Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipaway
Of course, high school or college sports back in Ruth's days weren't anywhere close to what they are today. The population pool was way smaller, and the school sports programs were way worse.
|
Yeah, but those things would have negatively affected Ruth's level of play as well. Players going on to play other sports in today's era don't negatively affect Barry Bonds' level of play.
Nobody is saying that the actual talent level on the field in 1920 was higher than it is today, I don't think. But that's not how we measure great players. If so, the lists of 100 best players ever to play a sport should all be like 80% current players. Technological, physiological and medical advances have made today's athlete the best athlete ever, along with a general increase in size and strength of the human at a high rate over the past x years and still going strong today.
We measure great baseball players by how they did relative to their eras, and most the things you named would have affected every athlete in the era, while the things I named benefit those who actually decide to play baseball.
IOW, it didn't give Ruth a competitive advantage that schools had spotty sports programs (although that whole argument is pretty poor given the widespread nature of both neighborhood baseball and amateur leagues at a magnitude that is nearly unfathomable today), because Ruth would have been a victim of that too, but it does give Bonds a competitive advantage that a lot of would-be all-star pitchers are playing other sports right now.