Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="connie, post: 2733380, member: 7882"] The athletes of yesteryear would certainly perform better, as a result of many of things you mentioned, had they played today. But in playing with and against today's contemporaries, their stats would suffer. Hornsby would be a better player. But he would [I]not [/I]hit .424. Cobb would be a better player, but he would [I]not [/I]hit .400 three times. Ruth would (probably) not hit 60 HRs. Pete Alexander would not pitch 16 shutouts in a season. But that is because all the other athletes one is playing against are generally better than those playing 80 years ago. One reason that competition is better now is because all the other players benefit from the things you mention. The other reason is because the pool of available talent is much larger. This is what I mean by referring to a decrease in the difference between best and worst, with an overall improvement in play. You see this in virtually every sport. It is an inevitable consequence of increasing competition, expanding pools of talent, and reaching the very limits of what flesh and bone can endure. And this is why there is nothing particularly magical about hitting .400. Just depends on how good you are and (critically) who else is playing. The decline in the appearance of the .400 hitter is evidence that batters today are actually [I]better[/I] than they used to be. Enjoyed the weekend. Thanks, Jordy. [/QUOTE]