If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having trouble accessing your account and don't remember your password, email help@virtualsportsnetwork.com and i'll get you an updated password for 2024.
I think baseball is the only sport where you could REALISTICALLY even ATTEMPT to compare era's athleticism but even then I think it's a hell of a stretch. As you mentioned before Corey Patterson probably hits 30-40 HRs a year in the 30s.
In the NBA and NFL forget it. Adrian Peterson and LeBron James are the best ever.
Yes you are. You are combining two different issues...number of teams and talent pool. As I said originally, just upping the number of teams in the 1916 AL wouldn't really change Johnson's status as the best pitcher. You aren't adding better teams...just more. When the MLB expanded in the late 60's, did Tom Seaver suddenly become a worse pitcher because the KC Royals had Dick Drago starting for them?
But unless there was Bob Gibson, Hideo Nomo, and Juan Marichal all pitching in their prime in 1916, I don't know if you can solidly conclude that Johnson would somehow lose his title as best pitcher of his era.
How would it be easier? You made the "argument" that a pitcher pitching only 200 innings creates variability...so wouldn't Johnson leading the league in Ks when the pitchers are pitching 300 innings be even MORE impressive and make Johnson's statistical leadership even MORE relevant and less dependant on variability?
I don't get it. At all.
Agree with you, but mostly thanked this post for the Dick Drago reference.
Tweet
Comment