Top 32 tournament LF Bonds vs Williams

[UK Cowboy]

Wow. Using the greatest team in baseball history vs. an arbitrary team that just won the World Series. Wow.
Also, why the hell are you talking about basketball, boxing, and fucking golf in a baseball forum?

Because it's a universal theme these days. And ok, which modern team would you like to throw against the 27 Yankees? I mean, you don't get any more modern than the Royals. Who ya want? Giants from a couple years back? Yeah, that's competitive lol. Maybe you could go back 10 years and get some pharmaceutical help....

 

[Omar 382]

Because it's a universal theme these days. And ok, which modern team would you like to throw against the 27 Yankees? I mean, you don't get any more modern than the Royals. Who ya want? Giants from a couple years back? Yeah, that's competitive lol. Maybe you could go back 10 years and get some pharmaceutical help....

You're totally missing the point (shocker). The 1927 Yankee team is probably the greatest of all time. Any modern team will look inferior to them, just as any team from the 1920's (aside from the '27 Yanks) will look inferior to the 1998 Yankees

 

[Omar 382]

Not to mention comparing just the best team in each year from the different eras is not at all comprehensive of the total talent level of all MLB players in each respective era.

 

[Omar 382]

Who's a better team; the 1926 WS Champion Cardinals, or the 2015 Royals? (who aren't even close to being the best WS team in the last 20 years)

 

[UK Cowboy]

You're totally missing the point (shocker). The 1927 Yankee team is probably the greatest of all time. Any modern team will look inferior to them, just as any team from the 1920's (aside from the '27 Yanks) will look inferior to the 1998 Yankees

The only thing shocking is how predictable you are. The "modern" team you pull is from nearly 20 years ago when the whole Damn league had a needle up their ass. Fine, no 27 Yankees, how about the 30's or 50's Yankees, the 40's Cards or the 70's Reds. Pick the modern WS winner since 2010 that beats any of those teams.....waiting.....

 

[Omar 382]

The only thing shocking is how predictable you are. The "modern" team you pull is from nearly 20 years ago when the whole Damn league had a needle up their ass. Fine, no 27 Yankees, how about the 30's or 50's Yankees, the 40's Cards or the 70's Reds. Pick the modern WS winner since 2010 that beats any of those teams.....waiting.....

So, you think it makes sense to pick the best team from a 40 year span and compare it against the best teams from a 5 year span? Um......

What do you make of the WAR totals by the way?

 

[Nosferatu]

If you look at the 20 best players of all time why are most of them pre 1970?

 

[StanMarsh51]

The only thing shocking is how predictable you are. The "modern" team you pull is from nearly 20 years ago when the whole Damn league had a needle up their ass. Fine, no 27 Yankees, how about the 30's or 50's Yankees, the 40's Cards or the 70's Reds. Pick the modern WS winner since 2010 that beats any of those teams.....waiting.....

The obvious issue with just comparing the top 2 teams is that it doesn't take into account the quality of the leagues as a whole.

I mean, in a certain year you might have an all-time great team, but if the rest of the league is relatively weak, you wouldn't know that with your comparison of just taking the top team from that year, no? If there's more parity a certain year (due to free agency or whatever it may be), does that mean that the league was worse? Not necessarily.

 

[UK Cowboy]

So, you think it makes sense to pick the best team from a 40 year span and compare it against the best teams from a 5 year span? Um......

What do you make of the WAR totals by the way?

Diluted if you are using numbers since the mid 80's, as steroids were completely rampant in the game. Look at the numbers since the crackdown on juice.... instead of multiple guys in the 50's and 60's(70's lmao), a guy that hits 25-30 bombs today is a power guy.

 

[UK Cowboy]

If you look at the 20 best players of all time why are most of them pre 1970?

Exactly. Whether it's individual teams or all time teams. Give me a pre 70's all time team vs a post 70's, and the only thing that makes it even competitive is a needle

 

[Omar 382]

If you look at the 20 best players of all time why are most of them pre 1970?

Um, because 1970-2015 covers 45 years, whereas 1871-1969 covers 98 years...

 

[UK Cowboy]

The obvious issue with just comparing the top 2 teams is that it doesn't take into account the quality of the leagues as a whole.

I mean, in a certain year you might have an all-time great team, but if the rest of the league is relatively weak, you wouldn't know that with your comparison of just taking the top team from that year, no? If there's more parity a certain year (due to free agency or whatever it may be), does that mean that the league was worse? Not necessarily.

Yes but....today, your talking about twice as many teams, 150 different starting pitchers(and there are some brutally bad starters) vs a time when the league had 16 teams, many with 4 man rotations, 65-70 starters. Imagine if every hitter today were only going against a #1 or #2 starter.....there would be less need for the great bullpen, as the #4 and 5 starters wouldn't be getting shelled over and over. What does that do for ya?

 

[Nosferatu]

Um, because 1970-2015 covers 45 years, whereas 1871-1969 covers 98 years...

Ok then use 1900 - 1960

1900 - 1960 > 1961 - 2015

 

[Omar 382]

Diluted if you are using numbers since the mid 80's, as steroids were completely rampant in the game. Look at the numbers since the crackdown on juice.... instead of multiple guys in the 50's and 60's(70's lmao), a guy that hits 25-30 bombs today is a power guy.

Except that the "crackdown" on steroids is only marginally effective, and the power decline can point to bigger parks and a shift in thinking reliant on the emergence of sabermetrics. Today, we know that OBP is more valuable than SLG percentage, so you see more Joey Votto's than you see Juan Gonzalez's

 

[UK Cowboy]

Um, because 1970-2015 covers 45 years, whereas 1871-1969 covers 98 years...

With a ton of advantages for modern players, look at the gloves they wore, the facilities they have for weight training, speed training, etc. Every other pitcher today is on a pitch count or pitch limit. Modern players have life too easy

 

[StanMarsh51]

Yes but....today, your talking about twice as many teams, 150 different starting pitchers(and there are some brutally bad starters) vs a time when the league had 16 teams, many with 4 man rotations, 65-70 starters. Imagine if every hitter today were only going against a #1 or #2 starter.....there would be less need for the great bullpen, as the #4 and 5 starters wouldn't be getting shelled over and over. What does that do for ya?

You do realize the population in prior decades was much smaller, right?

Today, there's over 300M in the U.S....in 1940 by comparison, there was around 130M (and that's before getting into foreign populations).


So in terms of the odds of making it to the majors, how is it any easier today than 60+ years ago?

 

[UK Cowboy]

Except that the "crackdown" on steroids is only marginally effective, and the power decline can point to bigger parks and a shift in thinking reliant on the emergence of sabermetrics. Today, we know that OBP is more valuable than SLG percentage, so you see more Joey Votto's than you see Juan Gonzalez's

And you STILL have guys getting popped, despite all the masking agents. The entire Blue Jays team is juicing. You think Chris Davis isn't on the sauce? LOL

 

[Omar 382]

Ok then use 1900 - 1960

1900 - 1960 > 1961 - 2015

As I already articulated earlier, having the best players does not connote having a higher talent level. You have to look at the league as a whole, which I did better when I calculated the WAR of the best 30 players from two different eras.

 

[UK Cowboy]

You do realize the population in prior decades was much smaller, right?

Today, there's over 300M in the U.S....in 1940 by comparison, there was around 130M.

And you do realize the top athletes today are in the NFL and NBA....

 

[UK Cowboy]

As I already articulated earlier, having the best players does not connote having a higher talent level. You have to look at the league as a whole, which I did better when I calculated the WAR of the best 30 players from two different eras.

Spin.....