>
> Has anyone else read Stephen Jay Gould's analysis of why there are no .400
> hitters in baseball anymore? I have the book with those essays on my shelf
> at home (for the life of me I can't remember which one it is) and they're
> pretty fascinating.
>
> He postulates that changes in the game over the last 50 years have given a
> slight edge to pitchers, most notably the introduction of replacement or
> relief throwers. He takes into account statistically the advantages for
> hitters (including night games and well-lit stadiums). Good reading.
> One of his best essays ever. Classic Gould. "Losing the Edge" in the collection
>"The Flamingo's Smile". Along with his Hershey Bar and Mickey Mouse essays the thing
>that got me into reading science books. His point was that the overall quality of
>players has become more homogenous as baseball (as a surrogate for any complex
>system) matures. That is that as the system matures there is less variation. This
>might suggest that Gautam is correct about Pedro but alas this is not true because
>baseball has been destabalized by the increase in teams. Just as there were some
>truly poor players in the era before WWII (in part because the great black players
>weren't allowed in) there is now a wider range of skills. The best players will
>dominate as they always have. It just so happens that statistics for pitchers cannot
>float free. There is an irreducible lower limit to the number of runs you can give
>up. Forget about all the stuff about different conditions etc. I remember once when D!
!
ave Debushcer forward on the legen
dary Knicks teams of the 70s was asked how his team would fair againgst todays players
who are so much stronger. He shrugged and said that he and his teammates would have
been just as strong. But they would still be more skilled and smarter than todays
players. Bottom line, Michael Jordon, Walt Fraser Jerry West Oscar Robinson would have
been the best in any era they played in.
