Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!dpb
From: dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Re: Cobb's records
Message-ID: <347@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 13:08:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: philabs.347
Posted: Wed Jun  5 13:08:35 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 21:22:43 EDT
References: <2046@cornell.UUCP> <6158@umcp-cs.UUCP> <649@fisher.UUCP>
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 52

> The greatest myth perpetuated by the old-timers!  Those 16 teams were
> lily-white.  Since there no more white players today in the majors
> then there were pre-Robinson (then: 16*25=400; now, at most: 
> .6*26*25=390) and since baseball is a much more attractive profession 
> in real financial terms then it was in Cobb's day, we can conclude
> that there is NO evidence that talent has been diluted.  Indeed, there
> is reason to believe that talent is more concentrated then it was then.

Although I tend to agree with the assertion that today's athletes are,
on the average, better than yesteryear's, your arguments aren't very 
good that old records are much less meaningful. You might try arguing 
that the population increase has increased the concentration of talent, 
BUT:

1) Back then, such sports as football and basketball did not draw away
   so much of the athletic talent as they do now. Back then, baseball
   was THE game.

2) Your above argument does not show that old-timers were less talented
   than present ballplayers - there are black and latin players in the
   majors now, but there are also more players total, too. Thus, there
   could easily be the same overall level of talent as 75 years ago.
   To disparage old records, you need to show clear superiority of
   present talent.

3) The assertion that the records of old-time stars are meaningless
   implies that NONE of the dominant players of previous eras (Cobb,
   Ruth, Gehrig, Cy Young, etc.) would have been superstars today.
   You are making a basic error in applying group characteristics to
   individuals. The exclusion of black and latin ballplayers no doubt
   kept fans from seeing many great players, but that is irrelevant
   to the abilities of the white stars. The fact is, there have always
   been white superplayers in every era of baseball (Sutter, Murphy,
   Schmidt, etc.) There have also always been many very good white
   players, and many good ones, etc. Nobody worth listening to would
   claim that the old-time numerical records should be compared with
   today's. The vast differences in the game ensure that such comparisons
   are meaningless (different fields, gloves, night baseball, artificial
   turf, planes instead of trains between games, ...) but to say that
   the dominant players of previous eras would not also be great stars
   today is to say that there were no super white players in those eras.
   That's rubbish.

So, Cobb's records are still phenomenal. To be able to set career records
in so many areas (average, batting titles, stolen bases, hits, ...) in
the professional level of the major national sport of his era shows that
he was a tremendous talent, and would have been in any era. The moment
that Rose passes Cobb in total hits means nothing. They accomplished
their feats in totally different ways, and times. The same applies to
Aaron and Ruth. I personally feel that comparing players of the
very highest caliber is a worthless exercise. How many hits would Cobb
have had in the 1970's and 1980's? Who knows? Who cares?