Mike Trout Monday: We probably don't deserve Mike Trout

[floplag]

59 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I totally get the perception, I just don't think you can construct a mathematical approach that would show evidence of it. As far as I know, all of the models for estimating changes in the difficulty of the league have found it to be increasing over time. While I agree that kids aren't playing the game as religiously as they once did, most of the other factors are going in the opposite direction.

No, probably not, too many unknown variables. 
I just find it hard to equate an increase in difficulty with the fact that much if not most of our best overall athletes are playing other games.   That doesnt seem logical in any way.
Plus i dont think that perception takes into account the affect of the steroid era effectively either which just so happened to coincide with the rise of the other sports, which is why mlb turned a blind eye for so many years.  
I cant prove it in any logical way, but simple logic suggests that when your best athletes arent playing a sport, you dont have the same level of play as you would if they were.  Why are we not better at Soccer for example on the world stage, but dominant in basketball... same argument. 

[floplag]

1 hour ago, krAbs said:

^^This is the relevant chart - the point of the article was that the previous statistical methods used to estimate previous ability were a bit overly aggressive (blue line), and if you control for some factors, the red line here is likely an accurate chart of "skill level" over time.

The article also has this throway line:
"The first comes from Bill James, in the New Historical Baseball Abstract. In the Bob Lemon comment, James lays out a list of “about a dozen” (actually 16) indicators to evaluate league quality, including hitting by pitchers, fielding percentage, and the average distance of .500. “From 1876 to the present,” he writes, “all of these indicia, without exception, have advanced steadily.”"
 

Which makes me really curious about the "New Historical Baseball Abstract" and how they approached this question.

Forgive me but anything from James is pure numbers, and that doesnt tell the story in its entirety. 

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

You make a good point, floplag, but my issue with it is that you seem to assume that "athletes are athletes," and can be equally skilled at whatever sport they choose. Baseball is rather different from most sports in that a greater percentage of player ability is based upon hand-eye coordination and developed skills over pure athleticism.

Many great athletes have been terrible baseball players, and many great ballplayers have been poor athletes. The point being, it is a different pool of talents from other sports - some crossover, but not as much as you imply.

No, not necessarily at all.   I see your point but thats not my intent.  you arent going to take an NFL lineman and plug him in at 3B obviously, Sandoval aside.  
Look for example at all the so-called skill positions in the nfl, dont you think almost any of them could convert well enough?  Many of the 1-3 in the NBA?  
Its just my opinion, i cant prove it, but i dont buy into most of the other examinations suggesting that somehow a  league thats twice as large getting half the best atheltes/players can somehow be better than it was 40 years ago, that just defys logic to me.