[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Interesting topic.

People always say that baseball is a stats game - a .300 hitter 100 years ago and a .300 hitter now can be thought of with decent comparison.

But in reality, I think baseball compares for the reasons that Bryan as already stated. The game hasn't changed all that much. You can imagine Babe Ruth standing in against Clemens, or whether Ted Williams could beat out Jeter's throw to first from the hole.

Ironically, when it comes to baseball's greatest feat - the home run - stats are acutally the worst, and I do mean worst, way to compare players.

Not just players from other eras, but even players that played at the same time. Each stadium is built differently. Each has different distance to fence. How can anyone possibly use number of home runs in a season or career to compare players? (Disclosure: I am going to MKE to see Barry Bonds later this month, and hope like heck he breaks the home run record.)

Seriously - can you imagine having conversations about free throw shooting if one team had their line at 12', another at 10', another at 11'6"?? Wouldn't even consider it. Even in baseball there would be no conversations about hitting for average if each team could uniquely set the distance between bases. Right?

So although the fact that baseball has been such a static sport makes direct imaginative comparison possible and probably even reasonable, the quirky ability of teams to choose overall field dimensions has rendered at least one stat all but meaningless.

And I still think Ruth would clean up on all of today's pitchers. Especially in Yankee Stadium with the short right field fence!

Joann

Oh. And Peter ... huh?