Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
An all-time team with a built in recency basis, picking the players best for todays game rather than a pound-for-pound style ranking of dominance in context, is not an All-Time Team at all.
An increase in the quantity of players has no effect whatsoever on an all-time team. The absolute greats do not lose their jobs in a smaller league; the worse players do.
As an All-Time Team, your 1893 cutoff used to dismiss the improbability is not relevant.
|
I picked 1893 since the game fundamentally changed that year. Ok to disagree with that if you like.
If you don't like the concept of more players = better players, fine. Then go with population. More people to draw from = better players.
It's simply silly to think that players haven't improved significantly over the last 125 years. Relative domination is am interesting way to judge things. Doing that overly rewards outliers who played in era of less skill.
Baseball fans are the only fans who think a player from 130 years ago could possibly be one of the 10 or 12 best ever. Football, basketball, and hockey fans all know better.