I don't know why whenever someone does something great they have to be immediately compared to other greats and the whole "well yeah, but was he better than so-and-so" argument has to come up. There are so many factors aside from talent than make any such debate an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Over the course of a 20-year MLB career players are going to be asked to do different things. A leadoff hitter's job isn't the same as #3 hitter, or a #7 hitter. Additionally, the strategies involved have evolved over the years and managers ask their players to be more specialized in certain aspects of the game.
The game itself has changed dramatically over the years. Comparing Ichiro's performance to Babe Ruth's is like comparing the performance of a Ferrari to a Model-T. It wasn't that long ago that if a pitcher hit 95 on the radar gun it made headlines. Now every journeyman reliever in MLB throws 95. The pitching Ruth faced was soft-pitch compared to today's game. I maintain, while the Golden Age players were great for their day, and certainly among the best players in their peer group, that Ty Cobb would wet his pants if he had to face Aroldis Chapman.
Expansion is another factor. The greats of yesteryear played when there were what, 8 teams in each league? There's twice that now. When Joe D. had his 56-game hitting streak, he faced a total of 54 different pitchers. By comparison, Jackie Bradley Jr. faced 65 pitchers in his 29-game streak this year. Specialization of pitching had made it much more tasking on hitters of today.
The who was better debate can never be answered by stats alone because they are dependant on so many other factors. Can't we just agree that Ichiro is a fantastic ballplayer? That he accomplished something only 30 players have done in the history of the game? That's like .002% of the players who have ever played, so yes, I would consider it a big deal, and IMHO it's kind of silly to even question that. Just my two cents.
|