Maybe there were giants, or at least outliers: on the .400 batting average myth and the absolute limits of hitting for average in Major League Baseball
|
 |
|
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
The demise of the .400 hitter has been postulated to actually be a sign of improved hitting in Major League Baseball. Gould (1996) believes that if hitters have improved, then the variance around annual mean batting averages must be systematically decreasing over time. Decreasing variance makes .400 averages unlikely, even though overall hitting improves. Batting averages between 1901 and 1995 were collected for player-seasons of at least 300 at bats, and regression analysis was used to rigorously test Gould's improvement hypothesis. The evidence does not support the improvement argument. Standardizing batting averages shows that even though not all .400 batting averages were spectacular, the best hitters of today are still not uniformly as good or better than past greats. There has been no improvement over time. Hitting greatness is timeless.
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
0
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
1/390
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|