Okay, thanks. You've all pretty much ruined this thread.
Okay, thanks. You've all pretty much ruined this thread.
Track has higher participation but not more competitive participation.
Anyone can run track. I have seen some very untalented people line up in races.
These people wouldn't think of trying out for their high school baseball team.
The average guy who tries out for their high school baseball team is much more physically talented than the average guy who signs up (not tries out) for the track team.
I know that is a completely subjective statement but it is a reasonable assumption.
I believe the number of youths and young men that seriously dedicate time to learning how to hit a baseball, far out pace the number of of youths and young men that seriously dedicate time to training for a mile race.
Then you have all of your 40 minute 5Kers and 4 hour marathoners getting their participation medals.
Maybe I'm making it personal.
Maybe I am biased because I spent years playing little league baseball but eventually ran track because I couldn't hit and wound up nearly running a 4 minute mile which I found much easier to do.
By your logic, as it applies to baseball, every substantial, anomalous PR in track would also be attributed to dumb luck. Billy Mills? Luck. Bob Beamon? Luck. Ryan Hall? Luck. Chris Solinsky? Luck.I agree there are more variables involved in baseball. Quality of pitching, position in lineup, etc., spring immediately to mind. But just because a player has a great season doesn't mean he just got lucky. Do you think Roger Maris was just lucky when he hit 61 HR (he never topped 40 in any other season)? If so, why can't I say that Noah Ngeny was just lucky during that yearlong stretch in 1999-00 simply because he never duplicated that success.
A baseball fan wrote:
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.
That is not what I'm saying at all. Actually, my point is precisely that batting average and track & field performances are COMPLETELY different, so the track and field performances you named would not likely be contributed to luck. It's not that there are just more variables in baseball than in track...it's that the sheer amount of variables beyond a hitter's control in a batting average is so far beyond that of track and field that it's difficult to compare the two ideas. Can a hitter control if the shortstop happens to get a fantastic read off the bat and gets a great jump on the ball, turning a single into a groundout? How about gettting an even better read on the ball and turning that single into a routine out? The answer is no...a hitter cannot control that. There is an enormous amount of luck on balls in play, and it has a drastic effect on someone's batting average. I'm not saying it's not difficult to hit .275 because you can just get lucky, because you still have to be good enough to hit over .200 in a neutral situation to even hope to benefit from the luck and hit .275.
Now, notice I never say "baseball"...instead I say "batting average". Batting average has a large element of luck...home runs do not. Only certain elements of a baseball player can be attributed to luck. That's why Roger Maris' season was so incredible (though there is likely a reason he never hit close to 61HR ever again). Ted Williams' .406 was also incredible, because he only hit .378 on balls in play (and improbably defied a run of relative BAD luck to hit .400).
The fact of the matter is that you can't even compare a .275 hitter who was lucky on balls in play with a .275 hitter who was neutral (or even unlucky) on balls in play. How the hell would you be able to compare a 4 min miler (a performance with a lot less variability and luck) with hitting .275, when a real baseball fan can't even compare .275 hitters to each other fairly?
Wouldn't the vast number of variables a batter faces over 162 games bolster the argument that hitting .275 is, in fact, tougher than running a sub4? A runner, given the requisite talent, is generally in control of his performances on the track. Batters, as youve pointed out, must achieve hits in spite of circumstances over which they have no control.
Timmy Jenkins wrote:
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.
Correct, but if you asked people watching ESPN or reading SI, I think you would get the wrong answer.
Just last year (2010) there were 512 Everest summits and 3 deaths (everestnews.net).
I might be "slightly" biased being a mid distance coach, but most people have no conception about how difficult running a sub-4 really is.
Well, for what it is worth, there have been a helluva lot more .275 hitters in the big leagues than there have been sub 4:00 minute milers
coach d wrote:
I might be "slightly" biased being a mid distance coach, but most people have no conception about how difficult running a sub-4 really is.
OK, but how many people keel over dead after running 3:59?
[quote]Benson St. Wales wrote:
Batting .275 wins this one all day. Jeez, even watching a normal person try to hit single A minor league pitching with a wood bat is humorous.
Whereas the normal person can come damn close to a sub 4:00 minute mile?
4890374893 wrote:
OK, but how many people keel over dead after running 3:59?
How many more old folks could run 3:59 if there were 2 people running right next to them carrying oxygen bottles?
This is how many of those 2700 people actually "climbed" Mount Everest.
4890374893 wrote:
coach d wrote:I might be "slightly" biased being a mid distance coach, but most people have no conception about how difficult running a sub-4 really is.
OK, but how many people keel over dead after running 3:59?
How many people running 3:59 would be willing to do THIS:
http://www.adventureguy.com/John-Rost-Crossing-Ice-Fall.jpgThis is the Khumbu Icefall which is at the bottom of Everest on the Nepal side. You have to get through this just to get started up Everest.
Climbing in the Himalayas and running a 4 minute mile are very different events, and I think few people doing one would even be willing to attempt the other.
Remember, Carl is not planning an Everest assent at age 50. He's going to do a marathon.
Toro, I think that you provided a perfect example to support my point. You tried baseball and then discovered that you are a fast runner. The reverse cannot be true; you cannot be a good runner and in the process find out that you are good at baseball. As far as dedicating the time, I don't know if that is necessary. While young, natural talent stands out in spite of training. Yes running is a 'catch all' for those who have little athletic talent but they are just providing samples on the left side of the bell curve. Running provides the opportunity for more people to compete, so it is easier to discover the truly talented and untalented, because anybody can line up. This is an issue of mathematics, look at the exponential curve of world records vs time and the nearly perfect bell curve for marathon finish times.
The problem, is that we are comparing a moving standard (.275) to a fixed standard. If every person on the planet played baseball, then .275 would definitely be harder.
coach d wrote:
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 anybody has specifically mentioned hitting .275 for a single season. The whole "career" .275 hitter would be better. As stated there are 358 Americans who have broken 4 minutes for the mile.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/batting_avg_career.shtml?redirHopefully that link works, but it shows 754 players with career averages at or above .275.
with the whole "college players" thing somebody brought up a couple posts back... I am almost positive that if somebody has the talent to hit .275 in the Majors without any more development will be in the Majors, they won't be in college. Not saying this has anything to do with proving which is more difficult, just saying that if you are currently good enough to career hit .275 you'll be in the big leagues.
The other thing is we are pointing out the US sub 4 guys vs. the Major Leagues. I would not say there is no talent outside of the Majors, there is certainly plenty of it. But if you can make it in the Majors (hitting career .275 is making it) then you will be here monetarily speaking, especially back a few decades ago. Compare this to US distance running and we aren't exactly at the forefront of distance running. Think about over in the East African countries were they are stereotypically "built to run" - they probably have as many if not more sub 4 milers than the US does and their population is significantly smaller.
As a runner, I would love to say running sub-4 is more difficult, but it really isn't putting up much of an argument right now. The only way defenders of the sub-4 mile can try and get an argument together is if you start taking career "pro" averages. Start from the time they break 4 minutes (beginning of "pros" and take their average mile times, including slower, tactical races to account for "batting conditions" and the like. See how many end up with a "career sub-4".
I'll end on this - since we are discussing difficulty in general, you have to account for sub-4 equivalents that don't run the mile sub-4.
No eighteen year olds can hit .275 in the major leagues. Eighteen year olds have run sub-4 miles. A-Rod was one of the few people who even played in MLB when they were 18. At 18, he hit .204, at 19, he hit .232. It wasn't until he was 20, that he hit over .275. It took A-Rod two more years of top level coaching and the incentive of being paid $400k/year to achieve a .275 batting average.
To hit .275 in the major leagues requires more hours of practice/training than running a sub-4 mile.
im not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet.....but pitchers hit a lot in the national league--->>some look lost at the plate but still can manage to hit around .200--->if a fast person can just put the ball in play (like a slap hitter) then they could hit for at least over a .100 average I would think. Maybe never get a homerun, but at least manage to get singles or the occasional double if he finds the gap(Ichiro has a lot of infield singles every year)...If I got 200 At-bats in the big leagues, I think I could manage to get the ball in play 30-40 times (without bunting) and of those reach base about 10 times AT LEAST with little training but good natural hand-eye coordination (.050 average)...
Actually, it is certain that several 18 year olds could hit .275 in the majors given the chance.
Seeing as how virtually nobody is brought up to the bigs at such a young age, it makes it difficult to meet that standard
dem and doze wrote:
.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.
Exactly. How do we know if one player is not "enhancing" their performance or have some sort of incentive to produce greater results? I'm talking about the baseball players, btw.
ccrunner609 wrote:
who gives a shit....baseball is lame.
This.
For me my chances were much better running a sub four than ever even making the majors. And I never came close to running sub four.
Mount Everest would have been a surer thing.
98fjdfas wrote:
What is harder: running a sub 4-minute mile OR hitting .275 in the big leagues? (assume we're talking 100 at bats or more)
This isn't a valid comparison at all. A sub 4-minute mile tells you fairly definitively about a miler's performance. A .275 batter average doesn't tell you a whole lot about a hitter's performance. One poster had some .275 hitters and sub-.275 hitters, but mostly listed guys that hit a lot of home runs. Take someone who plays outfield, doesn't walk much, doesn't hit that many home runs. If he's only capable of hitting .275 in the major leagues, he doesn't make it to the major leagues.
