[Neal]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

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

Nice post, Larry. I agree with some of it. A few things .... first, yes, MLB draws from a larger pop. Included in that larger pool are nations and races that MLB never considered. Mantle had some nice seasons, but never dominated. Ruth DOMINATED. He was the only baseball player who has, imo. Mantle had a few powerhouse years, and a fantastic HOF career. Ruth was the only one. Not taking anything away from Mantle btw


Bottom line is that as much as Mantle and Ruth, among others, are considered "iconic" (and I would agree with that), there are a few others like Griffey, Pujols, and quite possible, Mike Trout, who should be considered "worthy" of being considered when the same ole list of icons is repeated over and over.

Good stuff