Here’s a nice article on how two politicians screwed up the question, “Name the greatest baseball player of all time.” The easy answer will always be Babe Ruth, since he both pitched and hit superlatively. In general, I become more convinced all the time that the great player is always active, we just can’t see who it is until the career plays out. Right now I would vacillate between Barry Bonds and Greg Maddux. In ten years, I’d probably choose between Johan Santana, CC Sabathia, Alex Rodriguez and Albert Pujols.
If Santana and Sabathia would warrant future consideration “right now”… as always, the overlooked Doc wonders what he has to do to get the proper recognition he deserves. As the best all around pitcher in baseball.
@zeppelinkm: Sure Roy could figure in at the end of his career. Roy, however, came up at age 21 but it took a few years for his career to get off the ground. CC came up at age 20 and was effective right away. There’s also some evidence that CC’s body type holds up better over the long run.
Why are current players better? Let’s say that it is due to better training, conditioning and nurtrition that was not available to players in decades and generations past. That strikes me as unfair to those old-timers. They may have worked just as hard to be good players as the players do today but the end result is different due to different circumstances.
Are current players better for some kind of genetic reason? I assume that a player born today is no better at birth than a player born 100 years ago unless, for some reason, better genes are getting passed along. I imagine that genetic sreening or selective breeding could cause that, but I don’t think that has been happening.
Players today could be better at birth because their mothers received better medical care and nutrition while they were in the womb.
We know that runners, weight lifters, swimmers are much better than in the past due to better nutrition and training. So I guess baseball players would be better. But is a runner today “greater” than Jesse Owens simply because he had access to better training and nutrition? My guess is that Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens are equal in terms of their genetic ability and work ethic.
Then there are PEDs. To the extent that those work, then, of course, today’s players must be better.
If all of the sudden the best players of 1930 (including blacks) were transported forward in time to play today’s guys, the modern guys would win any series of appreciable length since they had access to better training and nutrition. But, if those 0ld-timers had all been kidnapped at birth, brought to the modern world, and had access to modern training and nutrition, then I bet they play the modern guys to a draw.
Ruth’s numbers are inflated because he played pre-integration.
I’m gonna go with Mays or Aaron.
How much are Ruth’s numbers inflated?
@Cyril Morong: I would add that as population increased, due to a larger US population, the ending of segregation in the game, and bringing in international players, competition in the majors is stiffer. Every generation players are pulled from farther right on the Gaussian. In the 1920s, the pool of players could produce one Babe Ruth. Today it might produce five. More competition should mean better players as each strives to be the best.
I agree that a larger population will lead to more good players, holding everything else equal. A few might go into other sports but we would have to run some numbers on both population and all professional athletes. My guess is that baseball is still drawing from a larger talent pool, even taking the fact that there are more teams, so there are more good players per team. I think that some of the guys playing football and basketball would not be good baseball players. They are not exactly the same skill set.