armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

Proof Comparing Different Eras is Flawed

4
Vote

by user Alex Holowczak

I read Shrubbery's excellent article about the best baseball team ever. The point was raised that matching them up was flawed, and I thought I could answer it.

I was doing something for the Snooker Section.

I made a page, Alex Holowczak's National Snooker Champions (this is the main page of that section - look at that to find out the system I used to work it out). As I did Northern Ireland, I came across something interesting.

The most wins by a Northern Irishman in the fictitious system I made up was by Dennis Taylor, with 12. Two behind him on 10 was Joe Swail. He beat Alex Higgins into third, who had 5.

So the order, you'd think, would be Taylor-Swail-Higgins.

Yet, Taylor and Higgins are both World Champions, Taylor in 1985, and Higgins in 1972 and 1982. Both were in the top 16 in the World for many seasons. Swail has never been higher than World Number 10, and has only been in the Top 16 for about five seasons. He has never got further than the Semi Finals of the World Championship.

The problem was that Taylor and Higgins were in competition, whereas Swail had no competition at all over the last decade.

So according to that, Swail is the second best Northern Irish player of all time. Yet he was significantly worse than both Taylor and Higgins.

The same can be seen with Wales. Reardon won limited Wales titles, behind Griffiths and Williams. Yet Reardon was a six-time World Champion, and Griffiths was only a one-time winner and Williams two.

I know that by ignoring a bulk of players may distort it, but it shows how in two different ways, it makes players from different generations cannot be easily compared.


Date

Mon 07/31/06, 4:34 am EST


Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
Bball3345Draft Pick
1244 days ago
Score 1+-
What is your point?
Permalink | Reply
Alex HolowczakHall of Famer
1244 days ago
Score -1+-
My point is you cannot compare teams across eras. However you say you can in your comment below, is that the League difficulty may fluctuate. E.g. if Babe Ruth played today, chances are he wouldn't get 715 HRs. No matter how you mathematically use statistics to show who was best, there is no way to work out who the best is. You cannot prove anything with statistics. This above is sort of, a proof by contradiction, saying this is what you would expect, but alas that isn't what happened in reality.
Permalink
Bball3345Draft Pick
1244 days ago
Score 2+-
There are ways in baseball that you can compare across eras based on league difficulty, park factors, skill, etc.
Permalink | Reply
Alex HolowczakHall of Famer
1244 days ago
Score 0+-
One twenty year era may have more skilled players than another twenty year era, and since that will be a completely different generation of players (give or take), the new generation may be much less skilled than the old generation. And there would be no way to tell the difference. E.g. if suddenly pitching becomes really bad, hitters may also become bad - or at least worse than the last generation. But as they stink equally, you couldn't be able to tell. The dominant player of one era may be bad in a different era. E.g. Old Tom Morris would be useless at golf. Joe Davis wouldn't even be playing snooker (he'd be too bad to make a living off it). Rod Laver wouldn't be a good tennis player.
Permalink
Bball3345Draft Pick
1244 days ago
Score 2+-
You don't compare by generations, you compare year-to-year. If the whole population of batters in baseball gets better from one year to the next, then chances are there was an increase in skill. This can be seen by comparing from year to year across baseball history. Today's players are much better than players eighty years ago; therefore, they are playing in a tougher league. Also, during the War Years, the league difficulty dropped way off, which supports the method of comparing from year to year.
Permalink
Alex HolowczakHall of Famer
1244 days ago
Score 0+-
But equally, chances are there was a decrease in pitcher skill. No-one will know. You say, "today's players are much better than players eighty years ago". How do you conclude that?
Permalink
Bball3345Draft Pick
1244 days ago
Score 0+-
People have improved in all sports. Take a look at track and field or swimming. Today's high schoolers could have competed in the Olympics 100 years ago. Today's players have better weight-training, fitness, medicine, performance-enhancing drugs.
Permalink
Alex HolowczakHall of Famer
1244 days ago
Score 1+-
Again though, it's relative. If an Olympic Athlete from 100 years ago trained today to go to the Olympics, he would do so in the 2006 way, not the 1906 way. If Ruth was a modern-day MLB specimen, would he have got 715 HRs batting in this era. We will never know. I agree with you that sports have improved for the reasons you state, but in terms of eras, I think it makes no difference. A player from the 18th century would be as good today if he trained physically for it. Any era comparison is relative, so there is no way you can do it reliably. Anyone can guess, or use statistics that suggest one way or the other, but you can never have a definitive answer.
Permalink
Bball3345Draft Pick
1244 days ago
Score 0+-
That is a good point... I think Ruth WOULD have had many more than 715 HRs had he played in the "Steroid era." My point is that if you took Ruth and teleported him to 2006, as is, then he would struggle mightily. Therefore, players from previous eras were not as talented as today's players.
Permalink
Jgov05All-American
1244 days ago
Score 0+-
This seems like a good idea for a showdown to me!
Permalink | Reply
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free


Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Proof_Comparing_Different_Eras_is_Flawed"

This page was last modified 15:54, 31 July 2006. Content is available under the GFDL.

Contribute

ArmchairGM's pages can be edited.
Is this page incomplete? Is there anything wrong?
Change it!

Edit this page Discuss this page Page history

Recent contributors to this page

The following people recently contributed to this article.

Embed this on your site

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise