Posted by Juzrisium on November 4, 2000 at 16:13:55:
In Reply to: MotD: The Elite PKer and the .400 hitter. posted by Proud Blade(VIP) on November 4, 2000 at 15:33:39:
> Warning: I can't prove any of this. I'm guessing. > A few years back, I read a book called Full House by Steven Jay Gould. I picked it up because someone recommended the author to me, and the idea of explaining major themes of evolutionary thought via an extended analogy with baseball (and his own triumph over cancer, among other things) struck me as being either brilliant or horrifying. (It turned out to be brilliant.) It certainly influenced the way I think about complex systems, and I'm going to try to make a tentative bridge to CF here. I may be entirely full of shit, as I warned above. > The mean batting average in major league baseball has hovered around .260 since the 1880's. (For those of non-baseball-friendly countries, that means roughly that a player gets a "hit" (is successful) 26.0% of the time when they are given the chance to.) There have been a few blips here and there: rules changes such as altering the manufacture of the official ball, the height of the pitcher's mound, and the size of the parks used affected it from time to time, but it really has been around .260 for a very long time. > However, it used to be reasonably common that a great player could finish a season having batted .400. (40% success rate.) It happened about once every three years in the first third of the 20th century. Since then, only one player has done it in the last seventy years: Ted Williams, who may well have been one of the game's best pure hitters in history. Other than that, no one. > When you ask people why this has happened, they often propose things that turn out not to be true. The most common explanation is that modern players are somehow worse (softened by big money, less dedication, other sorts take the best athletes, etc.). But there is a lot of evidence that it is exactly the opposite: Batters now average three inches taller and twenty pounds heavier, they train for more hours per day, better medical care keeps them healthy longer, and they can cut their teeth in organized competition from ages 4 on up. The reason this doesn't produce a higher average batting average is that the pitchers get better as well, so the average batter stays at .260 or so. > So why can't anyone hit .400? Why is no one -that- good anymore? > The reason is that as both sides get better and better, and the average skill level increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to be a great deal better than everyone else. While the average hitter has remained about .260, the standard deviation (how much the players tend to vary from the average) has steadily declined. (.050 around 1900 to .030 around 1980). Because a finite limit on skill exists (players can only be so strong, fast, clever, etc.), diminishing returns start to creep up, and the best players are not so far ahead of the average guy on the field. > So what does this have to do with CF? I'm going to propose the idea that the "average CFer" has gotten better. The game has been around a long time, and the number of people with the requisite 1-2+ years of experience to develop competence is now quite high. More people know how to put up a fight, and aren't going to stand there and die. As that number of competent players grows, it gets harder and harder to "clear our your range", or even take the chance of charging in one-on-two. The number of truly dominant players therefore shrinks, hidden by the expansion of the "pretty good". Running up 100 kills at the hero ranks now means that a good number of those are going to be tough fights. While the best can still win through superior preparation, that takes time and effort, and there is eventually going to be the day where they get caught off guard, and one or two or three of the "New average" can take them down. > Conclusion: The elite are better than they used to be in an absolute sense, but not in a relative sense. Agree? Disagree? Let's hear.