Nothing aggravates me more than when fans say

[Seven]

"The Players of today are so much better than the players of 20, 30, 40, etc years ago."

I feel like it's a statement born of pure stupidity. Frankly I think the entire concept is ridiculous. Yes if we magically got a a time machine, grabbed Babe Ruth from 1927 and plopped him into baseball today, he would not do as well. But a Babe Ruth with access to modern health care, training and all the things players have today would still be a massive force in the game today.

I wish people instead of debating just appreciate what these players did, within the context of their times. Yes it's fun to play the "What if?" Game, but the "X player is better than Y player, because Player X is from 2023," is nonsense, in my opinion. The sport has changed so much, you can't properly make this argument.

We can compare era adjusted, park adjusted stats, that's as probably as close as we're going to get. Just enjoy the history of the game, and take pride in the fact that the sport you follow has a long and storied past.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Seven

"The Players of today are so much better than the players of 20, 30, 40, etc years ago."

I feel like it's a statement born of pure stupidity. Frankly I think the entire concept is ridiculous. Yes if we magically got a a time machine, grabbed Babe Ruth from 1927 and plopped him into baseball today, he would not do as well. But a Babe Ruth with access to modern health care, training and all the things players have today would still be a massive force in the game today.

I wish people instead of debating just appreciate what these players did, within the context of their times. Yes it's fun to play the "What if?" Game, but the "X player is better than Y player, because Player X is from 2023," is nonsense, in my opinion. The sport has changed so much, you can't properly make this argument.

We can compare era adjusted, park adjusted stats, that's as probably as close as we're going to get. Just enjoy the history of the game, and take pride in the fact that the sport you follow has a long and storied past.

I understand what you're saying and agree to a certain point.

On the flipside, it's just as annoying when certain fans declare the old-timers were so much better then the athletes today...because they weren't spoiled or soft, only played for the love of the game, ate rocks for breakfast, and smoked 3 packs of Camels a day.

I'm a boxing specialist and one of my pet peeves is fantasy fights between guys from different era's (Can John L. Sullivan beat Jack Johnson beat Jack Dempsey beat Joe Louis beat Muhammad Ali beat Mike Tyson, etc, etc.), and how into it some boxing fans and historians are. They will argue outcomes over the course of days. Write thesis's, articles, and books about it. They are mostly irrelevant arguments to me, unless you are comparing contemporaries to contemporaries.

[JollyElm]

Sounds like you're talking about these people...

372. Pastronaut (also Hindsightseer)
Anyone getting involved in the meaningless and frustrating theoretical argument of whether or not the all-time great players from earlier in the 1900’s would be able to thrive in the modern era.

[mrreality68]

How about it’s a kids game I would play for free

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

How about it’s a kids game I would play for free

HaHa, so would I, but nobody's going to pay a nickel to watch ME play...so by proxy, I would HAVE to play for free.

Every time I play corn hole at a picnic, I don't wonder why I'm doing this for free...though maybe I should, because it's usually pretty funny and entertaining for all involved.

[BobbyStrawberry]

"The best ability is availability."

If that's true, how come the creepy unemployed guy down the street from me doesn't play major league baseball?

[Mark17]

A pitcher gives up a home run, or a goalie lets an easy shot get past him:

"He wishes he could have that one back..."

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

On the flipside, it's just as annoying when certain fans declare the old-timers were so much better then the athletes today...because they weren't spoiled or soft, only played for the love of the game, ate rocks for breakfast, and smoked 3 packs of Camels a day.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like I hear this "side" of the coin FAR more than the "Players of today are better" side....10:1 at least.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like I hear this "side" of the coin FAR more than the "Players of today are better" side....10:1 at least.

Agreed

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

How about it’s a kids game I would play for free

God do I hate that. Sure they would play for free. We’ll have at it buddy. Quit you’re job at the company and play all day for free. Sounds like a good plan.

[D. Bergin]

Another one from the boxing fan perspective. Don't hear it as much anymore...but back in the day I sure did.

"Give me a million bucks and I'll get in the ring with Mike Tyson".

The conceit here is that you'll gladly take a beating and a possible hospital visit from "Iron Mike" (or any other top boxer), if it will get you a payday.

Problem is, nobody wants to see Mike Tyson knock your stiff ass out.

Now if you want to get in the ring with Butterbean, maybe some promoter will dig up $1500 bucks or so, so a bloodthirsty crowd can see you get your nose bone pushed into the back of your skull by a big, big man.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I understand what you're saying and agree to a certain point.

On the flipside, it's just as annoying when certain fans declare the old-timers were so much better then the athletes today...because they weren't spoiled or soft, only played for the love of the game, ate rocks for breakfast, and smoked 3 packs of Camels a day.

I'm a boxing specialist and one of my pet peeves is fantasy fights between guys from different era's (Can John L. Sullivan beat Jack Johnson beat Jack Dempsey beat Joe Louis beat Muhammad Ali beat Mike Tyson, etc, etc.), and how into it some boxing fans and historians are. They will argue outcomes over the course of days. Write thesis's, articles, and books about it. They are mostly irrelevant arguments to me, unless you are comparing contemporaries to contemporaries.

This is one hundred percent my bigger peeve.

You can and should only compare contemporary athletes in a sport as the variables are far to large. In my mind there are far too great of differences even in a decade for some sports. This is due to media exposure, rule changes and internal demons that may or may not have be able to be exorcised that exposed to light would have kept them from ever starting.

It's apples to oranges... some would have made the cut but other unknowns with unvalued or unnecessary skills of the time would likely have dominated in a different time. This is what is left out.

Comparisons are all silly and wistful dreams for those refusing to acknowledge that the games of past, present, and future, in any sport; are not interchangeable.

[Snapolit1]

+1

Was thinking of this very point today. Game moves and changes very quickly.

Met fans are by and large disappointed with Francisco Lindor this year offensively.

He is on track to hit about 130 RBI. That's more than Gary Carter, Chipper Jones, or Reggie Jackson ever hit in a season.

They are hall of fame power hitters. He is a short stop.

When I was kid the Mets short stop Bud Harrelson hit like 15-20 rbi in a year. And between 0-1 HR a year.

At the time Harrelson was considered a very good SS.