Quote:
Originally Posted by OutS|der
The way I see it the stats are just a product of the era, the only issue is when they use small sample size like the new ERA leader of 28 games otherwise you can argue about the talent levels till the cows come home.
All past totals have to be taken with a grain of salt due to how baseball has evolved over the years. Due to various reasons stats were inflated due to subpar talent, using speed, steroids, juiced balls, or when pitchers threw low 90's and could doctor the ball.
|
It's a different problem.
The issues you talk about can be addressed well by using era-adjusted stats. Using OPS+ and ERA+, for example, instead of OPS and ERA.
Low talent level is a more insidious problem to solve because it allows good players to look like great players, and great players to look like all-timers. You can't just look at player-to-player variation because the left side of the curve (the bad players) are constantly replaced throughout the season.
We know the effects of thin talent levels exist but we have no way of understanding how to account for it. Josh Gibson hits 20 homers in 39 games in a league full of minor-league equivalent players and everyone wants to pretend he was Babe Ruth.