[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

The author in question was Stephen Jay Gould, and the theory was a really, really good one. His theory is based in principles of evolution, as Gould was a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. I just read his writing on this topic this past summer, and it was definitely thought-provoking.

Essentially, his theory was that, in the early days of baseball, the differences between the best and worst players was much greater than it is today. Furthermore, things about the game that we consider second nature today - like where to position the infielders with certain types of pitchers on the mound, how to shift an outfield to adjust for wind and such, the actual field conditions (which tend to be better groomed today than they were at the turn of the century) - were not second nature as the game was in its early stages. They were still early on the game's evolutionary scale.

To me, these things make a whole lot of sense.

His theory was NOT that the .400 hitters in the past were not great players. Nor was his theory that today's players are better than those of yesteryear. The way I read it, he gives due credit to the greats of the game. His theory seemed to revolve more around the handful of hits each year that are taken away because the game - and the competition - has evolved over the years. A more athletic shortstop, with a larger glove, playing on a smooth infield, with a round, white ball, is more likely to snag a grounder up the middle that may have gone through for a base hit when it was a mushy ball bouncing off a rocky infield past a less athetic shortstop with a tiny glove.

I read this "evolution of the game" to include things like lefty-righty specialists, relief pitchers, a batter's propensity to take more pitches, etc.

So according to Gould, as I understood it, he thinks that this evolution, as well as the narrowing of the gap between the game's best and worst players, is responsible for the 30 hits that make the difference between a .340 and .400 batting average in a 500 at bat season.

It was well-written and drew parallels from the world of biology and evolution, and after reading the theory, I subscribe to it.

-Al