This is an interesting subject to me: how do you make an honest evaluation when constructing Greatest Of All Time lists? How do you compare players from different eras? To a certain degree, it is an impossible task. Sure, modern players are much more imposing physical specimens; but would not the oldtimers have been likewise if they had lived today? Would modern players have been so muscular if they had lived back then? Oldtimers did not have the advantage of the collective learning that each generation accumulates from the preceding ones. Do you penalize them for that? Do you penalize modern players because they do have that advantage? You can compare each player to his contemporaries, but it still is a fact that some periods just had better players than others.
One thing is sure: every time we tinker with the rules, it makes it just that much more difficult to compare eras. And like it or not, that is one of the great joys of following sports.
* * *
"What do you think Ted Williams would have batted today?"
"Oh, I don't know - maybe .280."
"You think he would have batted only .280?!"
"Yeah, but keep in mind he's 80 years old."
No comments:
Post a Comment