Time-line adjustment

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Bill James, rating the top 100 players of all time in his revised HBA, gives modern players "credit" for playing against tougher and better competition. He makes a case for it based on demographics and advances in other sports then, right in the middle, quotes Casey Stengel as saying that yesterday's stars would be just as good as today's, given the modern training methods and equipment.

It's poll time. Down and dirty, are today's average players better than in the old days, the same, or worse? Are today's top stars any better, or are stars an anomaly beyond any timeline?

FWIW, my personal belief is that while today's average players are better than those of long, long ago, the trend towards overall improvement has slowed considerably since the '70s; the top stars are anomalies who would shine just as bright in any era.

[Skip]

This is a tough one to dig through. It may have been better to have two polls, one for players in general and one for the elite players.

Anyway, I think today's players in general are definitely better - and wouldnt think there's any doubt. I think that applies to the stars as well, though I do think the stars of yesteryear (with modern training, nutrition, et al) would still 'shine', just perhaps not as brightly or in as exclusive of a sky.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
It's poll time. Down and dirty, are today's average players better than in the old days, the same, or worse? Are today's top stars any better, or are stars an anomaly beyond any timeline?

FWIW, my personal belief is that while today's average players are better than those of long, long ago, the trend towards overall improvement has slowed considerably since the '70s; the top stars are anomalies who would shine just as bright in any era.

Better at what?
Conditioning?
Baseball smarts?
Athletic prowess?
IQ?
Size?
Speed?
Self sacrifice?

There's so many things that make a player..........

[pwdennis]

I think today's run-of-the mill players are better than the run-of- the-mill players of yesteryear (particularly defensively); however, the star players of any generation would be stars today

[JamesI]

The average player is better now. Due to conditioning, and probably the fact that they don't need to have offseason jobs to pay the bills.
Stars are Stars though. Put Ty Cobb in today's game, and he's the best player (maybe Bonds).

[SmedIndy]

Dig up Sliding Billy and he'd still be the best leadoff hitter for a 20 teams.

But the mass of players is so much better - however, I wonder (just to wonder) if the PCL, IL, and AA were truly subservient back in the 00's, 10's, and 20's if the skill level of the majors would be improved enough to make it closer to today's athletes.

Baseball had no competition for athletes then - it has plenty now.

[KCBOOMER]

I'll go with James on this one. There is no significant sport where today's players aren't bigger, stronger, faster than those before them.

[TimmyB]

Players now are bigger, stronger, faster, etc. and probably better performers due to equipment, field conditions, year-round nature of the sport and so on.

I would guess that dropping 1903's Honus Wagner (or fill in the blank with one of your favorite all-time greats) into Pittsburgh's 2003 lineup would be an immediate upgrade. Give him (or blank) a year or two with maple bats, better (ahem) nutrition, training and so forth, and you have, easily, as dominant a player now as then.

Can I prove it? No.

[Max Power]

All you have to do is watch some 1970's games on ESPN Classic to see that today's players are bigger, etc.

But, does bigger, faster, stronger mean they are better baseball players?

Michael Jordan is big, fast, and strong. He was a bad baseball player - even at AA.

[WiredTiger]

Originally posted by Max Power
All you have to do is watch some 1970's games on ESPN Classic to see that today's players are bigger, etc.

But, does bigger, faster, stronger mean they are better baseball players?

Michael Jordan is big, fast, and strong. He was a bad baseball player - even at AA. I think on average that a pool of athletes who are bigger and stronger and faster will produce better ball players. I doubt that the difference would be as pronounced as in Football or Basketball though.

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by Max Power
All you have to do is watch some 1970's games on ESPN Classic to see that today's players are bigger, etc.

But, does bigger, faster, stronger mean they are better baseball players?

Michael Jordan is big, fast, and strong. He was a bad baseball player - even at AA.

You make an interesting point. One could argue that, say, Barry Bonds or Sammy Sosa all post 1996-muscley'd up are more potent power hitters (and looking at OPS) and more valuable to their teams than they were in, say, 1990 (although, Barry was no slouch then, either.)

However, anecdotally, I have read within the past year about both Richard Hildago and Marty Cordova getting to bulky and loosing flexibility, which adversly effected their performances. I'm sure they're not alone.

Greg Maddux is neither big, strong, nor fast, and I warrant a guess he would be a star in any era.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Originally posted by Max Power
Better at what?
Conditioning?
Baseball smarts?
Athletic prowess?
IQ?
Size?
Speed?
Self sacrifice?

There's so many things that make a player..........

I'll bite. Now that you mention it, I've always wondered if today's players are any better at brawling, drinking and playing cards than they were in the days of train-travel. That was a big part of being a ballplayer.

Rube Waddell used to chase fire trucks and his manager kept him on a strict allowance because otherwise he'd take his money, get drunk and disappear for days at a time. But he was a hell of a pitcher.

One of the things that makes baseball great -- including the sheer longevity of the professional leagues -- is that, unlike track and field and weightlifting, we may never know how, say, The Babe would perform if he woke up in 1973 or how, say, Barry Bonds would perform if he woke up in 1919.

We only know that Barry in 1919 wouldn't be in the major leagues because of his skin color, and that The Babe would probably put up monster number in PacBell Park.

[SmedIndy]

The question would be how someone like Dan Brouthers or Dave Orr would hit now - or how say Lance Berkman or Scott Rolen could handle the rules and equipment of the 1880's