Originally Posted by 53toppscollector
I think it is fruitless and unfair to try to compare baseball players from different eras, especially wildly different eras. Comparing guys from the 1800s, when they pitched from 45 or 50 feet away and players didnt wear gloves, to guys playing today, just seems unreasonable. Its like asking which mode of transportation is better, the wagon or a Porsche. When it was either take a horse/wagon or walk, the wagon seems like the best idea ever. But now, if I offered you either a wagon or a Porsche, you'd probably take the Porsche, if time was any kind of consideration.
The game of baseball was completely different in 1905 than what it is today. Mostly because humans are different and they have evolved, alongside technology. Babe Ruth is amazing, but did he ever actually face any lefthanded pitcher who threw what is accepted today as a slider? He wasn't facing lefties throwing 96-98 consistently with 88-91 mph sliders.
Equipment was different, the game was played differently, and players were not built like they are today. Matty was 6'1/195, WaJo was 6'1/200, they were two of the most dominant pitchers of their era, and by today's standards, they'd be undersized righties.
I understand that there are statistics like ERA+ and OPS+ that adjust for era, but I don't think they can truly adjust and allow for direct 1 to 1 comparisons. The mound was different, park dimensions were a lot different, and the players themselves were a lot different. I mean, there were no night games until 1935. I think its easy to compare WaJo and Matty and Plank and Cy Young to each other, or Wagner to Eddie Collins. I think its a lot harder, and pretty pointless, to compare Mike Trout to Ty Cobb.
Different games, different eras. Just my $0.02
|