baseball players: better today or yesterday?

i was reading a book over the weekend which addressed the age old question of whether baseball players are better today or in the "old" days of inside baseball. in my mind there is not even a dispute; the players of today are so much better that it is not even close. i believe this can be verified mathematically also. curious as to what others think. I am not making a comparison of one team against its own era, but rather am asking whether the quality of play and of players have advanced over time. Note that teher is probably no question that babe ruth's feats are the most impressive based on the era he played in,. similarly lefty grove. but is todays player just bigger and stronger or is he better?


Pat

Today's players are definately better but not just because they are bigger and stronger. They're also better because they have learned from the predecessors. Great players have passed down their knowlege of the game.


One of the critical reasons that Randy Johnson is such a great pitcher today is that he discussed pitching with Nolan Ryan extensively after the 1992 season. In 1993, Johnson broke out and became a huge star whereas before he was always an erratic pitcher who only had potential because of a big fastball.


The difference is less pronounced in baseball. Today's basketball and hockey players dwarf their counterparts of 30-40 years ago in all facets of the game. In football, the difference is extraordinary since strength and size is so important.

". i believe this can be verified mathematically also"


It has been surprisingly difficult to do so. Ask Bill James.


Nonetheless, it seems obvious that yes, athletes in virtually all sports are much better than they used to be.


Danny

Was the book Barra's Clearing the Bases? He rates Mike Schimidt as the player of the century because he believe the greatest player has to be from the second half of the century because the players are absolutely better and Schimidt has the best stats from the second half.


Depends how you define "better." There's no question baseball players today are bigger, stronger, smarter, better athletes. In every sport where distance or speed is measured, the athletes have improved over time, there's no reason to suppose baseball players haven't done the same.


No question the quality of play has improved over time. If this is your definition of "better," I agree with you.


But Mike Schimidt was not the greatest player of the 20th century. I think a player should be rated by how he fared against the competition in his own time, with the numbers adjusted for changes in the game. For example, Pedro Martinez's ERAs the past few years, while simiilar in absolute terms to, say, Walter Johnson's in the 1910s, are much more impressive in light of the number of runs being scored per game). But how Babe Ruth would have fared against today's competition is relevant in deciding how good he was. He was head and shoulders above the competition he had to face.


So the quality of play is clearly better (especially since we don't exclude non-white players from playing as was the case in the "good old" days). But greatness should be measured, IMO, by how great a player was compared to his contemporaries.

....for some of the lesser sports. Basketball, Football and Hockey are the clearest examples of superior players today. Baseball is also clear, but it isn't as pronounced. Almost across the board this is true.


I can think of two exceptions:


1. Heavyweight Boxing. I think its pretty clear that the great fighters of our era: Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis get smoked by Ali, Frazier and Foreman. However Ali et al destroy the Marciano's of the world, so this is sort of a push.


2. Horse Racing. The breed is simply more fragile, and by and large, less fast than their predecessors. The bloodlines have been thinned and key sires have been purchased and shipped overseas. The modern American Thouroughbred is demonstrably less impressive than its ancestors.