[BigBadBuc]

I hear the argument from some sectors comparing a modern day player with a player in the 1950's or 1960's or earlier. I don't really think that you can honestly do that. The players of every generation should be compared to their own generation. That's the only fair way to approach players stats because everyone is pretty much playing under the same rules and conditions.

I guarantee you that A-Rod sent back to the 1950's in a time machine would maybe hit 80 home runs in one season. Baseball players were not as big or as fast back then as the modern day baseball player but they were comparable to their own generation and that's all that counts.

There are a few ball players from the past that could have advanced forward into modern day baseball and hit well in today's game. I think of Clemente and Mays in particular. They were supreme atheletes with quick bats and strong arms. That's my 2 cents and I'm stickin' to it.

Can you guys think of any player from the golden era that could have maybe competed with today's ball players?

BBB

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by BigBadBuc

Can you guys think of any player from the golden era that could have maybe competed with today's ball players?

BBB

BBB you the man and all, but are you saying that those players couldn't take advantage of better, diets, better training, better travel etc and excel just as much in today's game?

...or that a less well traveled A-Rod, hopping in and out of trains during say the great depression etc would still fair well enough to hit 80 homers?...back then I believe dead center field in Yankee stadium was like 457 feet! (someone correct me if I am wrong)...given the deeper parks, the concentration of better pitchers per team, etc...do you really think A-Rod would come up with 80?...

Besides, comparing eras is what boards like this are made for...

Anyway anyone cuts it, Mantle still had 3.1 speed to first, and hit the ball a good 500 feet...Ruth's bat was way heavier than anyone swings, and the gloves they wore where not the baskets that pass for gloves now a days...

I think a superstar is a superstar despite of era, ballpark, and team they play on.

[desertrat]

You forgot to mention how much more lively the ball is today. It is much more tightly wound causing it to jump off of bats. The pitching mound was only 54 feet from home plate so the breaking ball was not a factor in those earlier days. This led to hitters hitting for a higher average and less power than today. I am sure we can think of more differences to add to this argument.

[BigBadBuc]

Gotham,

"I think a superstar is a superstar despite of era, ballpark, and team they play on."

That is the essence of what I was trying to say.

What I think is unfair is when I hear one era down play the accomplishments of the other. Maybe I wasn't very clear but sometimes I will hear the modern day fan make a claim that if A-Rod were playing in the 1950's that he would have outshined them all. In other words, if Alex Rodriguez was transported in a time machine with his 2006 athletic frame back to the 1950's, he would outclass the players of that era. A-Rod would obviously clean-up. I also hear that most of those guys back then couldn't compete with today's players (I agree) and so although I think that is okay to compare stats I think each generation progressively improves.

Gotham is probably in better condition than Great Grandpa because Gotham eats wheaties and drinks gator aid while Grandpa ate mush with bacon and syrup and washed it down with moonshine.

Play Ball!

BBB

[Mid-depth_Reporter]

If you threw A-Rod back into the 50s or earlier generations, he just wouldn't play baseball. Not enough money.

Other than that... when it comes to different eras and players, it's very hard to compare one player to another sometimes. But, I think that as the game changes, each level changes. There have always been times during a sport, especially in baseball, when one side of the game has been stronger than the other.

For instance, sometimes batters faired better than pitchers. During other parts of the games, the pitchers faired better than the hitters. But, during each of those times, the game has stepped up on both sides. Today's pitching matches today's bats. The 20s pitching match the batting of 20s batting.

Yet, even throughout all the changes that have occured, many records have stood their ground and presented challenges to modern day hitters. They say records are meant to be broken, and some are harder than others because everything finds an equilibrium in the long run.

[MVB]

If you threw A-Rod back into the 50s or earlier generations, he just wouldn't play baseball. Not enough money.

Very funny, but not true. Rodriguez would play for the love of the game. PLUS, teams would offer him a '50s equivalent of his current salary.

[ThePundit]

I think you can compare any 2 players from different eras that you've seen play. But what you can't do is compare them based on stats alone - for all the reasons you've listed.

So if you've seen Mantle and A-Rod play, you could get a good feel by having watched both of them no matter what the era. But to do it by numbers alone is silly because of the different factors that affected those numbers.

As an aside on the Yankee Network replay old Classic Yankee games. One day I was watching Dave Righetti's no hitter in 1983. What struck me the most was how skinny the players were compared to just a little over 20 years later.

The Yankees shortstop was Roy Smalley and the Red Sox shortstop was Glenn Hoffman. Yankees 1st baseman was a rookie named Don Mattingly and the Red Sox first baseman was Dave Stapleton. These guys were toothpicks compared to Renteria, Jeter, Giambi, Ortiz....Even for guys who don' take steroids, players are so much bigger today......Sure you had your big guys back then like Don Baylor and Gorman Thomas but now it seems almost every player is HUGE compared to not that long ago......I can't begin to imagine what players will look like 20 years from now.

[legend]

If you send A-Rod back in a time machine, be careful not to send him too far back. He would be dealing with the prejudice and racism that minorities faced in those days. And as soon as they saw how good he was, he would be knocked down repeatedly, upended violently during double plays, and face the prospect of eating and sleeping separately from the team when they went into cetain parts of the country.
There is no good way to compare players of different eras. I agree that ERA is one stat that cannot be used. The ball was juiced in the early Thirties too, to bring more excitement to the game. The stats of pre 1947 players, one could argue, are just as skewed as today's steroid era, because all the best players were not allowed to compete. Satchel Paige went 6-1 for Cleveland in 1948 at age 41; he might have been 50 for all we know!