|
Baseball has over 150 years of history. That's good! The ability to look at any play, in isolation, going back to the Grover Cleveland administration is awesome, and it's one of the things that baseball can lord over basically every other sport. However, there have been several distinct eras and advancements in baseball such as:
Should there be a cutoff to how far back baseball 'acknowledges' their record-keeping? And if so, when? Some arguments: -the 1869 Red Stockings Pros: It's what we currently have and work from. It's everything. Cons: The idea of a professional athlete or even a sports league didn't really exist yet, and these earliest teams had dubious recordkeeping anyway, and the game was so different as to not even really resemble the modern game. -the 1903 Season/First World Series Pros: Includes the most, and most consistent, teams and players. Clear demarcation between what were essentially barnstorming teams and failed leagues from what is still known as "the big leagues" Cons: Cuts out some of the oldest players, historic greats like Old Hoss from consideration in all-time records. -1947/Integration Era Pros: Really? We're counting the games where fat racist white dudes never had to handle a 98mph cutter from vastly more talented competition? Cons: This is really, really modern (though in line with other leagues' formations) and we would lose a lot of historical leaders like Ruth, Gehrig and a lot of Williams' careers. To be clear, I'm not saying to ignore these achievements or these histories. All the players and events currently honored in Cooperstown stay. I just want to have a more reasonable timeframe and point of reference for fans to put their hero's accomplishments in context, which can't be done while insane counting stats like Cy Young's Wins and Games Started are on the books from a wildly different era. What do you think? Is this pointless? Or possibly a point to use? What considerations (like players whose careers started before a supposed cutoff) would you like to see?
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
I will not give you a serious answer because honestly any angle of change on this would have an insanely loud outcry and reaction, given how stubborn a lot of the oldest baseball types are. So to be an asshat, I would like to strike all records save for those of the Negro Leagues and just see how long we'd have to wait until retirement homes armed themselves to the teeth for open rebellion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
I think this is an interesting topic for discussion that ends up having a ton of shoreline to measure beyond just these three big eras. For instance, baseball seasons were expanded to 162 games in 1961. Do we recognize the 2001 Seattle Mariners as equally strong as the 1906 Cubs when they both won 116 games, but the Cubs did it in 152 games while the Mariners took 162? Then there's rule changes that don't fundamentally transform baseball, but obviously affect the game in pretty far-reaching fashion that might warrant their own "era". Like there might be enough difference from before and after the roboump strike zone to make it its own "era". With all this in mind, I personally fall in the camp that it's fine to count records from any time as long as proper context is given.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
"MLB records" are whatever MLB was/is at the time. I think the vast majority of baseball fans have at least an implicit understanding that "MLB records" are not always synonymous with "best at any particular aspect of baseball." Nobody believes Cy Young is the best pitcher ever, and few if any believe Pete Rose is the best hitter ever. It doesn't hurt the game for those guys to have the records that they do. Even the dimmest baseball fans understands that the game has changed a lot over 160 years and can put most historical records in context. There's no need to search for an objective truth about baseball. Such a task would be impossible due to the lack of data about the past and an inability to comprehend what changes might come in the future. Let the history of the game (good and bad) stand as is, enjoy the game in the present, and embrace what the game might be in the future. Thought experiments comparing players across eras are fun, but they should remain just that. No one, least of all the league itself, should try to make it an official stance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 00:03
|
|
|
I saw some macro the other day that said that Babe Ruth may have been robbed of up to 75 HR for his career total because of 2 rules that have since changed 1)If a ball was initially foul, then got blown fair by the wind over the fence it was considered a foul ball 2) Balls hit that hit the top of the fence and ended up back on the field were ruled ground rule doubles There's of course a good chance the person who put it together is either really upset the juiced era or hates black people. But I'd be curious to see if there's a chance that Ruth should have more, especially after learning that in all likelihood, Jimmie Foxx tied Ruth's old single season record and got hosed by poor scoring. Wouldn't surprise me if Aaron also got hosed over. El Gallinero Gros fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Sep 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 13:08
|
|