Saturday, February 02, 2013
Cross-era comparisons
?I know everyone loves to do it. You have to choose whether you are comparing two players on their own, or whether you are comparing how the two players would do, if they had access to identical environments (nutritional, equipment, training, etc). That is, are we transplanting the 1936 version of Jesse Owens, or are we transplanting his grandparents so that Owens would be born at the same time and place as Usain Bolt?
Rally also brought up the following point, which I posted to Bill James:
In football, basketball, hockey, we wouldn't think of comparing the best 2001 team to the best 1954 team, and think that the 1954 team could beat the 2001 team. Someone at my site suggested it's because baseball had an earlier start historically (say 30 years beforebasketball and hockey), and so, we need to shift our persepective by 30 years, so that we get to a plateau like we might with baseball. I don't buy that argument in the least. What do you think?
Asked by: tangotiger
Answered: 2/1/2013
Oh, I certainly buy that argument. MOST of the improvement in baseball skills occurred before the NFL was organized in 1920 or whenever it was. Baseball gets better, but the pace at which baseball is improving has certainly been cut down by the passage of time.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 151 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date
FORUM TOPICS
Jul 12 15:22 MarcelsApr 16 14:31 Pitch Count Estimators
Mar 12 16:30 Appendix to THE BOOK - THE GORY DETAILS
Jan 29 09:41 NFL Overtime Idea
Jan 22 14:48 Weighting Years for NFL Player Projections
Jan 21 09:18 positional runs in pythagenpat
Oct 20 15:57 DRS: FG vs. BB-Ref
Apr 12 09:43 What if baseball was like survivor? You are eliminated ...
Nov 24 09:57 Win Attribution to offense, pitching, and fielding at the game level (prototype method)
Jul 13 10:20 How to watch great past games without spoilers