rke871
08-16-01, 10:39 PM
On comparing players.
This is my opinion on the process of comparing players from one era to another. I don't think it is possible to compare the players from one era to another era ( ie pre 1950 to post 1950) and other time frames as well, because there is no one alive at the present time that has seen those people play. They would had to have been a contemporary say around 20 years old with enough Baseball expertise (sports writers) to evaluate the level of play and seen them perform for some length of time (say 2 years?) as well as seeing their opposition and the conditions and rules at the time they played. Pretty much all we can rely on now are the stats and second hand observations, stories, and films, but no one who was there and actually saw them and then saw the more modern era players to compare them with. Who really knows how Ruth and Gehrig wood actually compare to Aaron, Mac and Ripkin if they played today and vise versa. Records are one thing but they are no substitute for actually seeing them play. Who knows what players where great back in the dawn of the game who's names are now forgotten, or on the other hand the ones that have some fame attributed to them not because they deserve it, but because of popularity or where they played and who they knew. That is part of my problem when they try to select players of the century, or team of the century or anything of that nature. Whenever somebody proclaims anybody as the greatest this or the greatest that, I always take it with a grain of salt and in my mind add "one of" to the statement.
I would be interested to know the criteria others use to do their comparisons on this board in regards to evaluating the Yankees of the past. :)
This is my opinion on the process of comparing players from one era to another. I don't think it is possible to compare the players from one era to another era ( ie pre 1950 to post 1950) and other time frames as well, because there is no one alive at the present time that has seen those people play. They would had to have been a contemporary say around 20 years old with enough Baseball expertise (sports writers) to evaluate the level of play and seen them perform for some length of time (say 2 years?) as well as seeing their opposition and the conditions and rules at the time they played. Pretty much all we can rely on now are the stats and second hand observations, stories, and films, but no one who was there and actually saw them and then saw the more modern era players to compare them with. Who really knows how Ruth and Gehrig wood actually compare to Aaron, Mac and Ripkin if they played today and vise versa. Records are one thing but they are no substitute for actually seeing them play. Who knows what players where great back in the dawn of the game who's names are now forgotten, or on the other hand the ones that have some fame attributed to them not because they deserve it, but because of popularity or where they played and who they knew. That is part of my problem when they try to select players of the century, or team of the century or anything of that nature. Whenever somebody proclaims anybody as the greatest this or the greatest that, I always take it with a grain of salt and in my mind add "one of" to the statement.
I would be interested to know the criteria others use to do their comparisons on this board in regards to evaluating the Yankees of the past. :)