The Death of the .400 Hitter

Joe Posnanski today writes about Whether we'll ever see another .400 hitter. He writes:

BUT ... could it just come down to the fact that batters strike out a whole lot more than they did in the .400-hitting days? I do realize that all of the above reasons would contribute to more strikeouts, but I am still wondering here: Is that what it comes down to?

Joe makes a very interesting argument about cutting down strikeout rates below 8% and how that would affect batting averages. I think he misses two very important points though:

1. Players aren't trying to strikeout. Sure you don't have players "choking up on the bat" with two strikes like in the old days but still players aren't going up to the plate trying to strike out. They would cut down on their strikeout rates if they could.

2. Pitchers are trying to strike batters out more. You no longer have starting pitchers trying to get the ball in play to save something for the later innings. Today you have specialized relievers and fire-balling closers. Not to take anything away from Ted Williams but he never had to face a Mariano Rivera, Dennis Eckersley or Jonathan Papelbon.

For me - the argument about the disappearance of the .400 hitter was settled decisively by Stephen Jay Gould in his 1996 book Full House. Among other things, in the book Gould explains the disappearance of the .400 hitter owing to two main reasons:

1. Complex systems improve when the best performers play by the same rules over an extended period of time. As systems improve, they equilibriate and variation decreases.

The game has been pretty stable since Ted Williams last hit .400 and excellence in all areas of the game has improved. Better fielding (player positioning and equipment), pitching (reliever specialization and pitch charting) and batting (better equipment and videos of pitcher tendencies). The .400 hitter has always been at the right tail of the bell curve of batting averages and when looked at statistically - the disappearance of the .400 hitter is seen as basically a measure of an overall improvement in play.

2. As play improves and bell curves march toward the right wall, variation must shrink at the right tail.

Players who hit .400 were on the far right tails of the bell curve. That curve has shrunk as the play has improved - drawing in that "right tail". You don't have guys hitting .430 while the rest of the league is hitting .260. Play has improved so now you have guys hitting .340 while the league is hitting as a whole .270.

Read the book. It is fascinating in its discussion on surviving cancer, how horses beat the evolutionary trends and why we no longer have .400 hitters. Someone should get Joe Posnanski a copy.