The only constant in baseball is change

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Recent changes include players not actually needing to play for long before they have sufficient money to live as they wish, essentially forever. This status has to impact baseball in many ways.

Other earlier impacts include ballpark size and rules changes, such as when are sacrifice flies not counted as an at bat, and other changes which were implemented in the last half of the 20th century. As well as those in the first half of the century including minimizing the effects of gamblers, eliminating the spitter, juicing up the ball, etc.

And even earlier, as one poster recently pointed out: "the difference between a 60'6" distance and a 50' distance between mound and batter's box, and on the other hand a ball that often saw duty through the whole game, and did the old guy pitch before or after batters could ask for a high one or a low one, and how many strikes, how many balls did it take to get a man out or walk him? Did he have in the back of his mind the idea that he was expected to finish the game, or that a reliever was coming in after 5 innings? Was it already considered O.K. to wear a glove (and what kind of glove?), or was it "unmanly"? Did he play in that year where every on-base was a hit, or that year where every extra base taken was a steal? Did a grounds crew come out and manicure the field before, in the middle and after the game, or was the field in such a condition that once the ball hit the ground, it might bounce in any direction?"

With this history, many analysts feel that comparison of ball players between generations of changes can not reasonably be made; while others think that while the style of play has changed over baseball's history, players adjust to their situation to yield statistics that (for the most part) are directly comparable throughout the years.

Of course there are caveats here. Ballplayers without gloves, on outdoor fields can not be expected to field a ball cleanly as often as those who use the current baskets for indoor baseball.

Which other statistics do you feel are not comparable among the generations of development of ML baseball?

[Archive]

Posted By: Billy

I think the Black and Grey ink tests CAN approximatley compare players from different generations. I can't think of any stats you couldnt compare in this method, because even HR and SB totals (which are vastly different depending on era)can be judged by comparing a player to the league leaders during that time, and ranking assigned. Go to baseballreference.com to check out the black and grey ink.

[Archive]

Posted By: three25hits

OPS+ or Winshares are some of the best measures to compare players across generations.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Well I think SABR has taken the approach that you compare players from the same generation of baseball and use stats like VORP and Winshares.

Using such stats allows you to see the most dominate players of a given era. Of course comparing the numbers of Keefe to Johnson to Gibson to Clemens is still debateable, but it gives you an idea of dominance in an era and helps you place them among the all time greats.