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?redir
Hopefully that link works, but it shows 754 players with career averages at or above .275.
I disagree. If s guy hit .275 in 2010, he is a .275 hitter, even if he hit .240 the year before
I watch middle schoolers run 60 second quarters every week. This isn't even close; hitting .275 is much harder.
First player batted .275 in like 1890. Sub 4 happened in 1954.
That's your first big clue that sub 4 is tougher. It really isn't even close... and
zillions more try running than ever play baseball.
How many around the world would hit .275 if more than a few countries played the game? The correct answer is probably several thousand or more per year. 20 guys from each country on earth would mean 4000 .275 hitters per year.
Maybe the average person would look like a fool trying to hit a 92 mph curveball or a 65 mph knuckleball but then the average person on earth also can't run 15mph for even a fraction of a second let approach the 18 - 19 mph peak running speed required to have a decent chance at sub 4.
Moreover, given global obesity rates, fewer and fewer will be running these times in the future, even if they hold all track meets indoors at UW, BU, Birmingham or Dusseldorf.
Now maybe if you took the mound back to 16" and the tracks back to cinder, and weight of spikes back to 8oz and the indoor tracks to unbanked and 11 laps per mile (and then outlawed pacesetters for good measure) we could get to the bottom of this.
dsrunner wrote:
First player batted .275 in like 1890. Sub 4 happened in 1954.
0/10
American high schoolers have broken 4. No American high schooler could bat .275 in the big leagues. That's the only clue needed.
toro wrote:
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.
Your last point is terribly misguided. Just because someone is not good at baseball does not mean that he could just switch to running and run close to a 4 min mile!! You can not believe that your typical .275 hitter could just take a few years and run a 4 min mile if they desired to take up running do you?
The best we can do is just find out what percentage of baseball players and runners actually achieve these levels of performance. If a smaller percentage of runners do it, then that performance is more "rare". Rarity can be a measure of difficulty given enough people trying to achieve something.
Baseball has had scores of guys way over 40 who were considered good enough to keep playing.
There have only been 2 over 40 guys who managed to break 4.
That tells me that elite running of any sort is harder.
Solinsky followed up his 26:59 with 12:56 and 12:55.
SMJO wrote:
Baseball has had scores of guys way over 40 who were considered good enough to keep playing.
There have only been 2 over 40 guys who managed to break 4.
That tells me that elite running of any sort is harder.
That's because the had millions of dollars of incentive to keep going. A guy like El Guerrouj could break 4 at age 40, but why?
SMJO wrote:
Baseball has had scores of guys way over 40 who were considered good enough to keep playing.
There have only been 2 over 40 guys who managed to break 4.
That tells me that elite running of any sort is harder.
There have been 17-year-olds under 4, but not hitting .275.
Running sub-4 is more of a physical skill. It tapers off with age faster. Baseball hitting also involves anticipation and coordination, where years and years of experience are rewarded.
dsrunner wrote:
First player batted .275 in like 1890. Sub 4 happened in 1954.
That's your first big clue that sub 4 is tougher. It really isn't even close... and
zillions more try running than ever play baseball.
How many around the world would hit .275 if more than a few countries played the game? The correct answer is probably several thousand or more per year. 20 guys from each country on earth would mean 4000 .275 hitters per year.
Maybe the average person would look like a fool trying to hit a 92 mph curveball or a 65 mph knuckleball but then the average person on earth also can't run 15mph for even a fraction of a second let approach the 18 - 19 mph peak running speed required to have a decent chance at sub 4.
Moreover, given global obesity rates, fewer and fewer will be running these times in the future, even if they hold all track meets indoors at UW, BU, Birmingham or Dusseldorf.
Now maybe if you took the mound back to 16" and the tracks back to cinder, and weight of spikes back to 8oz and the indoor tracks to unbanked and 11 laps per mile (and then outlawed pacesetters for good measure) we could get to the bottom of this.
Just pick up your newspaper's sports section. There were 50 Americans running 3:40 or faster for 1500 last year (sorry Bring Back The Mile types, most people run 1500, not mile), and 185 around the world. How many batted .275?
Baseball Expert wrote:
SMJO wrote:Baseball has had scores of guys way over 40 who were considered good enough to keep playing.
There have only been 2 over 40 guys who managed to break 4.
That tells me that elite running of any sort is harder.
That's because the had millions of dollars of incentive to keep going. A guy like El Guerrouj could break 4 at age 40, but why?
Wouldn't El G have the same incentive?
All-Kenyan wrote:
SMJO wrote:Baseball has had scores of guys way over 40 who were considered good enough to keep playing.
There have only been 2 over 40 guys who managed to break 4.
That tells me that elite running of any sort is harder.
There have been 17-year-olds under 4, but not hitting .275.
Running sub-4 is more of a physical skill. It tapers off with age faster. Baseball hitting also involves anticipation and coordination, where years and years of experience are rewarded.
Are anticipation and coordination not physical?
SMJO wrote:
Baseball Expert wrote:That's because the had millions of dollars of incentive to keep going. A guy like El Guerrouj could break 4 at age 40, but why?
Wouldn't El G have the same incentive?
No, of course not. If you're a .275 guy you could still start on a World-Series winning team. You could still make a couple million. You'd be the best hitter on some teams. El Guerrouj running 3:59 wouldn't even make the Olympics or accomplish anything new.
PS, to coach d's question, only 44 Americans batted .275 in the MLB last year.
SMJO wrote:
Are anticipation and coordination not physical?
you get the point. they don't deteriorate in age at the rate muscular strength does
How many over 40 guys have batted .275?
How many major leaguers hit .275 before 1954? Thousands?
How many humans ran sub 4 before 1954? 0
Look at it another way. Every major leaguer who ever lived could train forever and none of them would run sub 4. I could go to the plate and get some hits with enough at bats. Somebody like John Kruk, who is about as far from an athlete as is possible, had a career batting average of .300. He is so fat that he can't see his feet. Baseball is not a sport. It is like bowling or darts. A runner could become good at bowling or darts, but a baseball player could never run sub 4.
SMJO wrote:
How many over 40 guys have batted .275?
Pretty sure there were none. But didn't I explain how that doesn't matter anyways?
SMJO wrote:
All-Kenyan wrote:There have been 17-year-olds under 4, but not hitting .275.
Running sub-4 is more of a physical skill. It tapers off with age faster. Baseball hitting also involves anticipation and coordination, where years and years of experience are rewarded.
Are anticipation and coordination not physical?
Yes, both depend on physiology. But there is another physical factor related to hitting a baseball traveling at high speed....eyesight. These exceptional hitters have exceptional eyesight. And that's not so much about athleticism.
Nurse Jackie wrote:
Somebody like John Kruk, who is about as far from an athlete as is possible,
Oh please, you're worse than Xfitguy. Because there's only one type of athlete.
We're talking about which is harder TODAY. Batting .275 was perhaps easier in 1940 but not in today's league, and the statistics prove it. With this in mind go back and re-think what you wrote.
There have been 664 career .275 hitters. Probably 10,000 to 20,000 have done it for one season. It is absurdly easier to bat .275 for a season than to run a four minute mile once in a lifetime.