name calling.

Geez, aren't you the oldest guy in all FanHome? You post on a high school level of emotional hysteria.

No one is reading these lengthy posts of yours, not me, not anyone. Are you not aware of this?

YOU most certainly are. Pathetic!

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Geez, aren't you the oldest guy in all FanHome? You post on a high school level of emotional hysteria.

You know, I was about to let this go. But, no. No indeed. Why should I?

Read it. Read what you wrote. What in the name of all that's good and holy [or delightfully naughty] does my AGE have to do with anything?

Are you such a craven cretin that you have humanity neatly divvied up like sorting boxes in the post office? Are you that regressed a twit as to have an imaginary icon for each age class you encounter?

Please, keep writing ever longer and increasingly angry and rambling irrationalities. You are becoming onionesque, with each layer peeled away revealing the tawdry spirit of a Dorian Gray wannabe.

Age is a number.

[Grandstander]

The cool thing is that I need to write but a sentence or two to force you to write a heroic length response, of which I read the first line or two. You can't help yourself, can you?

[nanwynn]

Baseball anyone? I believe the strikeout record [by batters] being threatened by 3 at one time was the topic at hand [once upon a time].

I'm hoping somebody picks it up. It could be interesting in an historic sense, if it's allowed to go on without childish graffiti.

[Triad]

On the original question, I think negative records such as batter strikeouts, pitcher walks, balks, wild pitches, caught stealing, etc., are much more apt to come in clumps than positive records are. To succeed in a positive record, you must strive and excel in a similar goal to all the other players. But to fail in a negative record, all it can require is to have a big contract or be on a team that can't unload you, and then simply fall apart.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

So, are we to believe that in track and field, in swimming, in weight lifting etc, modern athletes are considerably superior to the ones who came before, but somehow or other baseball talent has remained stagnant and the better players were performing when Ruth and Grove were out there?

GS, it's not the current athletes who are necessarily better, but it's the atmosphere of the times they are in. Put Usain Bolt in 1936, and he'd likely be fairly close to Jesse Owens. Put Jesse Owens in 2008, and he'd contend for a medal. Thus, you can't credit an athlete for the time he's born in, or penalize another for being in an earlier time.

Grandstander, I will grant you that today's overall competition in baseball is better than that of the early 1900s, but I think you're overstating the effect somewhat. An indication of competition level can be garnered from the variance in team winning percentages as well as in individual player performances. There were greater extremes relative to the norm back then, however not quite to the extent your hypothesis would suggest.

Baseball is going to be less affected by the rising athletic skills anyway. Track stars end up on the gridiron. Pitching isn't about being able to lift weights. Batting discipline and command of the hitting zone have little to do with strength and speed. Tell Greg Maddux he's athletic, and you'll get a big laugh. Even Roger Clemens isn't buff. Pitching, of all positions, is not about athleticism. That's why there aren't many black pitchers. Speed and strength don't help at that position. Nor do they at catcher. Similar demographics.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Isn't that an incredibly unreasonable belief in light of what we know from those other sports? Today's players are bigger, stronger, faster, have better nutrition and training, and with enhanced salaries, are able to devote themselves to their sport and preparation for it year round, as opposed to the old timers who had to sell insurance during the off season to make ends meet.

This can mean that there are more great players now, but it doesn't necessarily mean that today's best players are that far above yesterday's best players. For every great player back in Ruth's time, there may be two, and for every excellent player back then, there may be three or four. And for every very good player back then, there may a half dozen. The pool back then was diminished, with segregation, lower population, narrower demographics, fewer teams, tough economic times, lower salaries, and less developed systems. But let's not confuse the pool of players with the elite of each time period. If a guy like Ruth grew up in today's environment and had access to modern advances, there's no good reason to assume he wouldn't still be a first-tier Hall of Famer.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Today's pitchers have no such luxury, they have no choice but to go hard from the start. It is because today's hitters are so much better than the ones that oldtimers felt comfortable enough with so that they coasted through the at bat and saved themselves for the few really tough hitters.

I don't think it's that today's hitters are better that pitchers can't go as deep in a game or pace themselves. It's because there's more of an offensive climate now, and it's turned into the style of a power game and a specialized game. It's more a matter of style, not ability. Batters like to go deeper in the count, and pitchers choose to nibble more. If pitchers would go straight at the batters, then they wouldn't be as apt to reach 120 pitches by the 7th inning.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Hitting is harder today.....period. It is impossible to believe otherwise. The batters are facing harder throwers with greater varieties of pitches, they are trying to drive balls through massively improved defenses featuring players who are way faster than the outfielders Ruth had to frustrate.

See, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you say that today's hitters are better than yesteryear, and yet you still say that hitting is harder than it was long ago. This sounds like an arbitrary assessment.

Today's batters have the same basic technological tools that today's pitchers and fielders do. Hitters have not gotten more at a disadvantage over the years. So it seems to balance out for the most part. If anything, it's tilted a little away from pitching. Hitting requires more today, true, but at the same time, hitters are also given more tools to utilize today. I wouldn't derive from such a phenomenon that today's hitters are much better than Cobb, Gehrig or Foxx.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

In every sport where exacting measurements may be used to compare the past and present, the present is clearly established as far superior. Not only have the old world records for speed and strength been eclipsed, but they have been surpassed in such a manner that today you may find 50 track stars who can beat the world record times established before the 1940's. Today's women are faster than the fastest men of the 1930's.

My high school time in the 200m run was better than the women's gold medal time in the 1960 Olympics. Does that make me a gold medalist in that era?

Originally Posted by Grandstander

The Ruth era hitters facing today's pitcher's would not be able to put up the fat numbers they posted against weaker arms. The Ruth era pitchers would get raked by today's hitters. There would be ten guys or more as good or better than Ruth and ten guys who had better pitching records than Walter Johnson or Carl Hubbel.