Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabe
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.
|
It may be that players today are better due to modern drug regimens, the amount of personal development they get, because they may build upon the knowledge that came before, and/or because people today are inherently better than our predecessors.
But if the task is an All-Time Team, and we insist that we only include modernity, then it is very, very obviously not an "All-Time" Team, it is the team since X cutoff that you like. An All-Time Team requires a pound-for-pound type approach.