Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal
Why is it that players from the 50s on down are considered the "true icons" of the sport? The game was much different then, and many greats have played since they hung up their cleats. How would a hitter like George Brett do back in the days before Jackie? How would Ruth do today? Would the Mick have been on TMZ?
Thus goes the great sports debate .....
I am not taking anything away from Ruth, Aaron or Mantle btw. These guys were dominant, dynamic ball players. A long time ago ....
|
Neal, some would say that since MLB now draws its athletes from a significantly larger total population, the standard deviation reflecting talent has grown much smaller--i.e., the median player has so much talent that it is very hard for anyone to dominate the way that those discussed above did. I personally do not subscribe to this theory for the reason that other major sports have grown in popularity exponentially--football, basketball, hockey, and yes, even soccer--and have consequently drawn a lot of talent away from baseball. I wouldn't blame you, however, for taking the opposite approach. Under it, Mike Trout might well actually be as good as Mantle was (having seen him play in his later prime in the early '60's, however, my own opinion is to the contrary), but won't be able to demonstrate it if that theory is true--he'd have to be SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER to even dominate to the same degree. And domination is where iconic status comes from.
Best regards,
Larry