Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:33 pm
I'm in.
My only comment is that with the 1910-1929 time frame, you're actually mixing two eras - the end of the deadball era with the advent of the homerun era.
As baseball purists, do we want to do that?
And taking a quick look at the available players, there's really maybe a half-dozen prolific long-ballers; Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, Ott, Foxx, Simmons, Wilson (and the latter three - not their best years in HR numbers); after that, any remaining are in the low 20s in homers.
So a half dozen teams would have a distinct advantage in long-ball hitters?
If we're combining decades, I think 20s and 30s go together better, as do the 40s and 50s, if they can't stand alone, which I thought was the original idea.
Just my thoughts and comments - no criticism intended whatsoever!
BTW - I used to be katzenjammer