Posted By:
Scott Forrestsorry if I sounded rude - I appreciate anyone's efforts crunching statistics, I just have a hard time getting excited about modern numbers, especially given the allegations that surround some of the players sporting the bigger numbers. It's just really tough to use stats to compare Hornsby to Bonds.
It's possible that baseball eras could be broken out based on major changes that occured in equipment or rules (underhand to overhand pitching, fouls as strikes, lively ball, lowering the mound, etc.) but you would still have to deal with changes in philosophy ("inside ball" thinking that gradually changed with the lively ball, relief pitchers, 5-man rotations, free agency, sky-rocketing salaries and media which resulted in "protecting the body" to absurdity, "I-me-mine" philosophy of players and the accompanying efforts to increase personal stats at all costs, the steroid age, etc.).
The best you could probably do is find players who crossed two eras during their primes and try to determine the effect of the changes on their personal stats, then create a factor to apply to everyone.
So how many home runs would Bonds hit in 1910, given a higher mound, dead ball, loss of incentive to hit so many HR's (and bulk up to do so), facing tired starters late in the game, spitballs. Plus, the first time he hit one out and took his leisurely walk toward first as he admired it, the pitcher would put one in his ear. Hate to think of what Gibson and Drysdale would have done to him.