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

At least 500 major leaguers have batted .340 or better in one season. .275? They don't even compile a list for something that common.

Another Episode wrote:

There have been 664 career .275 hitters. Probably 10,000 to 20,000 have done it for one season.

Less.

And yet a 3:38 1500 has been run over 7,000 times, and equates to much better than a 4:00 mile. Hundreds did it last year.

Baseball Expert wrote:

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.

There have been many, many high schoolers bat .275 in the majors.

Baseball Expert wrote:

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?

No. It's a good measure of the all around physical tools needed to accomplish a task.

If no guy over 40 has done it then you might want to pounce on it as evidence for .275 being harder.

Mtn Dew wrote:

I would say sub 4. Hitting a baseball depends on several factors and can be easier or harder depending on what team you're on, where you bat in the line up and which league you play in. Running sub 4 doesn't depend on anything other than the work you put in.

Ummm, batting .275 depends equally as much on how much work you out in plus talent plus all the things you listed. Running sub 4 depends on talent, work, conditions, pacing, etc.

The major league batting average for all players combined in 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2006 was .275 or higher. .275 was average or below average in those years. It has been .275 or higher 25 different years. .275 for a season, is a lot, a whole lot easier than running a single four minute mile.

SMJO wrote:

Baseball Expert wrote:

Pretty sure there were none. But didn't I explain how that doesn't matter anyways?

No. It's a good measure of the all around physical tools needed to accomplish a task.

If no guy over 40 has done it then you might want to pounce on it as evidence for .275 being harder.

I though you meant last year, as a follow-up to how many did it last year. There were none last year.

It is proof enough that more Americans last year broke 4:00 or equivalent than hit .275, despite less incentive for the former.

Over-40 players ever, I'm not sure how many. Very few guys even get enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting average at that age, they're not everyday starters. Someone like Ty Cobb probably did it but it was a totally different game back then.

passion wrote:

The major league batting average for all players combined in 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2006 was .275 or higher.

Wrong.

American League year average:

.277 (.27717) 1996

.270 (.27035) 1997

.271 (.27126) 1998

.275 (.27451) 1999

.276 (.27565) 2000

.267 (.26687) 2001

.264 (.26378) 2002

.267 (.26728) 2003

.270 (.26991) 2004

.268 (.26763) 2005

.275 (.27481) 2006

Just for the AL. Must have something to do with the designated hitter. So the average for all players 4 out of the 10 years in the AL was .275 or better. The average mile time for all runners? Maybe 8 minutes?

passion wrote:

Just for the AL. Must have something to do with the designated hitter. So the average for all players 4 out of the 10 years in the AL was .275 or better. The average mile time for all runners? Maybe 8 minutes?

The average baseball player doesn't play in the MLB.

Usually about 100 people hit the league average BA for the year, probably about 80 hit .275 those years.

In 1996, there were 95 sub-4:00 miles and 304 broke 3:38 which is ~3:56 equivalent.

Baseball Expert wrote:

B.

Usually about 100 people hit the league average BA for the year, probably about 80 hit .275 those years.

In 1996, there were 95 sub-4:00 miles and 304 broke 3:38 which is ~3:56 equivalent.

95 sub 4 in the world. How many additional pros in Japan, Mexico, Dominican Republic etc. hit .275? The fact is that a lot less people in the world play baseball than run. A lot less people run sub 4 than hit .275. Not a single pro baseball player who ever lived could run sub 4.

Anyway, comparing numbers is idiotic. Is it easier to become the Queen of England or to hit .300? Only one person in the world is the Queen of England, but there are many .300 hitters. But does it take any skill or effort to become the Queen of England? No. But it must be harder because there is only one. Is it harder to hit .275 for a season or bowl 275 for a season? Baseball and bowling are about equal in the level of athleticism and effort required. Running sub 4 is light years beyond playing baseball or bowling.

schmooze wrote:

95 sub 4 in the world. How many additional pros in Japan, Mexico, Dominican Republic etc. hit .275?

In the MLB, only a handful, which is what the topic is about.

schmooze wrote:

Not a single pro baseball player who ever lived could run sub 4.

Not a single pro runner who has ever lived could hit .275.

schmooze wrote:

Anyway, comparing numbers is idiotic. Is it easier to become the Queen of England or to hit .300? Only one person in the world is the Queen of England, but there are many .300 hitters. But does it take any skill or effort to become the Queen of England? No. But it must be harder because there is only one.

It is harder. Some would say it's impossible unless you have 1-in-7-billion genetics.

schmooze wrote:

The fact is that a lot less people in the world play baseball than run.

That's why I am limiting it to US ONLY. Where, despite more incentive to bat .275, fewer people can do it. Hence, it is harder.

Well, baseball expert is wrong. More Americans hit .275 in the majors every year than run sub 4. How many major leaguers are there? 600 or 700? How many Americans between the ages of 18 and 40 race the mile in a year? 10,000? Probably more. Hitting .275 in the pros is easier in every way than running sub 4.

temptation wrote:

Well, baseball expert is wrong. More Americans hit .275 in the majors every year than run sub 4.

Nope. We already covered this earlier in the thread. The total was something like 44 hitting .275 and more than that running sub-4.

Which is more likely? A ten year old girl beating Shaq in a free throw contest, or a ten year old girl running a six minute mile?

As a big fan/spectator of both sports, it is obviously batting. Flagpole pretty much got it right on the first page. Hitting is an extremely scarce skill. When you calculate how long it takes to react and swing, you have to anticipate where the ball is going to be and how fast it will come before it leaves the pitcher's hand. The untrained eye could not tell the difference between a 95 mph high fastball and an 80 mph curveball in the dirt until it was way too late. This requires exceptional eyesight as well as years of experience observing pitching. Then you need strength, coordination, speed, etc if you actually want to hit the ball and make it to first base. While a 4:00 mile doesn't qualify you for indoor NCAAs anymore, very few baseball players are ready for the major leagues after they graduate.

I can't imagine how many more sub-4:00 miles would be run each year if it was rewarded with $1M/year...

It's not clear that the reward of $1M/year would greatly increase the number of sub-4 milers any more than it does for .275 MBL hitters? All the money in world is not enough to make a person without the necessary physiology motivated enough to achieve these goals. But your point is probably that the $millions would cause more runners to try? Can we say with certainty that the reward of a D1 title is not enough to cause nearly all runners with the potential to run sub-4 to try?

Baseball Expert wrote:

PS, to coach d's question, only 44 Americans batted .275 in the MLB last year.

Last year, 59 U.S. men broke 4 minutes for the Mile (indoors and outdoors).

passion wrote:

American League year average:

.277 (.27717) 1996

.270 (.27035) 1997

.271 (.27126) 1998

.275 (.27451) 1999

.276 (.27565) 2000

.267 (.26687) 2001

.264 (.26378) 2002

.267 (.26728) 2003

.270 (.26991) 2004

.268 (.26763) 2005

.275 (.27481) 2006

Just for the AL. Must have something to do with the designated hitter. So the average for all players 4 out of the 10 years in the AL was .275 or better. The average mile time for all runners? Maybe 8 minutes?

This is a good way to do it, BUT you need to limit the # of runners to create an (roughly) equal comparison.

So a good starting question is what the average mile time is for the top 600 milers in the world (because baseball, while primarily American, does include quite a bit of foreign talent)

Or, we could look deeper and account for the different # of athletes trying each sport. For example, using participation data from the NFHS, combined with the guess that about 8-9% of track athletes are milers, we can assume that there are about 51k milers in high school and about 475k baseball players in high school. That's about 9 times as many baseball players as assumed milers. So maybe a more apples-to-apples comparison would be to look at the top 30-35 milers in North America (as most baseball players are from NA), as there are probably about 300 batters in the MLB that get 100+ at bats each year. Looking at THAT, the average in the US (plus foreign collegiates) was 3:55.82y last year... which might suggest a .275 average in the MLB (with 100+ at bats) is about the level of a mid 3:5x mile.