I've never understood why there are so many players in baseball that are average or below average. The players that really stand out and are HOF worthy are few and far between. You would think that when you have probably millions of guys who love and play baseball and are looking for an opportunity to play in the major leagues that there would be so many top players they wouldn't know what to do with them.

I guess I'm just curious as to how some guys wind up in the major leagues that don't do that well, when there's so many to choose from who would give everything to be there.

In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

There are about as many below-average players as there are above-average players; otherwise, it wouldnt be an average.  If you're talking median instead of average, the number of players above and below would be the same.  Simple math/stats.  

For study, one could plot some sort of performance distribution curve defined by a composite of relevant criteria.   I'm sure a number of stat geeks already have.  Perhaps posters hill and monslav  would like to chime in.  

 

In response to Sheriff-Rojas's comment:

Nice, Sheriff. But I still don't know why the best players aren't at every position on every team when there are so many to choose from. I'm a female, I may not be as good at math as some men, but I understand popularity contests and I think it's possible that MLB is somewhat of a popularity contest mixed in with a little "who you know". That's the only explanation I have. A possible "Hollywood" side to MLB.

Great performance in baseball can be a very fickle and elusive thing.  Just look at what happened to Kevin Youkilis this season and the entire Yankee's lineup in the Detroit series.  That's why the game lends itself to so much statistical analysis to determine what holds up over time.  It's also why the great ones are so special like Koufax, Pedro in his prime, Mo, etc.  

I would posit that the current trend toward sabermatics, specialization, and greater analytical study of the minutae of the game makes it especially difficult for players to excel consistently over time.  I'd imagine that things are broken down by coaching staffs  in such detail that it's hard for better players to sustain their edge as teams adapt and make adjustments .  

Excellence in competitive sports is relative.  Players who are superstars compared to the general population may not be good enough for the major leagues.  A hitter who crushed the ball in college and the minor leagues may look hapless when he reaches the majors and is facing pitchers who can throw the ball just a bit harder and who have sharper breaking pitches and better control than the pitchers at the lower levels.  It's all about the calibre of competition you're facing.

 

 

In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

LOL

Who knew math aptitude was gender specific?

This post has been removed.

It is all of the things mentioned and more along with ability it is also all about the players mental ability and ability to handle the pressure at each step in the process. It is why players proceed thought the minors and the guy who hits 30 Hrs and has a 389 ave at A ball hits 5Hrs and 245 at AAA ball.

you also have guys who are just steady at every level who make it and some that don't.

You also have great D players who are ave or less than ave hitters who make it.

Some thrive on playing in front of 30k where others cower under pressure. 

FYI there are thousands of scratch golfers but only a couple hundred who play on one of the tours.

the mind is a complicated factor for many athletes to harness.

i also think the degree of training is much more rigerous, players are bigger, faster stronger nowadays than they ever were. years ago a freak of nature would absolutely dominate the competition because he was playing against "normal" people. now that the average player is much better from a stature/skill standpoint the top players don't stand out like they used to

Less steroid use?

Not kidding...

Bad choice of topic; this is now a political forum!

Right now they are as the same as they were in the 90's.  Remember we saw many players using steriods during the early 2000's.   Since they banned steriods, nothing have change from the 90's to today.

So what is your point??

In response to GoUconn13's comment:

You mean there are no players like Brady Anderson who all of sudden jump to hitting 50 home runs per season?  

Probably because of union slug dumpster fodder.

There are really some interesting answers here that make alot of sense. Players can't maintain an edge when they are "found out" and adjustments are made, and the competition is stronger than what you would face anywhere else i.e. everyone is huge and talented. Also interesting was Jim's post about succeeding on a big stage, which not everyone can do.

Thanks for the responses. Something that never made sense to me, now actually does.

This post has been removed.

In response to kimsaysthis's comment:

Part of the issue is that today many of the players that are worthy are stained by alledged use of peds and many more found to have used (Bonds, Arod, Braun)...Elite players like Puljos who today is a first ballot Hall of Famer, frankly are suspected to be users. My guess is that if you look at the overall amount of Hall of Fame worhty players in the game today and compare it to by-gone eras. My guess is the math would be very similar with the lone exception that it might be weighted differently based on the changing demographics within the sport....

Fear not the game marches on....We have the new young guns like Mike Trout, Bryce Harper who both look to be on thier way to being an "elite players" with Hall of Fame talants...So to does Young Strasburg.

 

 

In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

It's called EXPANSION kim...there are more teams now than ever in all sports and the product has been watered down tremendously. That's not to say that there is no talent in baseball, there's a lot of it, just not all on one team like the 27 Yankees or Reds teams of the 70's even.

Imagine if there were only 20 teams in MLB how much better the players would be...that would remove 250 (10 teams - 25 players) players out of MLB that are there today.

LOL

Who knew math aptitude was gender specific?

Everyone knew that.  That's been known for at least 30 years, and probably suspected for 1,000 years.

It's called EXPANSION kim...there are more teams now than ever in all sports and the product has been watered down tremendously. That's not to say that there is no talent in baseball, there's a lot of it, just not all on one team like the 27 Yankees or Reds teams of the 70's even.

Imagine if there were only 20 teams in MLB how much better the players would be...that would remove 250 (10 teams - 25 players) players out of MLB that are there today.

The number of players relative to the overall population is relatively the same.  There were 20 teams when the population was 200M and 30 teams when the population is 300M.

There are a few more possible explanations.

Once upon a time, everyone played BB.  Except for golf, you couldn't make money at anything else.  FB was a college sport with a few company teams.  B-ball didn't pay much, and hockey was a Canadian sport.  The competition for elite athletes was dominated by BB.

Stats have changed the direction a little.  Fielding is now a component of value, and even 1Bs need to do a little more than stand on the base.  In addition, OBP has been emphasized more, so the swing for the fences a little de-emphasized.

There are a few others, like having good pitchers lined up for the 7/8/9, pitching every 5th day instead of every 4th day, but here is one I thought worth discussing.

Blacks comprise an ever-decreasing percentage of the BB population, while Latinos and Asians are increasing. since Latinos and Asians are smaller on average, you're likely to see less muscle.

 Def because of less steroid use 

This post has been removed.

because so many are overweight. 

 

In response to kimsaysthis' comment:

Lets face it anyone who gets to mlb level is a great player or was at lower levels. It's the ones who were blessed with something special that make it to HOF. Thats why its a shame when you see someone like Josh Hamilton with that kind of talent almost ruin a career because of a addiction. Also injuries play a big part, you can have all the talent in the world, but if you can't stay on the field never going to have a great career. Look at Ellsbury, not saying he's a HOF type player, but 2 yrs ago should have won an MVP imo. But yr before that and yr after that season couldn't stay on the field. Imagine if he had stayed healthy and possibly won MVP and maybe was a top 5 in MVP voting in the other how people would be judging him? The only person who is viewing him now as future HOF is Scott Boras unfortunately for RS fans.

In response to garyhow's comment:

but both injuries weren't ones that really shave years off of your career like knee injuries or elbow/shoulder injuries for pitchers. He also has no chronic or recurring injuries like hamilton does. as long as Jacoby doesn't get battered by other players in unlucky fashion he stays on the field.