Semi-OT: Improved performance, sports and other fields: are there limits?

[connie]

In his 1996 book Full House, author Stephen Jay Gould dedicates a 6-chapter section to the extinction of the .400 hitter in MLB. His thesis is that contrary to popular myth the decline of the .400 hitter does not signal a decrease in the ability of hitters. Rather, it reflects an increase in talent and ability among players that reach the big leagues. In the "early days", there was a considerable difference between the best players and the worst. The best could perform statistically better relative to their rather lackluster teammates and opponents. Hence, there were many .400 hitters in the early 20th century and none after 1941. As the sport developed, increased pools of talent became available; techniques were developed; equipment was improved; strategies were sharpened; players became bigger, stronger, faster. (This is demonstrably true in every single sport that measures human ability against some absolute--like a stop watch, a weight, a height, a distance. Why not baseball?) Eventually, the differences between the best and the worst hitters decreased. Gould argues that this trend toward increased "excellence" in sports reflects a kind of evolution within a relatively closed system. And he suggests that it explains why parity in sports increases over time, while simultaneously all participants increase in ability and performance. (And this is why I believe that the worst MLB team of today would soundly defeat the 1927 Yankees.)

I have often thought of Gould's thesis as applied to NCAAWB and particularly UConn. I wonder if what we are witnessing over the past 10-15 years is something comparable to the early years of major league baseball. Or perhaps the early days of the NHL (featuring dominance by the Canadians). Division I NCAAWB began in the early 80s. Maybe we are still relatively early on in the history of this sport. And maybe that explains, if only in part, why the difference between the best and worst is perhaps larger than it will be in the next 10-20 years.

Or is UConnWB an anomaly within a system where all tend toward increased excellence and parity?

 

[huskyd]

I agree that all of the elements of an improving sport apply to modern WCBB. The simplest formula for success might be talent+coaching=success. Most believe that women athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, and that there is an expanding pool of them available. It is NOT true that UConn gets all of the best players; it gets some. The most successful WCBB teams have some good players. But it is also true that the Huskies ARE an anomaly--and that points to the second part of the formula, coaching. IMO it is in coaching that UConn excels and exceeds the ability of the current batch of college coaches. It has been argued that Geno is not only a great coach of women but as fine a basketball coach as there has ever been regardless of gender. Some of this is subjective, but it's difficult to argue with the hard statistics: the Huskies are simply the most successful program ever by almost every metric.
Is that Jane Austen?

 

[CMC'72]

Is UConnWB the leading edge of overall increased excellence in women's baseketball?

Absolutely. Erudite and well spoken with very well syntax!

 

[RedStickHusky]

It has been argued that Geno is not only a great coach of women but as fine a basketball coach as there has ever been regardless of gender.

This is obviously a difficult proposition to argue against but I don't believe the coaching gap is a matter of x's and o's, which are after all somewhat finite. The ability of Geno (and don't dismiss CD's role) to get players to accept seemingly unrealistic expectations and meet them is what, to my mind, makes them different. I'm pretty sure that if Geno was coaching chess players or horseshoe players, they'd be champions. WCBB is his canvas but his art transcends.

 

[donalddoowop]

Absolutely. Erudite and well spoken with very well syntax!

Yes, What you said.

 

[UcMiami]

I agree with the idea that within a sport as it grows and matures it becomes more difficult for a team to dominate within their universe of teams, but individual outliers in terms of talent still exist. You still get individuals who perform outside the normal bounds. Specific to professional team sports money for the 'league' and for the individual players has specifically led to changes that make domination more difficult - free agency, salary caps, draft processes, and schedules are all designed to make team domination less likely. Even the 'money' college sports, by limiting scholarships, enacting and enforcing recruiting rules and 'academic requirements' have tried to balance out the competition field. Add in the allowing of freshman to play and having the best players leave early and that further hampers 'domination' in the college game. And while the definition of dominance may change, you still get domination at a team level in pro sports - The NBA was 'certainly' mature when Michael and the Bulls dominated, and the NFL is mature but the Patriots are defying the odds.
As far as individuals in team sports and the .400 hitter, a lot of that has to do with changes in the strategy of how the game gets played - relief pitches and five day rotations as well as more scientific understanding and control of pitches mean batters are not facing pitchers who have already thrown 300 pitches in a week and they are throwing a more strategically coached assortment of pitches.
And individuals are creating new records all the time within both individual and team sports that do not measure pure athleticism - Serena Williams, Tiger Woods, Hank Aaron and then the juice boys in baseball, passing records in football are strategy and rule driven probably, but rushing records are still being broken. The same for team records for wins in a season.

As it relates to WCBB - it is hard to imagine Geno's records being broken because it is certainly not a very 'mature' sport, and between an increasingly competitive universe, and quite possibly changes in the rules that govern it (number of scholarships, stipends, quarters and backcourt violations, shorter shot clock, more players jumping early to the pros? whatever) it will be harder and harder to maintain dominance for long stretches. But really only two coaches did that to date, so even in an immature sport it wasn't 'easy'.

 

[connie]

I agree that all of the elements of an improving sport apply to modern WCBB. The simplest formula for success might be talent+coaching=success. Most believe that women athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, and that there is an expanding pool of them available. It is NOT true that UConn gets all of the best players; it gets some. The most successful WCBB teams have some good players. But it is also true that the Huskies ARE an anomaly--and that points to the second part of the formula, coaching. IMO it is in coaching that UConn excels and exceeds the ability of the current batch of college coaches. It has been argued that Geno is not only a great coach of women but as fine a basketball coach as there has ever been regardless of gender. Some of this is subjective, but it's difficult to argue with the hard statistics: the Huskies are simply the most successful program ever by almost every metric.
Is that Jane Austen? View attachment 19813

Hypatia

 

[connie]

I agree with the idea that within a sport as it grows and matures it becomes more difficult for a team to dominate within their universe of teams, but individual outliers in terms of talent still exist. You still get individuals who perform outside the normal bounds. Specific to professional team sports money for the 'league' and for the individual players has specifically led to changes that make domination more difficult - free agency, salary caps, draft processes, and schedules are all designed to make team domination less likely. Even the 'money' college sports, by limiting scholarships, enacting and enforcing recruiting rules and 'academic requirements' have tried to balance out the competition field. Add in the allowing of freshman to play and having the best players leave early and that further hampers 'domination' in the college game. And while the definition of dominance may change, you still get domination at a team level in pro sports - The NBA was 'certainly' mature when Michael and the Bulls dominated, and the NFL is mature but the Patriots are defying the odds.
As far as individuals in team sports and the .400 hitter, a lot of that has to do with changes in the strategy of how the game gets played - relief pitches and five day rotations as well as more scientific understanding and control of pitches mean batters are not facing pitchers who have already thrown 300 pitches in a week and they are throwing a more strategically coached assortment of pitches.
And individuals are creating new records all the time within both individual and team sports that do not measure pure athleticism - Serena Williams, Tiger Woods, Hank Aaron and then the juice boys in baseball, passing records in football are strategy and rule driven probably, but rushing records are still being broken. The same for team records for wins in a season.

As it relates to WCBB - it is hard to imagine Geno's records being broken because it is certainly not a very 'mature' sport, and between an increasingly competitive universe, and quite possibly changes in the rules that govern it (number of scholarships, stipends, quarters and backcourt violations, shorter shot clock, more players jumping early to the pros? whatever) it will be harder and harder to maintain dominance for long stretches. But really only two coaches did that to date, so even in an immature sport it wasn't 'easy'.

Thank you! I love it! And I wish I could respond in length. You are absolutely correct about individual outliers in talent. Gould addresses that (discussing George Brett and Rod Carew). He states that none of this means there can never be another .400 hitter. However, there is a wall or limit to what a human can do. No one will ever run a 1 hour marathon. The outliers' degree of difference from his or her contemporaries becomes increasingly smaller as the sport develops. (Gould provides lovely charts showing how record-breaking times in the men's and women's marathon show a gradual asymptotic decline over time. Each year or so, the record is broken, but by increasingly smaller margins. Same w/r/t standard deviations around batting averages for all players over 110 years of professional baseball. The regularity of the decline of the standard deviation is (as he writes) so regular that the pattern "looks like a plot for a law of nature.")

Gould also discusses how the rules of baseball changed to meet the "advances" fostered within the sport. And that makes it a bit challenging to perform meaningful statistical comparisons. In time, the rules coalesced. 90 feet between the bases. Wooden bats (only). Limited glove size. Etc. If you have a chance, read the book. It is glorious.

 

[UcMiami]

Thank you! I love it! And I wish I could respond in length. You are absolutely correct about individual outliers in talent. Gould addresses that (discussing George Brett and Rod Carew). He states that none of this means there can never be another .400 hitter. However, there is a wall or limit to what a human can do. No one will ever run a 1 hour marathon. The outliers' degree of difference from his or her contemporaries becomes increasingly smaller as the sport develops. (Gould provides lovely charts showing how record-breaking times in the men's and women's marathon show a gradual asymptotic decline over time. Each year or so, the record is broken, but by increasingly smaller margins. Same w/r/t standard deviations around batting averages for all players over 110 years of professional baseball. The regularity of the decline of the standard deviation is (as he writes) so regular that the pattern "looks like a plot for a law of nature.")

Gould also discusses how the rules of baseball changed to meet the "advances" fostered within the sport. And that makes it a bit challenging to perform meaningful statistical comparisons. In time, the rules coalesced. 90 feet between the bases. Wooden bats (only). Limited glove size. Etc. If you have a chance, read the book. It is glorious.

It sounds interesting, but I am not buying it completely. For example the 4 minute mile was thought to be a 'human limit' until Banister broke it, and suddenly everyone could. You see bunching up in many disciplines, and then suddenly a Beaman jumps a foot longer, or Ledecky happens! Again those outliers that raise the bar not by increments but by shattering the conventional wisdom. And the same for none pure athleticism sports - back to Tiger or Gretsky, or maybe even Gabby?! Perhaps there is a finite point for humans in speed and strength, and stamina, but evolution is not strictly a linear process, and 'freaks' occur whose muscle, or bone, or cardio are different from 'normal' and some of them pursue sport and excel in ways that are not normal.
If you look at basketball, in my lifetime we have gone from a men's game welded to the floor to one where every male college player can dunk. That is basically 50 years and a huge change in the physical capabilities of the typical high school player vs. the best pros in the world. They actually outlawed dunks in the college game because of a single player - that is how great the change has been. Dr. J was a phenomenon, today he would be average.

 

[connie]

It sounds interesting, but I am not buying it completely. For example the 4 minute mile was thought to be a 'human limit' until Banister broke it, and suddenly everyone could. You see bunching up in many disciplines, and then suddenly a Beaman jumps a foot longer, or Ledecky happens! Again those outliers that raise the bar not by increments but by shattering the conventional wisdom. And the same for none pure athleticism sports - back to Tiger or Gretsky, or maybe even Gabby?! Perhaps there is a finite point for humans in speed and strength, and stamina, but evolution is not strictly a linear process, and 'freaks' occur whose muscle, or bone, or cardio are different from 'normal' and some of them pursue sport and excel in ways that are not normal.
If you look at basketball, in my lifetime we have gone from a men's game welded to the floor to one where every male college player can dunk. That is basically 50 years and a huge change in the physical capabilities of the typical high school player

The periodic "Bob Beamon's" actually fall squarely within the theory, which addresses systemic changes that are undoubtedly not uniformly smooth but which do reflect relatively predictable long-term narrowing of standard deviations.

With the increase in wider pools of talent, abilities, techniques, and the like, the differences between the very best become incrementally smaller and smaller. As we approach the limits of human ability, it becomes increasingly unlikely (not impossible) that records will be broken. Likewise, the measureable amounts by which records are broken become less and less.

The mile race is a perfect illustration of this point. From the early 1860s to the 1890s, the record time in the men's race was cut by over 10 seconds. It took another 50 years for another 10 second reduction in the best time. Bannister broke the 4 minute mark in 1954. It took another 10 years to shave more than 6 seconds off that mark. In another 10 years the record had been cut by merely another 4 seconds. Since then (1975) it took 24 years to reach what remains the record: 3:43.13.

In short, in the last 47 years only 6 seconds have been shaved off what was then the standard. There is every reason to believe that while the record will be broken, that will be by the slightest of margins (barring some radical break in technique; and that in turn will merely reset the inevitable process toward yet another incremental decline in record times).

The point is virtually a law of nature: as the limit of what flesh and blood can endure is approached, the differences among the very best will be reduced to the most infinitesimal amount. Your freak of nature may well appear. But the record they break will be by the smallest of margins.

I encourage readers to look up records in various sports and see if the theory is confirmed.

 

[connie]

As far as individuals in team sports and the .400 hitter, a lot of that has to do with changes in the strategy of how the game gets played - relief pitches and five day rotations as well as more scientific understanding and control of pitches mean batters are not facing pitchers who have already thrown 300 pitches in a week and they are throwing a more strategically coached assortment of pitches.

Sorry I did not have time to respond mid-week or earlier. But since you took the time to provide a thoughtful comment, I will respond now . . . (And by the way, all of this is taken from Gould's book. I make absolutely no claim to originality of insight. I just happen to find the thesis and supporting argument convincing.)

re. the .400 hitter . . . What you address is part of one of the conventional explanations for the decline of the .400 hitter--i.e., that the decline is the result of various factors (better pitching, new pitches, middle and late-inning relievers, better fielding, better defensive strategies, better management, analysis of hitter's strengths and weaknesses, tougher schedules, west coast road swings, longer seasons, night games, etc.) that have made batting more difficult in recent decades. As a result, there is an overall decline in leading averages.

What I am suggesting is something fundamentally different -- i.e., that the decline in the .400 hitter reflects the general improvement in play (not tougher conditions, which no doubt exist). The proposition may seem counter-intuitive. (After all, why would lower success rates among the best hitters mean that hitters are getting better?) But it makes sense in light of the plausibility for general improvement in play by and among all players--pitchers, hitters, and fielders. This general improvement follows from, among other things, larger pools of available talent, better training, bigger, faster, stronger players, improvements in strategy and technique. It also makes sense given the general improvements in performance in many other sports that measure personal achievement via an objective measure (like a stopwatch). (As I said, if athletes have gotten better in track and field, weight-lifting, speed-skating, etc., then why wouldn't the same be true of hitters in the MLB?)

As to dominance of one team in a given sport (the Bulls, the Patriots) . . . statistically, the rule is that the standard deviation of winning percentage for all teams decreases through time. (I have not done the calculations for the NBA or NFL. But in MLB the standard deviation decline is a demonstrable fact from 1900 to 1990, the last year for which I have seen the statistics.) This does not rule out periodic dominance. (These are not iron laws of nature.) But on the whole, the differences between the best and worst grows increasingly narrow. The result is a reduced likelihood (again, not impossibility) for records to be broken (whether winning streaks, consecutive championships, etc.).

The point of all this is that general improvement is necessarily bound by a "wall" beyond which human abilities simply cannot pass. No pitcher will ever be able to throw a 300mph fastball. No hitter will ever be able to achieve a 5 millisecond reaction time to a pitch thrown at 150MPH from 60 feet 6 inches away. But players can on average and in time improve and approach the "wall", with each step toward the limit of possibility becoming increasingly smaller and smaller. When the best of the best compete under such circumstances, even the worst of them is on par with an average player from years ago. In the context, of MLB, the result is that the standard deviation of all hitters grows less and less as all play improves. And indeed, this is exactly what we find in the the MLB. From 1870 to 1980, there is a fairly regular decline in the difference between the highest BA and league mean, as well as the lowest BA and league mean. Just as remarkably, the standard deviation of batting averages for all full-time players by year for the first 100 years of professional baseball declines regularly.

 

[connie]

It sounds interesting, but I am not buying it completely. For example the 4 minute mile was thought to be a 'human limit' until Banister broke it, and suddenly everyone could. You see bunching up in many disciplines, and then suddenly a Beaman jumps a foot longer, or Ledecky happens!

re. Ledecky . . . As you probably already know, she holds the world record in the 800m freestyle, at 8:04.79. Let's look at where that record fits in w/r/t the history of that event.

Below is a chart showing the 800m Freestyle World Record Time Progression, from the early 20th century to the present. Notice how over time, there is an asymptotic trend toward decreased increments in changes to the record? Again, as we reach the limitations of what is humanly possible, it becomes increasingly more and more difficult to surpass the fastest time. And the amount by which such time is surpassed becomes less and less. On occasion, there may be a blip--an usual change in the amount by which the record is broken. But on average, the amount of change gets less and less. Moreover, even the occasional "blip" becomes less dramatic relative to the existing record.

This perfectly illustrates Gould's theory. Beautiful.

 

[NVUConnFan]

I love this thread! Keep 'em coming Connie.

On a different, but analogous, note take intellect and technological advances. My understanding is that humans, on average, are no more intelligent today than they were hundreds if not thousands of years ago. However, technology has advanced in dramatic ways: in about the last 150 years there has been (to pick one of many areas) electricity, electronics, computers, cell phones, bionic implants, etc. Apparently these advances have nothing to do with human intellect if one subscribes to my first citing, but rather to "standing on the shoulders of giants" as attributed to Diego de Estella, Isaac Newton and others more recently. Maybe there is a sports analogy including the psychological one as pointed out about the Bannister sub four minute mile.

 

[NVUConnFan]

Hypatia

I had to look it up: female Greek mathematician, astronomer and philosopher in Egypt 350-415AD. Cool!

 

[connie]

And here's the men's marathon record over time. Same asymptotic slope:

 

[bags27]

Great, great thread and great avatar (she's one of my personal heroes as well: but you probably know that we don't have a picture of Hypatia herself: I believe that's picture of an unidentified woman from Roman Egypt that in modern times has been appropriated to Hypatia.).

But I am still trying to understand Gould. For one thing, a batter doesn't hit in isolation. Pitcher, defense, relief pitching, night baseball, travel, rising the mound (IIRC), etc--things everyone's discussed above--must condition the singular act of reading a pitch and swinging the bat at it. These are exogenous factors, separate from whether the time for the mile or the number of perfect bowling games or the lowest PGA score nears a limit--where opponents don't't prevent excellence of that individual but actually help it by creating parallel, rather than oppositional, competition.

And let's not forget that Williams barely hit 400--getting over 395.5 on the last day of the season, while George Brett seemed sure to beat it in 1980 and just faded at the end of the (now longer) season. So, it can well be a statistical anomaly that punctuated Gould's own equilibrium! (And seriously, is Gould over-determining baseball to make it conform to his theory of evolution? I dunno; just asking.)

But a great, great thread: thanks!

 

[NVUConnFan]

I realize that this board (thank goodness) does not allow political discussion, but be that as it may, thanks for the intellectual diversion. I personally needed it.

 

[lne001]

And let's not forget that Williams barely hit 400--getting over 395.5 on the last day of the season,

Don't leave out the best part of the story. The last day of the season was a double-header, and Williams was over .400 after the first game. He was given the option to sit out and not put the milestone in jeopardy. Instead he played, ending up going 6 for 8 for the two games and finishing at .406 for the season.

 

[lne001]

My understanding is that humans, on average, are no more intelligent today than they were hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

"Over the past 100 years, Americans' mean IQ has been on a slow but steady climb. Between 1900 and 2012, it rose nearly 30 points, which means that the average person of 2012 had a higher IQ than 95 percent of the population had in 1900." American Psychological Association, March 2013

The average American in 1900 would be classified as mildly mentally slow by today's standards. I know that does not make sense, but I've heard the same claim elsewhere.

 

[j66kicker]

"Over the past 100 years, Americans' mean IQ has been on a slow but steady climb. Between 1900 and 2012, it rose nearly 30 points, which means that the average person of 2012 had a higher IQ than 95 percent of the population had in 1900." American Psychological Association, March 2013

The average American in 1900 would be classified as mildly mentally slow by today's standards. I know that does not make sense, but I've heard the same claim elsewhere.

The average American today would be classified as mildly mentally slow by today's East Asian standards.

 

[lne001]

The average American today would be classified as mildly mentally slow by today's East Asian standards.

Not quite. Asians seem to test about 7-8 points higher than whites, but they are kicking our butt when it comes to demanding educational excellence from their children.

 

[NVUConnFan]

Not quite. Asians seem to test about 7-8 points higher than whites, but they are kicking our butt when it comes to demanding educational excellence from their children.

Well this thread took a turn, thanks to my post, I guess. I don't want to get into an intellect discussion because I know too many smart people including (apparently) posters on this board. Also, I'm not sure I trust statistics about intellect. I was only trying to point out that there is an analogy between intellect, technological achievement and sports. Maybe that was a poor analogy. Now, that is perhaps worthy of discussion.

 

[Bronxjeff]

Back to baseball for a minute, I wonder do batting coaches attempt the male practice players approach that Geno famously uses - of putting the team in increasingly impossible situations in practice so hat games seem easy in comparison?

In other words could you crank up the batting cage machine to 110, then 115 to get batters sped up beyond what they could ever see at the plate?

Kudos, Connie on one the most interesting threads!

 

[Bronxjeff]

Sorry to go further "into left field", but the batting 400 question, prompts me to vent on two other pet peeves that impact the supposed ability to measure baseball statistics across history:

Umpires don't call the strike zone as I remember learning it as a kid- from the numbers to the knees - which makes sense as the range for a level swing. Yogi I guess was a good example of outlier to that human ability.

Designated hitter - ugh! I enjoy the overall strategy of the game - obviously why I love watching Geno's teams - and this ruined half of the chess game in the AL. My sacrilegious proposal would be to compromise on a 10 batter rotation- the old DH'ers get to extend their careers but the pitchers still have to get in the box...

 

[DefenseBB]

"Over the past 100 years, Americans' mean IQ has been on a slow but steady climb. Between 1900 and 2012, it rose nearly 30 points, which means that the average person of 2012 had a higher IQ than 95 percent of the population had in 1900." American Psychological Association, March 2013

The average American in 1900 would be classified as mildly mentally slow by today's standards. I know that does not make sense, but I've heard the same claim elsewhere.

Sounds like the VolNation board vs. BoneYard....