Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="JordyG, post: 2732947, member: 6819"] Well Connie, to me that batting average statistic is a bit misleading. Ballparks became smaller, the strike zone decreased, and more importantly, more people from other countries were included, rather allowed, to play the game at the major league level. It could be argued that if such players were allowed to play at the beginning of the live ball era those numbers would be commensurate. Also, let's not forget my original conceit, that Delahanty's feat which occurred during that dead ball era is as great a feat as any equivalent today in an era of a live BB, smaller parks and bigger gloves. Now don't get me wrong. Today's athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, and better conditioned. Better condition year round using better techniques to hone their skills. I just don't think a player hitting .350 then is the equivalent of .310 today. Not with better and "live-er" bats, balls, artificial surfaces, Dan Hurley's, lower mounds, and shrunken strike zones. I just think .310 then and .310 today are just that: the same averages in different eras. As for your comparative pitching numbers, well I agree. Nevertheless, you can't have it both ways. You can't say .350 from Delahanty's era is equivalent to .310 in the modern era, then acknowledge the inflated hitting numbers that occured because the mounds were lowered. In fact, it seems the other way 'round. I do agree with your final observation that raw numbers say little without context. Man, this stuff is why I linger on the BY and practically no other site. People like you. By the way, as a music lover I know you'll appreciate that fact that last night three friends and I attended Sullivan Fortner and his trio with Ambrose Akinmusrie. Just extremely high level, intellectual jazz. Incredible. June 1 it'll be just me watching Joey DeFrancesco and his band organ groover band. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach