1. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    12 Dec '11 05:27
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    Let's examine your stats a little more closely.

    First of all, baseballs have flown out of stadiums at a more prolific rate overall during
    the last 15 years. This was due, in part, by MLB trying to lure fans back to the game.
    The ball is juiced, just as are many players. The equipment is better. Travel is better.
    You would expect that the stats wo ...[text shortened]... e best player of "his" era. But I do not think he is close to the best player ever.
    Sorry.
    Any player who is the best of his era has the right to be included in a debate about who the best player ever really is, thus if he is the best of this era then he is at least "close" to the best player ever.
  2. Subscribershortcircuit
    master of disaster
    funny farm
    Joined
    28 Jan '07
    Moves
    100886
    12 Dec '11 05:561 edit
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    Any player who is the best of his era has the right to be included in a debate about who the best player ever really is, thus if he is the best of this era then he is at least "close" to the best player ever.
    Do you think about what you are saying before you type it?

    He may, or may not be the best player of his era.
    As such, he can certainly be included in a discussion about who the greatest of all time is.
    However, there are many factors to consider when considering rational comparisons between
    different times in history.

    Do you have no ability to comprehend this concept?
  3. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    12 Dec '11 06:00
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    Do you think about what you are saying before you type it?

    He may, or may not be the best player of his era.
    As such, he can certainly be included in a discussion about who the greatest of all time is.
    However, there are many factors to consider when considering rational comparisons between
    different times in history.

    Do you have no ability to comprehend this concept?
    Yes, but this is stated nowhere in the post I quoted and I wasn't responding to this fact. I was merely challenging your statement (which you just recanted) that he isn't even close to being the greatest of all time.
  4. Subscribershortcircuit
    master of disaster
    funny farm
    Joined
    28 Jan '07
    Moves
    100886
    12 Dec '11 06:05
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    Yes, but this is stated nowhere in the post I quoted and I wasn't responding to this fact. I was merely challenging your statement (which you just recanted) that he isn't even close to being the greatest of all time.
    NO, I did not recant my statement.

    I said he is not in the top 5 of all time for sure, and possibly not in the top ten

    My earlier statement that I saw 5 play in my life who were certainly better complete players.

    I never saw Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams or Lou Gehrig.
    Those 5 plus the 5 I mentioned earlier would all be in front of Pujols.
    I would have to research it further to determine where he would rank.
  5. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    12 Dec '11 06:23
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    NO, I did not recant my statement.

    I said he is not in the top 5 of all time for sure, and possibly not in the top ten

    My earlier statement that I saw 5 play in my life who were certainly better complete players.

    I never saw Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams or Lou Gehrig.
    Those 5 plus the 5 I mentioned earlier would all be in front of Pujols.
    I would have to research it further to determine where he would rank.
    As such, he can certainly be included in a discussion about who the greatest of all time is.


    This certainly sounds like you were recanting your statement.
  6. Subscribershortcircuit
    master of disaster
    funny farm
    Joined
    28 Jan '07
    Moves
    100886
    12 Dec '11 06:51
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    As such, he can certainly be included in a discussion about who the greatest of all time is.


    This certainly sounds like you were recanting your statement.
    He can be included in the discussion, but that doesn't make him close to the greatest.

    You need to follow the statements more closely.
  7. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    06 Jan '12 21:441 edit
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    He can be included in the discussion, but that doesn't make him close to the greatest.

    You need to follow the statements more closely.
    This makes no sense. Why include someone in a discussion of being the greatest if he isn't even close to being the greatest?

    How good you are is based on how much better you are than your contemporaries since that is the only way to compare the greats of the past to the greats of the present. There are too many factors that change the stats between past and present.
  8. Subscribershortcircuit
    master of disaster
    funny farm
    Joined
    28 Jan '07
    Moves
    100886
    06 Jan '12 22:30
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    This makes no sense. Why include someone in a discussion of being the greatest if he isn't even close to being the greatest?

    How good you are is based on how much better you are than your contemporaries since that is the only way to compare the greats of the past to the greats of the present. There are too many factors that change the stats between past and present.
    Not true, but you can believe that if you want to.
  9. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    09 Jan '12 22:01
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    Not true, but you can believe that if you want to.
    How so? Why don't you take a look at the average size of the stadiums that Babe Ruth hit each of his homeruns on the way to a record and then look at the average size of stadiums today. Also, if you think that there somehow was more integrity back then and nobody cheated (of course not roids but there are other ways to cheat) then you are fooling yourself.
  10. Subscribershortcircuit
    master of disaster
    funny farm
    Joined
    28 Jan '07
    Moves
    100886
    09 Jan '12 23:09
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    How so? Why don't you take a look at the average size of the stadiums that Babe Ruth hit each of his homeruns on the way to a record and then look at the average size of stadiums today. Also, if you think that there somehow was more integrity back then and nobody cheated (of course not roids but there are other ways to cheat) then you are fooling yourself.
    What are you babbling on about?

    The stadiums were smaller, however the equipment was not as good.
    The overall quality of pitching hitters faced was better because it wasn't as diluted.
    The quality of travel was worse back then than it is now.
    The amenities and training equipment and medical staff is much better now.
    Night games were not played as often (if at all in some eras).
    Sleeping on trains does not equate to sleeping in a hotel bed.

    Based on all of the hardships, you would expect the disparity to be much greater
    than it actually is.

    So how do you figure you cannot compare eras?
  11. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    11 Jan '12 20:111 edit
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    What are you babbling on about?

    The stadiums were smaller, however the equipment was not as good.
    The overall quality of pitching hitters faced was better because it wasn't as diluted.
    The quality of travel was worse back then than it is now.
    The amenities and training equipment and medical staff is much better now.
    Night games were not played as ...[text shortened]... ity to be much greater
    than it actually is.

    So how do you figure you cannot compare eras?
    You just said why.

    Why must I argue with these idiots?
  12. Subscribershortcircuit
    master of disaster
    funny farm
    Joined
    28 Jan '07
    Moves
    100886
    12 Jan '12 01:47
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    You just said why.

    Why must I argue with these idiots?
    If you are referring to me, then you are crazy as a loon.

    I will take you on with no problem at all.

    Make your case and I will cut it to ribbons for you.
  13. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    12 Jan '12 18:17
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    If you are referring to me, then you are crazy as a loon.

    I will take you on with no problem at all.

    Make your case and I will cut it to ribbons for you.
    You just cut your own position to ribbons?

    The difference in hardships make them incomparable.

    The difference in average athletic capability make them incomparable.

    The difference in the size of the stadiums make them incomparable.
  14. Subscribershortcircuit
    master of disaster
    funny farm
    Joined
    28 Jan '07
    Moves
    100886
    12 Jan '12 20:58
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    You just cut your own position to ribbons?

    The difference in hardships make them incomparable.

    The difference in average athletic capability make them incomparable.

    The difference in the size of the stadiums make them incomparable.
    Learn how to think out of the box a bit and it is really pretty easy.

    What you would see when comparing each generation of players against the players
    of their era, coming up with overall averages of the era and comparing that player's
    performance to the average performance of that era.

    You would see inflated numbers for both hitters and pitchers in the most recent decades due to the deteriorated pitching and improved equipment.

    In the older generations the numbers would not be as gaudy do to a better quality of
    pitching and lesser equipment, worse travel, etc...

    You also would have to extrapolate from the 154 game season to the present 162
    game season.

    You would then produced weighted averages from the various eras for comparison.

    It is not perfect, but it is a lot closer than the strict numbers adoration.

    If you do this, you will see that the players of modern ears should produce larger
    numbers than their predecessors, but those increased numbers do not necessarily
    reflect higher "greatness" valuations.
  15. Joined
    15 Jun '06
    Moves
    16334
    12 Jan '12 22:021 edit
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    Learn how to think out of the box a bit and it is really pretty easy.

    What you would see when comparing each generation of players against the players
    of their era, coming up with overall averages of the era and comparing that player's
    performance to the average performance of that era.

    You would see inflated numbers for both hitters and pitcher ...[text shortened]... ssors, but those increased numbers do not necessarily
    reflect higher "greatness" valuations.
    Which is why I said you have to compare players from different eras based on how much they performed over the average of their own era. Otherwise its apples and oranges.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree