Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seventy years ago, when Ted Williams hit .400, he was the first to do so in 11 years. It was not all that uncommon. Today, there isn't even anybody batting .370 in mid June, and if anybody hit over .370, they would be the first to do it in 11 years -- as rare an accomplishment at Williams' .400.
So what has fundamentally changed in baseball to make a batting average unreachable much over the mid-.300's?
The last two seasons in which there was a .400 hitter, the overall MLB BA was .277 and .262. A differential of 123 and 140 points. From 2000 to 2009, the MLB BA was .263, yet nobody batted over .372, only about 110 points above the league average. Over 70 years, a differential of 125 was achieved only twice.
In 1939, there was a sudden drop of over ten points in the MLB BA, yet Williams hit .400. And, in the past two years, there has been a similar sudden drop in the league BA.
I believe the reason is that there has been an increase in the glamor of the home run, and fewer batters are willing to settle for a high BA as the tradeoff of HR totals. With fewer players striving for .400, there will be less chance of it being achieved.
I believe the reason is that there has been an increase in the glamor of the home run, and fewer batters are willing to settle for a high BA as the tradeoff of HR totals. With fewer players striving for .400, there will be less chance of it being achieved.
No, that isn't it. As a database expands, the difference between the outliers and the mean contracts. The smaller the sampling group, the easier it is to be an extreme. Simply by expanding the number of players, it reduces the difference betwen the best and the next best.
No, that isn't it. As a database expands, the difference between the outliers and the mean contracts. The smaller the sampling group, the easier it is to be an extreme. Simply by expanding the number of players, it reduces the difference betwen the best and the next best.
If that were true, countries like Tonga and Barbados would win all the gold medals in the olympics, because their smaller populations would allow a greater difference between the mean running speed, and the outlier. China would have no chance, as their huge population would reduce the performances of their outliers closer to the mean.
The last two seasons in which there was a .400 hitter, the overall MLB BA was .277 and .262. A differential of 123 and 140 points. From 2000 to 2009, the MLB BA was .263, yet nobody batted over .372, only about 110 points above the league average. Over 70 years, a differential of 125 was achieved only twice.
In 1939, there was a sudden drop of over ten points in the MLB BA, yet Williams hit .400. And, in the past two years, there has been a similar sudden drop in the league BA.
I believe the reason is that there has been an increase in the glamor of the home run, and fewer batters are willing to settle for a high BA as the tradeoff of HR totals. With fewer players striving for .400, there will be less chance of it being achieved.
I kind of disagree with you here. Rod Carew hit .388 in 1977, George Brett hit .390 in 1980 and Tony Gwynn hit .394 in 1994, so some guys have gotten pretty close to .400.
It could happen again, a young speedy contact hitter could possibly do it again.
If that were true, countries like Tonga and Barbados would win all the gold medals in the olympics, because their smaller populations would allow a greater difference between the mean running speed, and the outlier. China would have no chance, as their huge population would reduce the performances of their outliers closer to the mean.
Apparently you failed to understand the explanation. Talking basic Statistics 101 here. You employed league averages to suggest why hitting .400 is not more difficult, I explained that the laws of statistics say differently.
I've no interest at all in the above sort of irrelevancies, there is no application for such information in the question before us. The larger the group, the less the distance between the outliers and the average. Do you think that this is false? If so, please explain and we shall revise the stat textbooks.
Over the long run, yes, that is true, the overall average will converge on the mean. But in a single performance or a short series of performances, an extreme outlier become more likely with a larger number of trials or samples. If ten people flip coins ten times each, it us unlikely that anybody will get more than 7 heads. But if 5,000 people flip coins, there will be an outlier who will get ten heads. A larger number of MLB players has a larger chance of a single season being an outlier.
You are the one who introduced the mathematical principle, and if it is true, you will have no trouble supplying a link from a recognized mathematician that explains it. Until you do, I am content to just let any posters here judge for themselves, and see no point in discussing it any further.
NewtoCa, Brett and Carew are the two I referenced as being about 125 above the league. Gwynn's was in a short season, and not taken into account.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks, folks. I'll be here all week!
