Adjusting for longevity?

[WiredTiger]

Something that has been bothering me lately in the comparisons of the career of modern day players versus those from years past. The modern day athlete has numerous sources available to them to extend their careers (surgery, better understanding of fitness, the DH and being able to concentrate on just playing baseball instead of working off season jobs.).

It seems to me that if an adjustment is not made for these factors that we may start to get results that are skewed to the modern day athlete. I would think (I don't have proof though) that the careers of today's athletes are significantly longer than those from the 20s and 30s. Somebody like Koufax would have probably pitched for a lot longer in today's game. But someone like Kerry Wood might not have even got through year two.



Am I off base? Am I on to something? How could adjustments be made?

[KCBOOMER]

I don't know how you make such an adjustment.

Twenty years ago Kerry Woods career would have been over when he blew out his arm. Koufax had he pitched in this era would probably have been 250+ game winner as they would have taken better care of him. But it is all speculation.

Certainly guys prior to 1900 seemed to have shorter careers for various reasons. After that I am not sure career lengths are really different.

[sweaver]

As Allan Barra says, we assume players today are better than the older players in other sports. Why not baseball? It seems that only in baseball do we hang on to the greats of the past as equal to the best of today.

[WiredTiger]

Originally Posted by sweaver

As Allan Barra says, we assume players today are better than the older players in other sports. Why not baseball? It seems that only in baseball do we hang on to the greats of the past as equal to the best of today.

But as NetShriners we have done a lot of comparison of players across eras using era adjusted stats and stadium adjusted stats. A lot of people are claiming that Barry Bonds is as good or better than Babe Ruth. I am questioning if doing a straight comparison of career stats against the averages of their times is enough to make a comparison.

[gyb13]

Originally Posted by WiredTiger

A lot of people are claiming that Barry Bonds is as good or better than Babe Ruth.

better peak, i don't think anyone has claimed barry has had a better career

[RichG]

[quote=WiredTiger]Something that has been bothering me lately in the comparisons of the career of modern day players versus those from years past. The modern day athlete has numerous sources available to them to extend their careers (surgery, better understanding of fitness, the DH and being able to concentrate on just playing baseball instead of working off season jobs.).

QUOTE]

On the other hand, modern careers might turn out to be shorter because of the higher salaries causing the players below the star level to be non-tendered.

[TGwynn19]

I think that everything evens out in the wash. I think that overall, right now, the level of player and the player talent pool is deeper than it ever was. Given that, it is just as hard for a player to keep his job as it was 80 years ago.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

George Brett always said that he would have been better had he played on natural grass, but he hit better on turf than on grass throughout his career.

All I know is that Mickey Mantle tore up his knee on a bad playing surface in Cleveland and, had that not happened, we might be talking about him a lot more than Williams and Ruth and Barry.

.

Originally Posted by TGwynn

I think that everything evens out in the wash. I think that overall, right now, the level of player and the player talent pool is deeper than it ever was. Given that, it is just as hard for a player to keep his job as it was 80 years ago.

Interesting you should bring up talent pool. I’ve toyed with a stat I call Starters per Million (S/M), which is based on the number of starting positions available against general U.S. population. I have figured this only for offensive starters. It can be figured for pitchers too -- if you have the time. From 1901 --

Starters per Million (S/M), offense only:

      US Pop.   Starters   Tot. MLB    Tot
Year  Million   NL    AL   Starters    S/M

1901     77     64    64      128     1.66 * expansion year
1920    106     64    64      128     1.21
1935    127     64    64      128     1.01
1947    144     64    64      128      .89
1960    181     64    64      128      .71
1961    184     64    80      144      .78 *
1962    187     80    80      160      .86 *
1969    203     96    96      192      .95 *
1973    212     96   108(DH)  204      .96
1977    220     96   126      222     1.01 *
1993    258    112   126      238      .92 *
1997    268    128   126      254      .95 *
2002    288    128   126      254      .88

As you can see, league expansion has tended to (somewhat) accommodate an expanding talent pool, but not consistently (cf. 1920 v. 1960).

I don’t know how much about on-field dynamics should be inferred from the above illustrated trends. For example, does a freshly increased number of starters (via expansion) tend to favor pitchers (cf. Dead ball, ‘60s)? Does a gradually constricting number of starters per million tend to favor hitters (cf. 1920s, ‘30s, late-1990s-present)?

Any blanket inference would be too general, and would therefore oscillate too high or low against the truth to be of much use.

But where this principle does come in handy is in comparing leaderboard titles cross-era. Against a finite number of titles going back to the beginning, there are an increasing documentable number of guys chasing them. In 1901 you had 128 starters competing for two batting crowns, one for NL, one for AL. Today you have 254 starters competing for those same two batting titles. If 16 teams (constant from 1901 to 1960) equals base 1.000, then today, with 30 teams, the multiplier off the base is 1.875 (30/16). Proportionately, a batting title today is worth almost twice what it used to be. Through 2002, for example, Barry had nailed 18 “traditional” offensive titles in his career. 18 x 1.875 = 33.75. His adjusted 34 titles compares more reasonably against the Babe’s unadjusted 51 than at face value. And Bonds isn’t done yet. Far from perfect, such an adjustment -- limited to leaderboard titles only -- cautiously (conservatively) draws the numbers a little closer together.

Another thing to consider is that starters per million should no longer be limited to just U.S. population. But that’s another thread.

.

.

Originally Posted by WiredTiger

I would think (I don't have proof though) that the careers of today's athletes are significantly longer than those from the 20s and 30s.

You’re right. The average career length of a star (Icon and better) has in general increased since the beginning, although influenced by socio-political events. But that’s talking about an “average” star. An extraordinary guy can leverage up that increase as if it were an algorithmic ratio.

What is a little disturbing to see, however, is the recent dropoff in career length, most notably since the advent of free agency. Has money overtaken a fading star’s love of the game?

.

[sweaver]

Did you take out the negro population pre-1947?

.

No. Landis did it for me.

.

[sweaver]

No, I mean in the population figures before you divided.

.

I know what you mean, as I’m sure you caught my oblique disdain for a certain rigid Commissioner.

Straight answer: No. The general population figures are inclusive. The percentage of Afro-Americans in the population may therefore be removed from pre-1947 numbers. And if so, then the increasing pressure on the post-J.Robinson talent pool compared to prior days becomes even more pronounced.

.

[WiredTiger]

I wonder if someone like Sandy Koufax would get into the HOF if he pitched today. Say he had the exact career (adjusted for today's game), blew out his arm in a way that couldn't be fixed and was equally as loved. Would he make it in? I think it would be a lot tougher for him to make it in.

Going forward I don't think a shortened career will have as much pull with the voters.