Baseball, population, the watering down effect, and jobs to fill
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
While it is true that the athletes are spread out now more than ever, the population figures used to determine available talent have to be used a certain way.
It only matters to meaure playing age people. It doesn't help to count how many 58 year olds there are. People in general live longer now than before, so the population will be higher now, but not the playing age population.
What you need to see is the number of people born in a given time period, and figure how many would be available for professional use. Example...
From 1880-'85 there were appx 6.2 million American males born. Of prime playing age appx 1908
From 1953-'59 there were appx 10.3 million American males born. Of prime playing age appx 1982
From 1973-'77 there were appx 7.9 millions American males born. Of prime playing age appx 2000
Looking at the above, and using baseball, you have to understand two other big factors.
1) Infant mortality rate. The 1880's had a much worse infant mortality rate, and a higher percentage of those born at that time never made it past age two. The mortality rate stabilized after WWII and remained pretty constant from then till now. Those kids born in that time made it to adult hood at a higher rate than the turn of the century babies.
2) Race. The 1908 era only drew from white people. That 6.2 million figure represents non white people too. So 6.2 million weren't really available. The 1982 era, and the 2002 era both had their pick of the best non white players. The percentage is similar, but more latins have replace african american players.
Lets look at a one year example on what it means for a specific year.
In 1883 appx 1.2 million males born. Those people turn their prime age of 27 1910.
In 1956 appx 2.1 million males born. Those people turn their prime age of 27 in 1983.
In 1975 appx 1.5 million males born. Those people turn their prime age of 27 in 2002.
In 1910 there were 400 opening day roster spots to fill.
In 1983 there were 650 opening day roster spots to fill.
In 2002 there were 750 opening day roster spots to fill.
Without taking mortality rates into account, here are the appx number of 27 year olds per team available for MLB use in each of those three years.
# of 27 year olds available to draw from per team..
1910- 75,000 *If you figure in a 30% decrease due to non whites, then it is appx 52,500 per team.
1983- 80,769
2002- 50,000
You can see the vast difference between the available people available(compared to the jobs needed to fill) when looking at the eras.
When the term watered down is used now, just think that expansion added four more teams for 2002 compared to 1983, AND THERE WERE LESS PEOPLE TO DRAW FROM. 1983 had 80,000 27 year olds per team to choose from to fill their rosters. 2002 only had 50,000! THAT IS A LARGE DIFFERENCE! This is only 27 year olds. The numbers are pretty much the same for the ages before and after that age!
What about the other factors that would take athletes away from baseball?
1910 drew from kids/teens that played baseball as their choice of athletics to a very high degree.**
1983 drew from kids/teens that played baseball as their choice to a high degree, though less than 1910.
2002 drew from kids/teens that had more competition from other sports than any other time in history.
**Turn of the century exclusivity of baseball is probably offset by sickness/weakness of those kids that didn't die, and the fact that many strong able bodied kids/young adults were needed to work farms, factories, or business for families to make ends meat. Baseball wasn't even a viable choice for many, or even attempted. They didn't lose kids to other sports, but rather to life needs.
IMMIGRATION: Immigratin isn't part of the births, but most immigrants were already over age 19 when they came, and if they had kids here, then those kids were part of the birth count. Basically, immigration doesn't change things much. The best players from other countries were available for the 1983 era, just as they are now. They weren't of course in the 1910 era. But we already discounted the minority figure in that. The one demographic that has changed considerable from 1983 to 2002 is a large increase in latin players...but it coincides with a large decrease in African American players. The addition of Pacific rim players hasn't really made an impact yet, as they have basically been role players. The good ones can be counted on one hand that have made an impact. This is at the very beginning stage of changing to a higher degree though.
UNKNOWN: Each of those three eras have an unknow element to people available. Injuries in young adulthood would be harder to fix for the 1910 youth then in the other eras. Those could cost some kids. Jail. I would say jail effects the later eras more than the earlier one. Between 1983 and 2002, it is probably equal, though jails keep getting larger. I already talked about life choices in the early era. I don't see that having much an effect on the othe two eras.
CONCLUSION: There is no question baseball is watered down comparing the number of people available and the number of jobs needed to fill in 2002 as opposed to 1983. Logic dictates that 1983 should have produced more better players than 2002 did. It is easier for the stars to beat up on lesser players in 2002, players that wouldn't be playing if the circumstances were the same as they were in 1983. In this instance, it would become harder to dominate because there would now be more people closer in ability to the best players.
Just imagine if baseball in 2002 chopped off four teams, AND THEN eliminated another 20% in order to mirror the circumstances of 1983 when there were more people to choose from. It wouldn't be quite so easy to knock out 50 home runs, or quite so easy to outdistance your peers when there are more like you...not to mention less scrub pitchers to feast off of. Star pitchers wouldn't have scrub ones blowing up the league ERA to make the stars look better than they actually are! It would create more vanilla looking players, players that don't look quite as good as they actually are...kind of like it was before. This is one of the reasons why an era adjustment is sorely needed, and the crazy numbers produced in this era should be taken with a grain of salt.
So in terms of number of better players, or the highest competitive era, 1983 would be first. 2002 and 1910 are very close, but clearly behind 1983.
P.S. Sorry I started a new thread on this, but I took the liberty considereng the amount of info posted
Edited to fix a mistake.
It only matters to meaure playing age people. It doesn't help to count how many 58 year olds there are. People in general live longer now than before, so the population will be higher now, but not the playing age population.
What you need to see is the number of people born in a given time period, and figure how many would be available for professional use. Example...
From 1880-'85 there were appx 6.2 million American males born. Of prime playing age appx 1908
From 1953-'59 there were appx 10.3 million American males born. Of prime playing age appx 1982
From 1973-'77 there were appx 7.9 millions American males born. Of prime playing age appx 2000
Looking at the above, and using baseball, you have to understand two other big factors.
1) Infant mortality rate. The 1880's had a much worse infant mortality rate, and a higher percentage of those born at that time never made it past age two. The mortality rate stabilized after WWII and remained pretty constant from then till now. Those kids born in that time made it to adult hood at a higher rate than the turn of the century babies.
2) Race. The 1908 era only drew from white people. That 6.2 million figure represents non white people too. So 6.2 million weren't really available. The 1982 era, and the 2002 era both had their pick of the best non white players. The percentage is similar, but more latins have replace african american players.
Lets look at a one year example on what it means for a specific year.
In 1883 appx 1.2 million males born. Those people turn their prime age of 27 1910.
In 1956 appx 2.1 million males born. Those people turn their prime age of 27 in 1983.
In 1975 appx 1.5 million males born. Those people turn their prime age of 27 in 2002.
In 1910 there were 400 opening day roster spots to fill.
In 1983 there were 650 opening day roster spots to fill.
In 2002 there were 750 opening day roster spots to fill.
Without taking mortality rates into account, here are the appx number of 27 year olds per team available for MLB use in each of those three years.
# of 27 year olds available to draw from per team..
1910- 75,000 *If you figure in a 30% decrease due to non whites, then it is appx 52,500 per team.
1983- 80,769
2002- 50,000
You can see the vast difference between the available people available(compared to the jobs needed to fill) when looking at the eras.
When the term watered down is used now, just think that expansion added four more teams for 2002 compared to 1983, AND THERE WERE LESS PEOPLE TO DRAW FROM. 1983 had 80,000 27 year olds per team to choose from to fill their rosters. 2002 only had 50,000! THAT IS A LARGE DIFFERENCE! This is only 27 year olds. The numbers are pretty much the same for the ages before and after that age!
What about the other factors that would take athletes away from baseball?
1910 drew from kids/teens that played baseball as their choice of athletics to a very high degree.**
1983 drew from kids/teens that played baseball as their choice to a high degree, though less than 1910.
2002 drew from kids/teens that had more competition from other sports than any other time in history.
**Turn of the century exclusivity of baseball is probably offset by sickness/weakness of those kids that didn't die, and the fact that many strong able bodied kids/young adults were needed to work farms, factories, or business for families to make ends meat. Baseball wasn't even a viable choice for many, or even attempted. They didn't lose kids to other sports, but rather to life needs.
IMMIGRATION: Immigratin isn't part of the births, but most immigrants were already over age 19 when they came, and if they had kids here, then those kids were part of the birth count. Basically, immigration doesn't change things much. The best players from other countries were available for the 1983 era, just as they are now. They weren't of course in the 1910 era. But we already discounted the minority figure in that. The one demographic that has changed considerable from 1983 to 2002 is a large increase in latin players...but it coincides with a large decrease in African American players. The addition of Pacific rim players hasn't really made an impact yet, as they have basically been role players. The good ones can be counted on one hand that have made an impact. This is at the very beginning stage of changing to a higher degree though.
UNKNOWN: Each of those three eras have an unknow element to people available. Injuries in young adulthood would be harder to fix for the 1910 youth then in the other eras. Those could cost some kids. Jail. I would say jail effects the later eras more than the earlier one. Between 1983 and 2002, it is probably equal, though jails keep getting larger. I already talked about life choices in the early era. I don't see that having much an effect on the othe two eras.
CONCLUSION: There is no question baseball is watered down comparing the number of people available and the number of jobs needed to fill in 2002 as opposed to 1983. Logic dictates that 1983 should have produced more better players than 2002 did. It is easier for the stars to beat up on lesser players in 2002, players that wouldn't be playing if the circumstances were the same as they were in 1983. In this instance, it would become harder to dominate because there would now be more people closer in ability to the best players.
Just imagine if baseball in 2002 chopped off four teams, AND THEN eliminated another 20% in order to mirror the circumstances of 1983 when there were more people to choose from. It wouldn't be quite so easy to knock out 50 home runs, or quite so easy to outdistance your peers when there are more like you...not to mention less scrub pitchers to feast off of. Star pitchers wouldn't have scrub ones blowing up the league ERA to make the stars look better than they actually are! It would create more vanilla looking players, players that don't look quite as good as they actually are...kind of like it was before. This is one of the reasons why an era adjustment is sorely needed, and the crazy numbers produced in this era should be taken with a grain of salt.
So in terms of number of better players, or the highest competitive era, 1983 would be first. 2002 and 1910 are very close, but clearly behind 1983.
P.S. Sorry I started a new thread on this, but I took the liberty considereng the amount of info posted
Edited to fix a mistake.
0
Comments
Go Phillies
So in that sense, his 49 HR's aren't as impressive as if they were done even the following year...but still very impressive. In other words, 49 HR wins less games in 1987, than 49 HR in 1988. 49 HR in 2001 wins even less games.
<< <i>
Very cool, I know that hard core baseball fans love statistics but I have never seen anything like this before.
<< <i>Wabbitt, 1987 was certainly a time of highest competitiveness. However, that year is one of the big anomolies in baseball history. For whatever reason, offense was way out of line that season, compared to the previous and next few seasons. The balls that were used are a likely candidate. A combination of other things, including a random fluctuation may also be to blame.
So in that sense, his 49 HR's aren't as impressive as if they were done even the following year...but still very impressive. In other words, 49 HR wins less games in 1987, than 49 HR in 1988. 49 HR in 2001 wins even less games. >>
Wasn't 87 the year that Wade freakin' Boggs hit like 25 homers. I think it was his only season ever to break double digits.
(My only criticism is the use of the word "vanilla" to mean "plain" or "boring." Vanilla really gets a bad rap as a flavor.)
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
Nicely presented and I don't pretend to be able to comprehend or digest it all - especially the 27-year old aspect. I would like your opinion on several factors potentially affecting your conclusions
1. Baseball becoming an increasingly accepted profession since the turn of the century
- We do not hear stories anymore of Dad not allowing his son to play ball
2. The economic advantage of becoming a professional baseball player vs. working in the main steam
- The reward vs. effort curve is overwhelmingly grown to favor staying in sports
3. My assumption that there exists a greater "ability span" currently
- Athletes are generally in better shape for a longer period of time
4. Demise of independent minor leagues
- Few athletes elct to play in local leagues (i.e. the PCL)
5. Centralization of statistics (both individual and team)
- Baseball has less "super" players currently
Thanks!
John
What has changed is the ENVIRONMENT THEY PLAY IN. In the case we are talking about here, it is the factor of the competitive level of the environment that has altered the perception of which players indeed are the best. We are accustomed to looking at the numbers of the pre war guys, or now the current guys, and just being awed. But in reality, those numbers are an illusion, and don't tell the true story until you dig deeper.
Even when you compare relative to the peers, these eras of less competition still produce an unproportion amount of the 'best' seasons or players. Isn't it very odd that even in the measurements that measure vs. one's peers, that of the top 100 batting seasons of all time...
APPX...
19 occured before 1900
19 occured from 1900-1919
AND ONLY 6 occured from 1970-1992
Then another 15 occured in just the last dozen years.
Looking at the population and factors above, those figures should be reversed. The next best 100 seasons, and the following best 100 show the same thing. REMEMBER this is already measured vs. their peers! If the numbers were taken at face value, then there would be complete dominance on that list from those inflated seasons. For instance, if the numbers at face value were taken with NO era adjustment, then the last dozen years would have ....
32 seasons in top 100 occured in the last 12 years.
1 season in the top 100 occured from 1970-'92....George Brett had a remarkable year. Though it gets knocked out when games played is taken into account.
This is NO relative to peers adjustment at all. So if anybody ever hesitates on thinking that the numbers produced by todays ballplayer should be taken at face value, I think the above should show the reality a bit.
The same crazy dominance is showed by turn of the century pitchers.
It isn't that those players back then were better, it is more of the "Men among boys" factor at work. The competition was simply too hard for the 80's guy to dominate their peers like that. If the circumstances of 1981 mirrored that of 1921, then Mike Schmidt would be outhomering many teams too. He just happened to be born in a tougher time to accomplish such a feat as Babe Ruth was. It wasn't that Babe was THAT MUCH better...he just had an environment that helped create feats that would be unattainable in another time.
Now just think how well Mike Schmidt would have out hit the competition if he were born in 1609, and baseball was being played as a viable option? Remember, he would still be born with the hard wiring and ability to play ball. That doesn't change. But his environment does! Figure now that when he came of age, the players were only being drawn from Jamestown, Plymouth, and a few odd other small Mass. colonies. How dominate would he have been knowing that his only competition would have been drawn from such a small population of people. What are the odds that others born from such a small population would have had even similar baseball abilities as he? He may not have made an out! He would have been a true Man Among Boys in baseball talent.
In 1638 Mike Schmidt would probably have an OPS of 3.280 against that competition. That doesn't make him better than a .900 OPS he would throw up in the early 80's. He would still be the same DNA and person. It is simply the environment dictating what he did.
Fans are accustomed to seeing things a certain way. It is a hard thing for people to swallow the notion that guys like Willie McCovey or Eddie Murray in their prime were just as good as Lou Gehrig was, and that it is only the environment these fellas played in that are fooling everybody.
Wondo,
1)I mentioned that a bit about baseball at the turn of the century losing kids for life necessities, i.e the farm, factory, family business etc.. Or just plain Old World-ism. "Base ball, you want to do what? No. Get a real job." That increasingly lessened as time went on, and was probably only a minimal factor after WWI. Though still higher instances would occur even after that, compared to the last 40 years.
2) Is kind of rooted in number one. I would guess 1983 or 2002 would have no effect on this aspect, though pre WWII may still. This aspect is at an all time high in this era, and people have been trained specifically for this purpose that are playing now. So that is a plus for this era.
3) Shape of an athlete. Kind of above. But athletes are stronger from being exposed to methods that makes one stronger. It isn't a birth right(though it can be with enhancements from the mother.
4) Player don't play baseball as much as they used to. Minus for now. Didn't effect 1983 to the same degree, but it still affected it.
5)Yes, this is kind of the illusion I am talking to about above. Pre War produced super human performance because of the "Men among boys" factor.
great post.
Steve
<< <i>Skip
great post.
Steve >>
Great post.
I think the main reason for excessive stats is the watering down of the league, regardless of population or any other factor. Half the guys in the bigs now, would have been in the minor leagues in the glory days of baseball, pre expansion (time after time).
Throw in smaller parks, juiced balls, juiced bats, mound lowered, etc etc etc.
Peace
45% complete.
Some may wish to view it, for those that don't, please allow me to make several quick points.
From 1901 ( the traditional start of modern baseball with no major rule changes ) to 2000 the population grew 3.7 TIMES
From 1901 to 2000 the number of major team sport jobs grew some 6.7 TIMES, nearly twice as fast as the population
The NFL started in 1920, the NBA began in 1946, baseball expanded in 1961, choices and job positions increased..
The best athletes from those earlier years were much more likely to play professionally in baseball, than they were in later years.
1)There were more older people. When you are looking at the population in 2000, that includes a lot of old people.
2)Adult immigration is also responsible for that. Immigration are people typically over 19. The people that are immigrating are not being used by professional sports when they are already adults. If it is from Latin America, then those people are already accounted for in the minority part of the equation, as those stars are already plucked. When the immigrants have kids, then they are counted as part of the births.
As I said first and foremost in the post, it is the # of baseball playing age people available that are of importance, NOT the total population.
I touched upon this earlier too...where it is true that athletes would play baseball to a higher degree in 1910 vs. 1983 or 2000, they also lost a strong share to life duties like work. Plus the big fact is that there simply wasn't as many of them. The figures are already posted.
The one thing I did not post and figure in was the infant mortality rate. I have to find those figures again. There were appx 1.2 million males born in 1883, and 2.1 million born in 1956. Quite a large difference. The fact is, the 1956 kids reached adulthood to a higher degree than the 1883 kids. The infant mortality rate was poor in 1883...and that only includes the two and under group. Kids that were disease stricken at age five or any other age also had a much worse chance of making it to adulthood, than any kid after WWII.
But again, wheras baseball saw a higher degree of exclusivity in 1900, that fact is evened out by the life work fact. And after WWII baseball was viewed as a job worth going after and training/breeding for. This simply was not the case for a youth in 1890. Simple hard facts and family needs took precedence, as opposed to training for a job as a Major League baseball player.
Baseball still reigned king for youth in the 50's and 60's as well.
In 2000 Half of the population was about 35 years old.
The two decades in the century which show the greatest percent increase in popution were 1900-1910 and 1940-1950.
The US Census offers much great in depth detail, but can not change the fact that MORE professional sport jobs were made available as time went by, and the likehood that the very best athletes would pick baseball also lessened.
Who is the best player ever ? Babe Ruth, Josh Gibson, Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, ????, they all began before 1961 and the watering-down of Major League baseball itself.
None of the prior post are without merit, but are probably not without some shortcomings either, there is of course no absolute, complete, perfect manner by which to determine what era produced the best players, but it seems the first 25 or so years, 1901-1925 is very under-valued, despite the fact that baseball was just about the only way an athlete could make a living at professional team sports.
Again, one has to look at the number of playing age people available, compared to the number of spots needed to fill.
Between 1880-1885 there were appx. 6.2 million american men born
Between 1953-59 there were appx 10.3 million american men born.
That makes up the core group of prime age baseball players that would be available in 1910 and 1983. It makes no difference what the TOTAL population is...we are only interested in the populatin that would be drawn from to make MLB players. All the non numerical factors are also covered.
The absolute biggest thing you are overlooking is that you are not taking minority players into account. You are giving a total population in 1901 and figuring that is what you go by. Realize that minorities make up a portion of htat population you are using...AND THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR MLB USE! So why would they be used in your figures as if they were part of the drawing pool? Minority players have been good enough to make up appx 25-30% of the league.
Also, starting in the 1970's, picking the best availalbe talent from other countries started getting into high gear. By 1983, MLB was able to pick from the best of the LATIN countries. So it isn't just the U.S. population they were drawing from( and remember the U.S. population of the correct age was much larger to draw from too). MLB also got to draw the best of the best from another hemisphere of population(THIS FACTOR ALONE TOTALLY DIMINISHES ANY BASEBALL EXLUSIVITY FACTOR IN 1901).
It doesn't matter what the total population is in 1901, or 1983...as the majority of the people that comprise that population are not remotely viable for MLB use.
Again, yes baseball saw a higher degree of exclusivity(though it wasn't the only option for athletics by any means), BUT, when you look at the sociological factors, you must realize that giving time to play a game was simply not a reality for many families. Putting bread on the table was much more of a priority, and it often took the entire family to work to achieve that goal. It isn't like it has been in the past 50 years, where pretty much every kid enjoyed a freedom of just going to school, and then playing. Maybe they had a paper route, but they enjoyed a childhood much different than the stark reality of kids growing up in 1890. The baseball exclusivity of 1910 is offset by this factor, and by other factors as well.
MORTALITY RATE. You seem to be ignoring these factors. Of those 6.2 million born during that 1880's time span, and of those 10.2 million born in the late 50's, what percent of those babies from each era do you think even made it to adulthood? I will tell that it is not close to the same percent.
1)when you add this mortality figure to the two generations
2)when you eliminate an entire sector of the populatin of minorities in pre war time
3)when you consider that the cream of the crop of OTHER countries were available for use in 1970-later, and not at all in the old times
4)when you understand the sociological aspect of losing athletes and how it offsets the baseball exclusivity
.....you start to see the true number of players to draw from in each era. Then you can compare that to the actual number of positions needed....which were posted above in the first post, on a per team basis. Of course, those figures are not even including mortality rate. THEN, ALL THE OTHER FACTORS THAT are NOT NUMERICALLY SUPPORT THAT TEND TO SUPPORT 1901 or 1910 are washed away and dwarfed BY SIMILAR TYPE FACTORS THAT SUPPORT THE OTHER ERAS.
When you ask who is the best player, and then list that they are all from pre 1961, then that is exactly what this post is telling you is flawed. They are viewed as the best because the environment they played in falesely make them look like they are. Read one of the posts I poste did in the middle of this thread, as I touched upon that.
Ziggy, foreign nationals are accounted for in the minority population/calculation.
One more thing worth mention(please see above post, as it is crucial). That large increase in U.S. population you are referring to right around the turn of the century, is resulting form a large wave of immigratin...mostly from Europe I believe...you know the 'Godfather' crew among them.
Those were mostly 19 or over. Now unless they wre immeresed in basesball as children in 1882 in Europe, they are a total NoN factor in studies like this one. Their place in that population figure you are using is not valid, and throw everything way off. Now, once they had kids in America, THEN they become more of a factor. But those kids then show up in the number of births. So what you then have to look at is the birth numbers that were initially posted.
Immigration has played a very large role in the landscape of American population. For studies like these, those people really don't affect MLB until they start giving birth to childre in the U.S. and those children adapt to American culture. THAT IS ONE OF THE BIG REASONS WHY U.S. birth figue are needed, and NOT total population.
Nice post and I understand what you stated. We have walked that path before wondering which era was the toughest to compete in and I knew then it was the early 80s.
So, with that said, I think one can safely assume that Don Mattingly in his prime would have been larger than life compared to the competition had he played in the era of Ruth and Gehrig--more so than he was preceived in 1984-1987. The fact Mattingly led MLB with OPS+ twice in the mid 80s is very meaningful because he did it under stiff competition.
Your presentation is not saying Ruth and Gehrig were not outstanding players, but the gap put in front of their competition would have been much smaller had they competed during the 80s.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Thats exactly what I am saying. It is MUCH harder to distance yourself from your peers when there are MORE LIKE YOU!
Mattingly took his turn in the lineage of BEST HITTER ON THE PLANET for a two year span. Schmidt passed the torch to Murray, Murray to Mattingly. At that given time one can confidently say while pointing to Don, "Hey, that guy is the best hitter in the world!" Quite impressive considering his competition; and when you thoroughly examine the eras, it shouldn't be any less impressive than when Gehrig held that title...despite what everybody's perception and use of traditional measures tell them.
I want to avoid the Mattingly HOF debate in this thread, but your example hits the point!
Thats why I use the Mike Schmidt example, the example where he was born and played in the Cap Cod league...THE 1600's CAP COD LEAGUE
some of your figures renforce my main point.
You stated;
1880-85 6.2 mil men born, a pool for 1910, 53-59 10.2 mil. men born. a pool for 1983.
That is an increase of about 60%
In 1910 there were 400 major leauge team sport positions available, in 1983 with the expansion of baseball, the evolving of the NFL, the evolving of the NBA, there were about 2000 major league team sport positions available ( 2680 today ), that is an increase of about 500 %.
The choices and chances not to play baseball grew at a much higher rate than the prime age population.
This does not take into account the fact that TV helped make golf and tennis, along with soccer, Ice hockey, Arena/Canada/Europe football, Etc., all addtional alternative choices NOT there in 1910.
The best athletes from 1901 to about 1925 had virtually no alternative choices if they wanted to earn a living as a sportsman, in 1983 and today they are much much more likely to choose a different sport than baseball.
I would like to know when Mike Schmidt himself, "passed the torch" to Ed Murray as THE BEST HITTER ON THE PLANET ???
Or might this be your personal opinion , which of course you are entitled to, or some other agency ??
To be called the best hitter on any planet, even Earth, you might think a fellow could hit more than 33 homers in his very best year.
Murray played from 1977 to 1997, five different teams, both major leagues, in that span dozens of times players hit 40 or more HRs in a single year, and two even hit over 50 !!
While Murray was a fine hitter, and homeruns are not the only way to evaluate a batter, I must admidt I never before have heard anyone call him the best hitter on the planet.
Murray's time span fell somewhere within '82-'85. I say somewhere because there is a bit of overlap with the torch, and a couple of different combinations of years may be in use. I would rather discuss the parameters on another thread though
I have not seen you once in your recent posts account for any of these LARGE factors like minorities, or INfant mortality, or mortality of young people. You just keep throwing your ideas out and completely dismiss these ABSOLUT CONRETE FACTORS(minorities, infant mortality rates).
You have finally(hopefully) understoood a bit about the immigration affecting your original numbers. You have also completely dismissed the factor of sociological impacts evening out the exclusivity factor...all the while I HAVE NOT discounted what you are saying. I took that into account right from the get go! You are saying it as if I don't realize it is a factor. I DO!!!!
So why do you completely dismiss those large factors, and then yell at me for a factor that I already have included as a factor?
Then you come with this attacking thing about Murray and his best hitter etc(which is a conversation I hesitate to start based on your past illogical posts on such topics)... What gives? Is it because nobody took the invitation to the thread that you created?
Jeez.
The answers to your questions have already been posted. Just read the posts again.
Before you go further, the first thing you need to do with your figures is take minorities into account. Second, mortality rates. Those are the concrete things. Then the periphery items can be dealt with later, and the sociological stuff like work needs in the early 1900's, or sport choices can be dealt with.
You also completely ignored the ability to select the BEST PLAYERS from other countries that 1910 did not have...heck 1950 didn't even use that. Being able to pick the cream of the crop from another country carries a bit more weight, and most likely negates any exclusivity factor. But at the very least...TAKE THE MINORITY, BIRTH MORTALITY, AND YOUTH MORTALITY INTO ACCOUNT...only then can the smaller stuff be looked at.
P.S. You are understimating the sporting choices available in the early 1900's. A sport that grabs a kid or a teen is taking away from potential baseball. the taking can happen early on before a kid can hone any baseball skills...or even have an interest in doing so. Or just simply take away a player because they find it more interesting.
Here is an example..
"The popularity of college football spread widely in the early 1900's. What began in 1869 with two teams grew to almost 90 major teams by 1920. The NCAA was founded in 1906 to organize and regulate the sport, and points for scores, size of the field, and penalties etc., were all standardized by 1912. But, the NCAA failed to address the one issue that burned in the hearts and minds of players, alumni, and fans of all ages, the question of "Who is No.1 ?" Perhaps if they had addressed it 100 years ago we would not have the controversy that we have today! American's thrive on competition. There is only one Grand Champion bull at the County Fair, one Best of Show at the AKC Dog Show and one Blue Ribbon Apple Pie, so there has always been a need for a college football poll. The problem lies in the fact that there has always been more than one poll and they don't always agree."
You probably need to do more research on life in the early 1900's. There were more choices than you think...and again THE SOCIOLOGICAL FACTOR OR WORK NEEDS, and the viewing a career as a baseball player as fools dreams(and often not permitted to be even attempted).
Another example...
"The game(basketball) quickly grew throughout America and aboard, by the YMCA, military and numerous colleges. In the early 1900's, the game was spread all over the country and colleges and universities formed different leagues and competitions were starting to take place. In 1915, several sports unions and organizations met to establish a single set of rules for all groups to follow. They also had regional conferences and organized games between different leagues. The 1st intercollegiate game was held in Kansas City. The unions disputed over control of the organization the NCAA wining. They set up districts and other formats for their games.
Professional basketball started in 1869 in New Jersey. Disputes between individuals at a YMCA led to a group forming their own team and playing for money. Later in 1898, a group of sports editor founded the NBL of the National Basketball League. Several league followed none lasting long."
By the way, you brought up T.V. and how it helped other sports later on. How exactly did T.V. then help baseball in 1910, if you are considering it a factor against modern times?
Another example...
"In North America, two openly professional leagues emerged: the National Hockey Association in 1910 and the Pacific Coast Hockey Association in 1911. Beginning in 1915, these two leagues competed for the Stanley Cup. The National Hockey League was formed in November of 1917, following a dispute between NHA team owners. The new league began play in December of that year with four Canadian teams. The NHA disbanded in 1918, and the PCHA followed it in 1924. By 1926, the NHL, with ten teams, took control of the Stanley Cup and formed a Canadian and an American division.[15]"
Another example...
A thing called the Olympics. If people were not training for other sports, then how the heck did America feature any Olympians? Did they just pull guys off the street in 1900 to compete? Based on your premise, they must have pulled them off the baseball field after the WHITES ONLY game was done.
-------FINALLY, the mouthpiece and the leading example of the time...
"Roosevelt as Symbol.
More than any athlete of the 1900s, Theodore Roosevelt epitomized the sporting character of the decade. In 1900, the year before he became the twenty-sixth president of the United States, he encouraged Americans to act aggressively and confidently but with a sense of fair play: "In life, as in a football game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard: don't foul and don't shirk, but hit the line hard." Roosevelt believed that participation in "vigorous, manly sports" was so important in the development of character and the preparation of young men for leadership roles in business and politics that he called Ivy League presidents and athletic officials to the White House in 1905 to discuss ways to reduce the high rate of injury and death in college football. Although Roosevelt's football summit did not lead to immediate reform of the game—as injury and death continued to haunt the college game throughout..."
I find it quite odd that FOOTBALL was his metaphor! Also notice his support for the vigorous manly sports...certainly baseball is not at the top of that list.
I have been talking about professional sports , please re-read my posts, college football is not a professional sport, nor a way a gifted athlete could make a living.
I still feel stongly that the era of 1901-1925 baseball is very much under-appreciated, it might not be the most competetive era, but I have seen no absolute proof it is not.
You brought up Eddie Murray yourself,, If you want readers to only comment on only some certain parts of your sometimes outlandish staements, please specify so.
I don't think I am a trouble maker, please don't feel that all who might not agree with every single statement imanginable that you made are simply trying to make trouble for you. To me 'trouble' is something much more important in life, than a disagreement on a message board. If I or others dare to disagree, dispute, or find real fault with something you post, don't take it so personally. No one, not even you, can be 100% completely correct every single time.
Much of what is posted here is opinion, based on many facts, and weighed as how our own frame of references justify. To call those who don't see it your way as illogical, seems very childish.
Sports and the sportstalk board are meant to be fun, most posters are good-natured, can laugh at themselves once in a while, and enjoy hearing other people's views, whether they do agree or not. I do not feel these posts are a contest of any sort, nor that they are of much importance to the real world, I believe will continue to enjoy a little diversion from life through these boards, and sports and sportcard collecting of course.
<< <i>Much of what is posted here is opinion, based on many facts, and weighed as how our own frame of references justify. To call those who don't see it your way as illogical, seems very childish. >>
Edited to add: Be thankful he didn't call you names, wish death upon you, and/or circumvent the bad word filter.
SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACTS!
From the Child Labor Public Education Project....
"In the early decades of the twentieth century, the numbers of child laborers in the U.S. peaked..."
Aside from using no minorities, high infant mortality rates, and simply less people being born then, YOU HAVE THIS FACTOR ABOVE!
Johnny is not going to be much of a hitter when he is spending hours at a factory, or on the farm, or helping his family live!! Johnny is being counted in your population, yet he really isn't a factor...just another of MANY things you don't account for. This factor probably totally negates the higher percentage of people choosing baseball. NO, I don't have a factual basis for that statement, but I have a brain, and can deduce!
I have items with factual basis, and once that is achieved, then we go over the variables. YOu have brought up basically the only variable in favor of 1910...baseball was more exclusivley played(but FAR FROM the degree you think!). All of the other variables that can't be numerically accounted for are pointed well away from your idea. Those have been listed a bunch of times, re read if you don't know them. But I posted one above that you seem to ignore completely.
As for the over/under rated...again that means what?? It all depends WHO is rating them, and WHERE they are being rated.
jaxxr,
I don't take it personally, and I don't argue back when valid points are made. My head gets sore when opinions with invalid, or baseless information are used to dispute ones of higher validity. I will simply have to do a better job to not get angry at those(post once and move on), and then spend more time with the meat of the issues, rather than having to go back to step one for each misinformed opinion.
Jaxxr, especially when you just continue to throw the same set of figures up there, without any regard to the FACTS presented...as in the case of minorities.
Opinions are available for everyone, but well thought out ones with a good base of knowledge are certainly more appreciative. You started off right away by ignoring HUGE variables, variables that can actually be accounted for too, like the minorities and mortality rates. You used the BIG increase in population in the early 1900's, but didn't realize that immigration was the big reason for that happening. But you still kept steadfast with those invalid figures. Those are headbanging instances.
Live with your opinions(from whichever base you want to view them from), and live in bliss...god bless. I won't stop you. I'm just going to provide the info for people who want to know a little more, or want to look at another aspect, or simply want to read something other than Saddam Hussein stuff.
Invalid ?
the Population figures I used were taken from US Census numbers
the number of professional major league jobs is IS CORRECT
the NFL DID IN FACT start in1920, the NBA DID IN FACT start in 1946
The population/demographic changes from 1901 to now would also show the amount of non-whites was a lesser percent of the US population in 1901 than in 1921, or 1941, or today, the absense of them in baseball was more influential as time went on and their population increased.
In 1910 the ultimate aspiration for almost any young athlete was to play baseball, and there were no other professional team sports which were truly popular or decent paying. In 1983 there were a tremdously larger amount of alternative choices for earn a living at via sports.
Your failure to even see the most basic and underlying premise is astounding. ANd to still continue to ignore the major factors is even more so.
And to realize that there doesn't have to be a professional sport in order to draw athletes away from baseball.
Also, the MLB of 1983 were reared in the 50's/60's when baseball was king, and that being a baseball player was a true dream for American youth, which then put forth the required practice and training for such an endeavor....with a LARGE salary to match...they wanted to be the next BONUS BABY. Fathers and sons in 1895 did not have the same windfall to hope for from baseball, and in fact, many families wouldn't even think twice about giving it a chance as a viable alternative to the family business or a 'real' job. This is part of the sociological imact.
FInally, and this negates the exclusivity factor of 1910 baseball...BASEBALL FROM THE 60'S ONWARD WAS ABLE TO DRAW THE BEST OF THE BEST PLAYERS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES. So, in your total population figures to draw from, you must now add Mexico's, Dominican REpublic, Venezuela etc... to your population compared to the jobs.
So in your faulty total census which IGNORES MORTALITY RATES, and U.S. MINORITIES not being used in 1910...your figure must now look like this...
1910 population = US POPULATION / # sports jobs availalble
2000 population = US population+Mexico's population+Venezuela+Cubas+Dominican Republic(and all the other coutries used) / # of sports job available in US. HOw you can continue to not account for this is blindingly stupid.
Go ahead and use your faulty figures with the correct drawing pool. Have at it hoss.
P.S. Your ability to comprehend is in question if you don't know why the Saddam comment was put. Why you put it as a lead and labled me unbelieveable is quite scary. IT IS BECAUSE THAT IS THE CURRENT NEWS AND THIS IS AN ALTERNATVIVE TO READ SOMETHING ELSE! Hello.
Please try to be be correct and do show exactly where I used that term ???
And you also stated it was "quite scary"
I am sorry that something posted ( or you might have imagined was posted ) on a message board is scary to you. Perhaps professional help might help to aleviate some of your fears or phobias.
My simple figures ARE CORRECT, no long-winded disertations, or rambling tangents can change them.
I will gladly admit they do not take into account every single possible event or situation imaginable, however they are a sound basis for saying that in 1910 there were much fewer professional sport jobs avialable than in later years.
To make a living through sports one must be a professional, why you cant comprehend this, is odd. There was, and there still are many other recreational outlets for young athletes enjoy, but for those gifted enough to try to make decent wages at sports, there were FAR less choices in 1910.
"I will gladly admit they do not take into account every single possible event or situation imaginable, however they are a sound basis for saying that in 1910 there were much fewer professional sport jobs avialable than in later years."
Jaxxr, I can't disagree with this statement at all...it is the truth. It's the only big variable pointing in the direction of that time. I never disagreed with it, AND I ACCOUNTED FOR THAT IN MY FIRST POST. Though the degree of which you were saying seemed a bit off.
But then you took a big leap with the population figures you used in 1910 itself(without accounting for the immigration wave of that time frame), without accounting for mortality rate, nor minority practices...and then compared it to the population of the US in 2000. Which then led to the x amount of jobs per x amount of people claim. All of which had major measureable faults that you discounted. Thats all.
I've looked at this stuff, and I know all the variables. The TV is a tiny tiny varible, especially for the 50's/60's. That has more of a varible RIGHT THIS MINUTE as I type...but not back then. But that is such a minor, minor one, and the big ones have to be tackled first.
I was also looking to see for other variables that I may not have found
Child labor, and society family practices at the turn of the century is one of the BIG variables.
But the absolute biggest variable is the ability to draw the best players from other countries. Actually, it can be measured to a degree. But that is why I said if you just wanted to use the population of the US right now, it wouldn't be right because of all the other countries that are being drawn from. You would then have to add the populations of those countries.
The # of births is fascinating. The thing I am pissed about is that I can't find all my mortality rate figures, or I would have put them in the initial equation of births etc... I don't want to do that research again. I also had all the immigration figures too. I will come across them once I get organized. Hopefully.
I don't need medication. I haven't had a beer in a couple of week though. Text
80 years ago there were no Blacks, Latinos, or Asian born ball players....
50 years ago ago there were no Latinos or Asian born players...
10 years ago there were no Asian born Players....
Today you have Players from all over the world...Players are being signed to $55 million dollar multi-year contracts without even playing 1 MLB game...
This means you are now getting the best from around the world to compete for jobs on Teams, not just WHite Americans (as was in 1920)...
Therefore you can expect better competiton, and a higher level of play since you now have a player pool that is global, not just local....
Yes there are more jobs to fill in Professional sports now in the US then there was 70 years ago, but you cant quantify the importance of having the world's best athletes to choose from...
A young baseball player from New Jersey has to be a lot better today to make the majors then he would have had to be 75 years ago due to the increase global competiton for that job!
Today is more competitive compared to the early 1900's, but it is NOT more competitive to the era that immediately preceeds it...Pre 1992. That era was also privey to the best of the foreign players. They too got the latin players to choose from
The increase of Latin playres compared to 20 years ago is off set by the decrease in African American players in MLB.
I would hold off on the Japan claim. So far, there have been two Japanes players that have had any sort of above average impact on the game...Ichiro and Matsui. All the other guys have been busts or role type/marginal MLB players. I suspect this may change in the future, and they will have a greater impact. A guy like Saito can be added to the list, though he will need to do it for a little longer.
Compared to the 70's/80's era, both era had the best foreign players to draw from....2000 took more of them, but that is off set by less African Americans playing. The American population of PLAYING AGE was much greater to draw from in the 80's as opposed to now. Plus there are now four more teams to fill. FOur more teams is a bunch.
And this current age would also lose more to the other sports than the pre 1992 era.