March 11, 2009
More From the Past
Joe Posnanski wonders why there are more Hall of Famers who played in 1930 than played in 1980:
OK, that makes 33 everyday Hall of Famers from 1930 and only 16 from 1980. Half. Think about how amazing that is for a moment -- we're supposed to accept that there were twice as many Hall of Famers in 1930, even though there were significantly fewer teams, even though black players did not play, even though baseball players in 1980 had 50 years of evolution in order to get better. It's ludicrous. And more pitchers from 1930 than 1980 too? Really?
Joe goes on to note that if you throw out veteran committee choices, there are still more players from 1930 than 1980. Let me add one explanation. The standard deviation of talent early in baseball was higher. In other words, it was easier to stand out from the crowd. As baseball improved over the decades, the difference between the best players and the average players went down. In other words, you looked a lot better in 1930 if you were one standard deviation above the mean than if you played today.
Here's a hypothetical. Take an early year in which the mean batting average was .260 and a recent year when the mean batting average was .260. In that early year, the S.D. might be 20 points, so someone who hit .300 was two standard deviations above the mean. In the later year, the S.D. might be 10 points, putting someone with a .300 BA four standard deviations above the mean. Over the years, however, a .300 BA remains the standard for excellence; we treat a .300 BA the same way someone in the 1930s did, despite it being tougher to accomplish now. Someone who hits .280 in this scenario is just as good as the .300 hitter from an earlier time, but no one is going to put him in the Hall of Fame.
I'll try to put together actual numbers later.
Please contribute to the Baseball Musings Pledge Drive.
There are several factor that help explain the differences between number of HOFr's.
You hit on an issue the voters have difficulty comprehending. That is that the numbers don't always mean the same thing.
Couple other factors include:
1. Five man rotation plus change in how managers use their bullpen. Those two changes result in less 20 win seasons and less total career wins.
2. 1980 is only 28 seasons ago. Some players active in 1980 are still being considered.
3. Plain dumb luck. Possibly 1930 just had a massive overlapping of HoF caliber careers. And 1980 may have been in a odd gap between HoF groups. Several greats (Ripken, Gwynn, Boggs) had careers that started a year or two later.
David, I think that Stephen Jay Gould made the same point about standard deviation in an article he wrote explaining why we are likely not to see another .400 hitter. I can't remember where it was published, but it was the same concept.
That S.D. theory you got makes some sense at first glance. I'd love to see some stats on the idea.
Yes, I read the article back in the 1980s.
Or, how about considering how many professional sports existed in 1930 vs today? A great athlete today can earn a good living in over a dozen different sports. How much has that diluted the pool of talent?
What do you think of Joe's main thrust of the argument that Blyleven should be in the HoF?
Others have shown fairly convincingly that Blyleven is worthy of induction. My own personal feeling is that I'm not upset either way.
Blyleven's main problem is that he won less games than expected given the quality of his pitching.
I'm sure the standard deviation is a big part of it. In an age before specialized training, natural talent was more of a factor than it is now.
I would also like to know how many of the 1930 HOFers are hitters. That was the most hitter-friendly era in baseball history, even more so than the steroid era. HOF voters were often wowed by the seemingly titanic batting averages of good-but-not-great players like Lloyd Waner and Chuck Klein.
it's probably just plain harder to get voted in nowadays. most of the writers care more about nostalgia than OBA anyway. it's silly really: the notion that the average player of today wouldn't smoke the average player of yesteryear is absurd.