Six of the top ten pitchers in WAR(including the top two) were born in:
1867
1887
1869
1887
1900
1880
Knowing the population information, the discrimination factor, and the world wide talent added since then, if that doesn't make one scratch their head, then there is nothing that will.
Geronimo was still running wild in the west while some of those guys were alive. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were still at large as late as 1908 to give a snap shot of how different the landscape in the US was...let alone the rest of the world where talent also comes from now.
To make matters even worse, a common top three player list of all-time is Ruth, Cobb, and Wagner...more guys born before the turn of the century.
WAR has its problems but it is one of the few that accounts for ERA, IP, and the peers, and is generally close enough. Generally.
Some objective information:
There are going to be other variables that will sway the information below, such as other modern sports taking athletes away more than pre war sports. However, pre war sports ALSO paid athletes in sports other than baseball. But when other societal factors from Pre war are added in, it mostly washes away that variable. Things in early 1900's such as kids having to work earlier in life to live and never even getting the chance to play sports, kids having Polio or other debilitating diseases that eliminated them from the player pool; and acute injuries back then such as broken bones or torn ligaments that can be fixed now, but back then were career enders(sometimes before the careers even started). Then also families simply not allowing their kid to play sports in PRE WAR because their belief was to get a stable career. That is completely opposite in modern times where the goal is to get a career in sports and get a scholarship or big contract.
Then one other big factor that hurts the early 1900 player pool is the fresh immigrants coming into the US that are eventually counted in the population below. Kids weren't coming from Italy through Ellis Island with baseball gloves in their hands...so even though they are counted in those populations, they simply were not viable candidates for MLB players(until their families started having kids IN the United States).
Putting that stuff as basically a wash, it could be rehashed over and over. Lets look at the reality of what is more certain.
First and foremost, I am going to take away the African American population from available human males in the pre war time. It isn't going to be a footnote or variable. They will be lumped off right off the bat since they were barred. By the 1970's African American players comprised 18% of MLB, so to take into account any plus/minus I am going to lump off 15% to leave some margin of error.
That is just African American. The Latin American population is still not deducted and they were banned for the most part too.
The below figures represent available male humans to form the player pool of potential players of which MLB had to populate their teams with.
I purposely used age 12-17 year old humans so as to eliminate the birth mortality as a factor or variable.
Here is the number of viable American Born humans available in the United States to form the player pool.
In 1890 there were 3.6 million males aged 12-17 in the United States .
In 1900 there were 4.5 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1910 there were 5.4 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1920 there were 6.2 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1950 there were 12.9 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1970 there were 24.3 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1980 there were 23.0 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1990 there were 20.0 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
Babe Ruth's most direct peer group would be 1910 and Lefty Grove floating between the 1910 and 1920 group, and of course they would touch peers of the sandwhich groups.
Similarly, Rand Johnson's birth puts him floating between the 1970 and 1980 group.
The 1910 and 1920 group gives Lefty Grove 11.6 million peers.
The 1970 and 1980 group gives Randy Johnson 47.3 million peers.
I'm not sure those vast differences need to be expounded upon. I will differ to common sense and logic.
But as can be seen, Randy Johnson had four times as many peers to compete with/against from the available population compared to Grove.
People often make the point that there were only 16 teams, but that doesn't change how many 95 MPH pitchers were born or not. But even considering that, Johnson had four times as many peers and Grove had(16 teams compared to 28/30 for Johnson).....so less than half in Grove's favor, while Johnson is four times as many in his favor.
....that is just the United States! By 1970 and onward, the world stage got bigger and bigger as time went on...and of course the last ten years the world stage is at its biggest point.
In 2017 29.8% of MLB players were born outside of the United States. That is another 13 million peers that Johnson had to contend with.
So in reality;
Johnson had 60 million peers in which to compete against and separate himself from.
Grove had 11 million peers in which to compete against and separate himself from.
We know for a fact that these numbers produced taller and heavier players. We know that fastball velocity has been steadily increasing over time and that size can help velocity. We know that command has stayed at least even, but in reality has improved with the science of mechanics.
In reality, half the league in the early pre war years most likely does not even get drafted now, let alone make the minor leagues or having any chance at MLB. A five foot five 130 pound ground ball hitter with a subpar arm does not get a job on a college team now.
MLB could expand its league to twice the size right now and still have more overall talent than 1920.
I'm not sayings its impossible that Babe is still the best player ever, or that WJ at 6 foot one with really one pitch is the best pitcher ever(I have a hard time saying that part seriously)...but looking objectively we see factually how the height and weight has changed over time. We know the fastball MPH has risen steadily in the last 30 years, and that size and selective breeding does lead to increased velocity.
We see the elite pitchers of modern times being bigger, throwing harder(with movement), having as good or better command, and better breaking pitches.
I'm not certain everyone watches these pitchers closely anymore otherwise they would not be so set in their stance of the older guys being as good.
I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't have a personal stake in this, but am offering information that I hardly ever see taken into account. Factual measureable information.
Given two pitchers, if I know one is 9 inches taller, throws harder, has a littler better command, and the mental acuity to dominate for two decades...there is nothing that would point any level headed person to choose to take the lesser of those two physical attributes. That isn't even accounting for the peers. Just what that person can provide to a team trying to get hitters out.
i
|