O's the club on 30 Clubs in 30 Days tomorrow night, 3/6!

[Say O!]

Comparing players across different eras...it's all a matter of how you address context.

In a vacuum, athletes today are unquestionably better than of the past. Faster, stronger, better training and nutrition...all of the above.

Would Babe Ruth be one of the top hitters of today. Of course not. However, as compared to his peers...Ruth was the greatest.

Same with Brooksie. Compared to his era and his peers...Brooks was one of, if not the greatest defensive player of all-time.

Unfortunately, Cal did not thoroughly explain his rationale on air that night. In all likelihood, in a vacuum, Beltre is indeed a better defender than Brooks if the two were to have a fielding battle in the present day baseball era. But contextually, Brooks was so far above the "average" 3B of his time that Beltre falls short there.

Cal has basically said as much in recent interviews. His belief is that the best baseball players are playing right now. But his definition of "best" is most advanced athletically, rather than "best" as in comparison to peers.

[raveoned]

While I understand what you say to a degree, I counter that some of the historically great players would still be viable and sometimes better today. Training regimens and nutrition were not as an exact science in Ruth's day, yet I've seen film of Ruth drilling pitches hit virtually anywhere near him for homers or stinging hits. Mantle hit from both sides with power, and mostly injured or at a diminished capacity.

Feller threw with force and velocity, yet was able to pitch as close to perfectly as possible, meaning he used his legs and arms, as opposed to the majority of today's pitchers wanting to just strong arm a fastball past you.

Although there are merits to today's players, I think that an argument can be made that some of the players of the past would still flourish in today's game.

[Barnaby Graves]

Look he's free to have an opinion but I think the Teixeira grasscutting debacle contextualized his Robinson/Beltre comments and showed they had a lot less to do with his honest opinion and were more to do with Cal trying to prove he was objective, but it actually sounded a lot more like he wanted to not kiss the Orioles' ass. I mean he was going out of his way to not say nice things about the Orioles, and I say that growing up around Michael Kay and Jon Sterling, Sterling has the ability to be objective, Palmer doesn't have any settings other than brutal honesty, but Cal just sounded like an idiot. I felt like the ALDS was the Yankees vs. Hey Ernie, Who's That Team in the Orange Letters, I Think Their Shirts Say Bladdermore, What a Silly Name for a Town, I Love Curtis Grandersons.

[El Gordo]

Are GB bunts and pop ups any harder to play at 3B today than they were in the 60's and 70's? The fact is the only metric that compares the two TZ has Brooks averaging almost twice as many RS per season as Beltre. No matter how poorly you think defensive metrics are in measuring a players ability, it is doubtful they are so far off the mark as to mischaracterize two players relative ability by that much. Especially when the lesser player is supposedly the superior one.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Are GB bunts and pop ups any harder to play at 3B today than they were in the 60's and 70's? The fact is the only metric that compares the two TZ has Brooks averaging almost twice as many RS per season as Beltre. No matter how poorly you think defensive metrics are in measuring a players ability, it is doubtful they are so far off the mark as to mischaracterize two players relative ability by that much. Especially when the lesser player is supposedly the superior one.

Not the right question. It should be are the pool of players from the respective eras comparatively better? Also, Beltre's DRS rate is twice as good as his TZ rate.

[scOtt]

Comparing players across different eras...it's all a matter of how you address context.

In a vacuum, athletes today are unquestionably better than of the past. Faster, stronger, better training and nutrition...all of the above.

Would Babe Ruth be one of the top hitters of today. Of course not. However, as compared to his peers...Ruth was the greatest.

Same with Brooksie. Compared to his era and his peers...Brooks was one of, if not the greatest defensive player of all-time.

Unfortunately, Cal did not thoroughly explain his rationale on air that night. In all likelihood, in a vacuum, Beltre is indeed a better defender than Brooks if the two were to have a fielding battle in the present day baseball era. But contextually, Brooks was so far above the "average" 3B of his time that Beltre falls short there.

Cal has basically said as much in recent interviews. His belief is that the best baseball players are playing right now. But his definition of "best" is most advanced athletically, rather than "best" as in comparison to peers.

Just cannot agree with this. Brooks did things that no one could.

<embed width="600" height="361" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullscreen="true" allowNetworking="all" wmode="transparent" src="http://static.photobucket.com/player.swf" flashvars="file=http://vidmg.photobucket.com/albums/v340/if6was9/Brooks-THEplay.mp4">

[CA-ORIOLE]

While I understand what you say to a degree, I counter that some of the historically great players would still be viable and sometimes better today. Training regimens and nutrition were not as an exact science in Ruth's day, yet I've seen film of Ruth drilling pitches hit virtually anywhere near him for homers or stinging hits. Mantle hit from both sides with power, and mostly injured or at a diminished capacity.

Feller threw with force and velocity, yet was able to pitch as close to perfectly as possible, meaning he used his legs and arms, as opposed to the majority of today's pitchers wanting to just strong arm a fastball past you.

Although there are merits to today's players, I think that an argument can be made that some of the players of the past would still flourish in today's game.

Sure, but "some players could flourish in todays game" is conceding the point. Particularly when you consider that players perform and are evaluated relative to the level of the competition.

[incubus]

Sure, but "some players could flourish in todays game" is conceding the point. Particularly when you consider that players perform and are evaluated relative to the level of the competition.

I think what he is saying is, some of the past players could perform at a level high enough to compete with today's players without the benefits today's players have. Nutrition improvements, exercise improvements , and something else no one has brought up yet... A lot of the old ball players had to have off-season jobs. They couldnt spend the entire off-season working out. That being said I'm sure a lot more of the past players could compete if give the same resources.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think what he is saying is, some of the past players could perform at a level high enough to compete with today's players without the benefits today's players have. Nutrition improvements, exercise improvements , and something else no one has brought up yet... A lot of the old ball players had to have off-season jobs. They couldnt spend the entire off-season working out. That being said I'm sure a lot more of the past players could compete if give the same resources.

OK, I'll buy that.

[El Gordo]

Not the right question. It should be are the pool of players from the respective eras comparatively better? Also, Beltre's DRS rate is twice as good as his TZ rate.

Citing Beltre's DRS rate is pointless unless you can compare it to Robinson's DRS. And you can't. Do you have another metric you can cite that compares both.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Citing Beltre's DRS rate is pointless unless you can compare it to Robinson's DRS. And you can't. Do you have another metric you can cite that compares both.

It's not pointless to show how far TZ devalues Beltre and that TZ overvalues surehandedness. I tend to look how TZ and RF9 compare to each other in some of these historical cases. If you compare both players RF9's as compared to league RF9's the differential is pretty close, probably giving a slight advantage to Beltre as a percent diferential. That doesn't even get into my other point about the relative ability of the players of that era/position as compared to now... ..which I expect most people on here (other than you and a few others) are going to concede that the current players are better on aggregate.

[Number5]

It's not pointless to show how far TZ devalues Beltre and that TZ overvalues surehandedness. I tend to look how TZ and RF9 compare to each other in some of these historical cases. If you compare both players RF9's as compared to league RF9's the differential is pretty close, probably giving a slight advantage to Beltre as a percent diferential. That doesn't even get into my other point about the relative ability of the players of that era/position as compared to now... ..which I expect most people on here (other than you and a few others) are going to concede that the current players are better on aggregate.

Current players are unquestionably in better shape and generally better athletes than players in years gone by, but better baseball players? I don't think so.

There were many, many more pro ball players in the past, as there were many, many more minor leagues and minor league teams. There were, however, far fewer major league teams and players. Only the cream rose to the top. There were less pitchers per team. The pitchers were good. And the players were all fundamentally sound.

The pool was much larger to begin with. 80-90% of males in America played baseball regularly when I was a boy. Out of, say, 18 boys in a typical 4th, 5th or 6th grade class (yes, due to the baby boom, we had large class sizes) it is a good bet that 16 of them were in Little League. Nearly all the guys were in Pony League in 7th and 8th grade. That is just not the case today. On top of that, we were experienced playing baseball on the sandlots for years before we even were old enough for Little League. Coaches could concentrate on actually coaching baseball right away. By the time my kids played, I had to concentrate on teaching half the kids on the team which base was first base. Overall, I don't think there is much doubt that the overall level of play in rec leagues and high school today is down from the level seen 40 or 50 years ago.

I think that the best players are in better shape and compare favorably to the best players of the past. Unfortunately, a lot of the kids that may have been that level of a baseball player never pursue the sport today. Any given player with certain natural talent is probably better today due to better health and fitness regimes than in days gone by but I do believe that the overall talent level in the majors was higher when the player pool to draw from was much larger and the number of MLB spots available to them was much smaller. So, yes, today's major-leaguers are superior athletes, but I really don't think they are better ballplayers, on aggregate.

[crissfan172]

What I don't get is the desire to make this dividing line between the 20th and 21st centuries. You hit it on the head with the fixing of crissfan's post. A hard hit ball to 3B is the same now as it was then. You still have to play the ball, and Brooks did it the best. Simple. Period. End of story. That's all there is, there is no more - sorry, got carried away.

My point was that nobody would argue that there is someone in this era better than Beltre, just like there was nobody better in the last century than Robinson. There's no way to really know who is better between Beltre and Robinson other than to have watched both players frequently. I'm skeptical of current defensive metrics, so you can only imagine how I feel about statisticians trying to assign them to players like Robinson after the fact.

Look...I'm not trying to say Beltre is better or discredit Brooks. I was simply saying that it's certainly possible that Beltre is better, or more to the point, that Ripken truly believes he's better.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Current players are unquestionably in better shape and generally better athletes than players in years gone by, but better baseball players? I don't think so. There were many, many more pro ball players in the past, as there were many, many more minor leagues and minor league teams. There were, however, far fewer major league teams and players. Only the cream rose to the top. There were less pitchers per team. The pitchers were good. And the players were all fundamentally sound.

The pool was much larger to begin with. 80-90% of males in America played baseball regularly when I was a boy. Out of, say, 18 boys in a typical 4th, 5th or 6th grade class (yes, due to the baby boom, we had large class sizes) it is a good bet that 16 of them were in Little League. Nearly all the guys were in Pony League in 7th and 8th grade. That is just not the case today. On top of that, we were experienced playing baseball on the sandlots for years before we even were old enough for Little League. Coaches could concentrate on actually coaching baseball right away. By the time my kids played, I had to concentrate on teaching half the kids on the team which base was first base. Overall, I don't think there is much doubt that the overall level of play in rec leagues and high school today is down from the level seen 40 or 50 years ago.

I think that the best players are in better shape and compare favorably to the best players of the past. Unfortunately, a lot of the kids that may have been that level of a baseball player never pursue the sport today. Any given player with certain natural talent is probably better today due to better health and fitness regimes than in days gone by but I do believe that the overall talent level in the majors was higher when the player pool to draw from was much larger and the number of MLB spots available to them was much smaller. So, yes, today's major-leaguers are superior athletes, but I really don't think they are better ballplayers, on aggregate.

I think I'd have to disagree with the bolded parts, though not necessarily disagreeing with most of what you said. Obviously a major reason that players in the past are not as good (on aggregate) imo is because of the physical conditioning and other resources (dedicated coaching/practice/training regimens etc) that are available. As others have pointed out players can be much more dedicated to their profession now than in the past. This relates to the financial incentives obviously, but also to technology and better information aand processes. As far as the popularity of the sport at the lower levels being broader 40 years ago, I don't really disagree with that observation either. Just my opinion that the good ones are selected early and put along much better developmental tracks at a far greater rate of efficiency than in the past. I don't really think you're accounting for population increases and broader international talent as well. I think if you went through ML rosters from 40 years ago a large percentage of guys (as they were in their prime) just wouldn't make it today, much less be as good as they were (comparatively) back in that era.

[Number5]

I think I'd have to disagree with the bolded parts, though not necessarily disagreeing with most of what you said. Obviously a major reason that players in the past are not as good (on aggregate) imo is because of the physical conditioning and other resources (dedicated coaching/practice/training regimens etc) that are available. As others have pointed out players can be much more dedicated to their profession now than in the past. This relates to the financial incentives. As far as the popularity of the sport at the lower levels being broader 40 years ago, I don't really disagree with that observation either. Just my opinion that the good ones are selected early and put along much better developmental tracks at a far greater rate of efficiency than in the past. I don't really think you're accounting for population increases and braoder international talent as well.

The overall population has increased by a lot, but the baseball population has decreased to an even larger degree, as I pointed out above. Despite there being more people, there are far fewer people playing baseball, which is what is pertinent to this discussion.

The number of people in the overall population that might have the natural talent to be major league ballplayers may well be greater, but most of them are playing soccer, lacrosse, or video games.

As I said, today's advantages can, and usually does, make the same player better than before, but there were far greater numbers of players with true major-league talent trying to make it in baseball to begin with back then. You were talking about on aggregate, not individually, and to that I have to say that from what I've seen, major-leaguers were better ballplayers 40-50 years ago.