Posted By:
identify7Who was bigger - Big Sam, or Big Ed?
************************************************** **************************
This post contains comments addressed to three subjects which were raised recently.
Regarding the carrying of shoulder chips – I have not engaged in this, although comments which I have intended as kidding may be misconstrued as such. Perhaps I should use happy faces, or only make serious statements (no).
************************************************** ***************************
My main problem with Mr. Gould’s bell curve presentation is that to me it appears that his statements consist of the following thinking
-this is what existed at the beginning of the century
-this is what exists now
Therefore the following conclusions may be drawn ……..
I believe that an evolutionist should realize that more than two data points are required to establish an evolutionary relationship. However, when the third point is attempted (19th century performance), we find that the early 20th century players exhibited a greater differential in their performance than either current or 19th century players exhibit. This disproves his contention (if performance and talent are interchangable, which they are not).
Regarding .400 hitters:
In order to be considered by me to be a .400 hitter – a player must bat .3995 or greater during a season – no exceptions. Since different sources cite there own interpretation of who qualifies in this regard, the source universally available (well only if you have a computer) is baseball reference.
In my previous post I broke up those cited by that reference into four categories:
19th century .400+ hitters, early 20th century .400+ hitters, 1919-1930 .400+ hitters, .400+ hitters after 1930.
I then developed a rational to eliminate 19th century .400+ hitters from consideration.
I then developed a rastional to eliminate 1919-1930 .400+ hitters from consideration.
I am left with the post 1930 .400+ hitters (= Williams), and the early 20th century .400+ hitters (= Lajoie, Cobb and Jackson).
The above is a summary of my previous post. It is not necessarily an analysis which is acceptable to me, but I ask: if you care to play, is it acceptable to you? In general, I believe that data should not be eliminated, without irrefutable cause.