What is harder: running a sub 4-minute mile OR hitting .275 in the big leagues?

Baseball isn't really global. How many european players are in the majors? How many Africans? Baseball draws from a limited pool of talent in the US and central america with a few koreans and japanese thrown in.

"The best baseball players in the world..."

Saying someone is one of the best baseball players in the world is like saying someone is the best TV watcher in the world.

And how fast was Jordans mile time? I am betting his baseball was more respectable than his distance running would have been. Have you seen professional athletes do distance races. It is hilarious. Heck Lance Armstrong is one of the best endurance people on the planet. He is still getting beat by almost 30 mins by a world class woman. Hilarious.It is also good to know that there are only 20-30 moderately talented runners in D1 along with 2 or3 talented ones and 10k untalented ones.

Bum wrote:

You guys aren't seriously trying to build a case one way or the other based on what a person's salary is, are you?? With all do respect, that's just freaking stupid.

I still remember watching Jordan try to hit a minor league pitch. Hilarious. And he's one of the greatest athlete's in the world.

I think the best way to come at this is by thinking of how many people, if properly trained, could do this. More kids play baseball than run distance sports, yet very few can ever progress to where they can hit any major league pitch. Like one poster said, there are a good number of modest-talented D1 runners who can break 4 now. I don't think this is close.

Low 3:50's is something completely different. It seems as though only genetic freaks run this fast. And only genetic freaks bat .275

here's the real question---given 1 year training, how many sub4 milers could hit over .200 in the big leagues; and how many major leaguers could run sub 410 for a mile....any guesses???

comintoofast wrote: here's the real question---given 1 year training, how many sub4 milers could hit over .200 in the big leagues; and how many major leaguers could run sub 410 for a mile....any guesses???

given 1 year training:

how many sub4 milers could hit over .200 in the big leagues? 0.

how many major leaguers could run sub 410 for a mile? 5-10.

------------ wrote:

"The best baseball players in the world..."

Saying someone is one of the best baseball players in the world is like saying someone is the best TV watcher in the world.

An elite distance runner is an exceptional exerciser.

.275 definitely. more people can go train and run sub 4 at age 25 than can hit .275

0 and 0 would be my guess. Give the baseball players 3-4 years and maybe one or two of them break 4:10.

Timmy Jenkins wrote:

comintoofast wrote: here's the real question---given 1 year training, how many sub4 milers could hit over .200 in the big leagues; and how many major leaguers could run sub 410 for a mile....any guesses???

given 1 year training:

how many sub4 milers could hit over .200 in the big leagues? 0.

how many major leaguers could run sub 410 for a mile? 5-10.

Bum wrote:I still remember watching Jordan try to hit a minor league pitch. Hilarious. And he's one of the greatest athlete's in the world.

Jordan actually did ridiculously awesome for someone who hadn't even tried to hit a real pitch in 13 years, and had never faced pitching better than HS pitching before. It was not hilarious, he did much better than anyone should have expected...people just had ridiculous expectations of him. Jordan hit .202, had 3 hrs, 1 3b, and 17 doubles, stole 30 bases, and struck out less than 1 out of 4 abs, which isn't that horrible all things considered.

If he had trained all off season to come back and play again, you can be sure you'd have seen a drastically improved player. Thank god he returned to basketball though!

Agree, 0 and 0.

Everybody on here seems to think a <15 5K or a <4:20 mile is something anybody can do with a bit of training... Seriously, there are guys built really well for running who train their butts off and never break 4:10.

Baseball players are not at all built for running. Baseball is not an endurance sport and does not require low body fat percentage for optimal performance. Unless there is a genetic freak, there is no way 5-10 baseball players could train for a year and break 4:10. I would actually go as far to say that there are few baseball players who can train for a year and break 18 minutes for a 5K, let alone even fewer (single digits at best) who could train for a year and break 17 minutes.

I wouldn't expect a distance runner to be able to train for a year and hit 0.275 in the MLB, but to say a few MLB players could train for only a year and go sub 4:10 is insane! I think very few could even break 5 minutes.

A lot of people are saying that the participation numbers in baseball are greater than running. Are you kidding me! Track is easily the most competitive sport in the world, look at Olympic champion 1500m times compared to the last 1500m of the 5k, indistinguishable. If you look at the exponential curve of the world record progression, you will see that there is little room for improvements based on current human qualities. The participation rate of track is essentially everybody. In every sport the athletes run for training and the disgustingly fast are discovered. Everybody knows if they have running talent or not, but the same is not true for baseball.

By the way the winter olympics deserve, Tin, aluminum, and Wood medals. They are a farse.

I think you're biased by the fact that you are a runner, and probably a decent one. Someone (DI or otherwise) breaking 4 in college is far from "modest-talented." Those kids are extremely talented, and will probably go on

The college argument is also a strange one, because you can run sub 4 in college, but you can't bat .275 in the majors in college. You also can't make 13 million in running.

You also have lots of distance runners who will never seriously contend the mile while still being elite, whereas very few ball players will have a non-batting career.

I don't know which side I come down on; probably .275, but I think it's fairly close either way.

Hitting .275. Consider that nearly every single kid in America tries to do it and few do. While fewer people run sub-4, very few even try to get good at running.

If every kid in America were devoting himself to baseball, Latin America wouldn't be taking over the majors. We're not going to trot out a "gentic" argument for the Dominican Republic are we?

MarylandHatesRunners is closer to the truth on this point: while a lot of running talent is certainly missed, there is a greater amount of potential baseball talent lost to American kids who don't have seventeen other kids to play baseball with every day.

.275 isn't enough info. There is a huge difference between Brett Gardner hitting .275 with no homers and Alex Rodriguez hitting .275 with 40 homers. Sub-4 is sowewhere in between.

There are presently 358 Americans that have ever run a 4 minute mile. A LOT more than that have hit over .275 in the majors.

Harder question:

What is harder, running a sub-4 or climbing Mount Everest?

I don't think you can compare them. Hitting for a certain average in baseball is not at true indicator of ability, while running a 4 min mile definitely is. Running a 4 minute mile doesn't have nearly as much of an element of luck involved as a .275 batting average does. Sure there is luck involved with the ability of the field relative to you, or getting the right conditions, but those are minimal compared to the immense amount of luck that comes with a batting average.

Think of it this way: odds are, a 4 minute miler at the end of his season (around the same date) using the same training he did when he last ran 4:00...will likely run around 4:00. He could have just had the race of his life, but the chances of that with no pedigree that indicates the ability to run 4:00 are slim IMO.

Now take Adrian Beltre...a career .275 hitter, but last year hit .321. To date, I haven't read a thing about Beltre changing his season workout regimen, yet all of a sudden a guy who spent the last 5 years between .255 and .276 is a .321 hitter? Anyone who plays a little fantasy baseball even understands that there is a massive amount of luck that factors into whether batted balls fall into play, and it is beyond the control of the hitter.

If we were talking about a .275 hitter who has hit in a narrow range around that, with no factors indicating an immense amount of luck, then yes I think that is more difficult to do that running 4:00. Of those 65 hitters who hit .275 last year, I bet only 30-40 of them are of this sort.

However, when we're talking about a .220 hitter who has a lucky year on balls in play and hits .275...I don't think it's fair to diminish the accomplishment of a 4 minute miler by comparing him to someone who benefited from such an immense amount of luck. There is way to much variability in a batting average that is beyond a hitter's control to make batting average a good indicator of a baseball player's ability.

coach d wrote: Harder question:

What is harder, running a sub-4 or climbing Mount Everest?

Just because fewer people have done it does not mean it is harder. Women and old men have climbed Everest. Sub-4 is harder and it is not close. I believe close to 100% of sub-4 milers could climb Everest, and close to 0% of Everest summitters could run a sub-4 mile.

Most .275 hitters would struggle to run a sub 4 minute mile.

Most .275 hitters would struggle to run a <4 minute mile, a <5 minute mile, and a <6 minute mile. I would even venture to say that the average 0.275 hitter could not run a <7 mile without specifically training for it.

randy oldman wrote:

Most .275 hitters would struggle to run a sub 4 minute mile.