Discussion Thread: ATG 8 Player Addition #3 Election

Its literally impossible to accurately judge what guys might have done era wise;

We can all make relative statistical comparisons.

All one has to do is look at the size of players from the 70s to realize the average baseball players sheer physicality has undergone a massive change- and therefor can't honestly imagine most of the past greats being able to compete-
although there are plenty of other factors including pitchers going less innings, more rest, also MANY more reported injuries.

The most accurately we can do is judge players in their era vs. other players in the same general time period.

Im having visions of Lebron James playing against any human being in the 60s- who could possibly have stopped him from scoring 50 a night?

Bill Russell.

Bill Russell.

I LOVE Bill Russell, one of my all time fave players, and he 'might' be able to deal with LeBron inside strength wise, still pretty iffy to me b/c of the upper body strength- but Lebron can also destroy midrange jumpers and 3's all day, and drive past Russell.

As sure as I 'think' I am on this, still no way to prove/disprove it.

The thing is that if Bill Russell were playing today--or let's say, a guy who was born with Russell's same package of height, innate talents and drive--then he would go through the same kind of developmental process as today's players, and he'd look like them and be able to play with them and to beat most of them. Same with Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Larry Bird, etc., etc.

In baseball, the same could be said for, say, Lou Gehrig, Jimmy Foxx, Joe D, Josh Gibson, Teddy Ballgame, etc. The best players, born into in today's conditions, would likely have developed along the lines of present day players and be competitive with them.

The reverse is also true. Mike McGwire playing in the 1930s would not have looked or performed like Mike McGwire in the 1990s.

So I'm with Salty on this:

The most accurately we can do is judge players in their era vs. other players in the same general time period.

At the same time, I share the feeling expressed by several here that very early-era baseball--say 1870-1885-- was a game apart and not really comparable to present day baseball, if only because the rules were so radically different that it was very much a different game.

Different rules mean a different game in a more fundamental way than more developed body types mean a different game.

Here are some sample rules changes from the early era of baseball.Note that major rule changes--and there were many more than listed here-- were made almost annually in the period between 1865 and 1895. They were literally making up the game as they went along.
My source is http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml

1867 Pitcher's box is a 6 foot square. Pitcher may move around inside the box.
1879 The number of called balls became 9.
1880 Base on balls reduced to 8 "called balls"
1883 Six "called balls" became a base on balls
1884 All restrictions on the delivery of a pitcher were removed.
1885 Chest protectors worn by catchers and umpires came into use.
1887 Calling for high & low pitches was abolished
1889 Four balls became a walk
1891 Substitutions were permitted at any point in the game
1891 Large padded mitts were allowed for catchers.
1893 Pitching distance increased from 50 feet to 60 feet 6 inches
1893 Pitching box was eliminated and a rubber slab was substituted
1893 The pitcher was required to place his rear foot against the slab

Now, to my way of thinking, 1893 is when we begin to have a sport that one can think of in the same terms as modern baseball. A game in which there are 9 or 8 or 6 balls for a walk isn't much like today's game. Neither is a game where the ball is thrown so softly that catchers don't need chest protectors or padded mitts.

And a game where the pitcher stands in a large box 50 feet from home plate soft-tossing called high or low pitches to a catcher unprotected by a real mitt is fundamentally different from a game where a pitcher is standing 60' 6" away with his back foot on a slab, firing fastballs over 90 mph to a catcher who can defend his vital regions with a padded mitt and chest protector.

Important rule changes continued on a fairly regular basis until 1920, after which rule changes became rare, but the pace of change slowed after 1895, and for my money it's 1893 when we start to get something like real baseball.

Its literally impossible to accurately judge what guys might have done era wise;

We can all make relative statistical comparisons.

All one has to do is look at the size of players from the 70s to realize the average baseball players sheer physicality has undergone a massive change- and therefor can't honestly imagine most of the past greats being able to compete-
although there are plenty of other factors including pitchers going less innings, more rest, also MANY more reported injuries.

The most accurately we can do is judge players in their era vs. other players in the same general time period.

Im having visions of Lebron James playing against any human being in the 60s- who could possibly have stopped him from scoring 50 a night?

The refs. crab move or no crab move. serial traveling was not allowed back then. None of this clear out for 1 on 1 stuff.

Wow. Just looked at the poll. I honestly don't get all the love for that Pedroia card.

if altuve can hit .340 so could duffy. i have no doubt that ty cobb, joe jackson, etc. could hit .350 plus especially without the spit ball. with airline travel, luxury hotels, no double-headers, few day games, far superior diet and training/medical facilities, and uniforms not made of suffocating wool, i think the old timers would rock!

Wow. Just looked at the poll. I honestly don't get all the love for that Pedroia card.

Ill try and explain;

is there another 2b whose card we don't have any of- who would have a superior one?
(1e6 or similar who can hit at least a bit- as far as I see the Zobrist card is pretty similar, so is Pedroias 2011 season)
Last time I tried to get us a much superior Cano card, which failed- but can't do that here.

If so please tell me, seriously, b/c I will nominate them next go around.

Wow. Just looked at the poll. I honestly don't get all the love for that Pedroia card.

Ill try and explain;

is there another 2b whose card we don't have any of- who would have a superior one?
(1e6 or similar who can hit at least a bit- as far as I see the Zobrist card is pretty similar, so is Pedroias 2011 season)
Last time I tried to get us a much superior Cano card, which failed- but can't do that here.

If so please tell me, seriously, b/c I will nominate them next go around.

Don't know about defense...but here's a very quick list of potential 2B candidates, just on their offensive numbers.

2000 Luis Castillo .344/.418/.388
1894 Cupid Childs .358/.475/.459
2005 Mark Ellis .316/.384/.477
2008 Mike Fontenot .305/.395/.514 (2e4)
2003 Marcus Giles .316/.390/.526
2009 Aaron Hill .286/.330/.499 (1e8)
1996 Rex Hudler .311/.337/.556
2006 Orlando Hudson .287/.354/.454
2011 Howie Kendrick .285/.338/.464 (2e6)
2013 Jason Kipnis .284/.366/.452 (2e13)
1997 Aaron Ledesma .352/.437/.500
1995 Keith Lockhart .321/.355/.478
2004 Mark Loretta .335/.391/.495
2011 Brandon Phillips .300/.352/.457 (1e6)
2007 Placido Polanco .341/.388/.458 (2e0)
1894 Heinie Reitz .303/.372/.504
1906 Sammy Strang .319/.423/.435
1995 Eric Young .317/.404/.474

That said, nothing at all wrong with Pedroia (MVP on top of it all).

Bill