What I think most people overlook is the difference in how much the sport has evolved. I think it's silly comparing players of yesteryear to those of our time. Today you face multiple pitchers a game. Specialty pitchers brought in fresh just for you throwing100 mph. Charts of where you hit the ball, where to pitch you, where to place players in the field to cut down your number of hits. The amount of travel you do in the year. Babe Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, T. Williams and a host of other "great" players, wouldn't have put up anywhere near the numbers today that they had back then. That's just being logical. They weren't even facing all the best in the world because of no integration of blacks, hispanics etc. So what a "clean" player like Derek Jeter accomplished in our time should not be overlooked or compared to players of yesteryear whose stats wouldn't hardly resemble what they do if they played today without using any PEDs etc.
But when you look at players like Ruth you have to look at how much better they were than the players they were playing with at that time. Ruth was in a different universe that the players he was playing against on a daily basis
I feel that the majority of the competition he faced would be playing American Legion ball today. I understand that he changed the game. Before Ruth it was a game of small ball and manufacturing runs. However baseball was still basically in its infancy and the competition left a lot to be desired. He was the man of the era though. I'm a huge Yankees fan by the way. I just try to put things into perspective when comparing players from 100 years ago to the ones today. Those starting pitchers were throwing over 200 pitches a game. No relievers. No 5 man rotation and again aside from a few great pitchers the majority they faced were working on farms the week before. Take Albert Pujols or Mike Trout and put them up against the same competition Ruth faced. Do you not think they would put up the same kind if not even better numbers then Ruth? Ruth changed the game. Great player. That's a no brainer.I just sometimes wonder what he would do in the game today. I think a season for him if he played today would be Avg. between .300-.315. HRs around 30 and RBIs around 100... Still Hall of Fame numbers if he put them up every year for 20 years. I think it's fun to try and guess these things. Obviously no way of knowing what he'd actually do.
Wow. I think your argument is missing a lot of factors to consider when evaluating players from a different era. First of all, you are correct to say that blacks were excluded, and obviously a huge talent pool within that group. However, you are neglecting that there were only 16 teams pre-1962, so the talent pool was much more concentrated. The game has changed, but so has equipment. To imagine that there were great defensive players (DiMaggio, for example) using tiny gloves with hardly any pocket, is also a factor. I did see Mays play, and anyone who thinks he wouldn't be a superstar today is unbelievably off base. When you think that Lucas Duda could hit 28 homeruns this year but Ruth would in your estimation be a 30 home run guy is so laughable that you wonder what your bias really is. Ruth hit more homeruns one year than nearly every entire team in baseball one year. He was the best left handed pitcher in the AL before switching to the outfield. If you think that you totally cannot compare eras, guys like Walter Johnson and Bob Feller through close to 100 mph (Bob was gauged verses a speeding motorcycle pre-radar gun). The lack of late inning specialists is a meritorious argument, but when I watched Nolan Ryan still throw 98 in the 9th inning of games after 230 pitches, I'm not so sure that argument holds water either. The ball is essentially the same, although there was a period in recent times where the ball was juiced to produce more home runs.
In terms of travel, back then you'd play 154 games, but have to travel by train, not private jet. There was no baseball west of the Mississippi pre 1956 but still a train to St. Louis from Boston took 2-3 times as long as a jet to Los Angeles.
There was less night ball, which favors pitchers slightly, but more double headers, which drains everyone.
My argument against Jeter being in the class of players I listed (Mays, DiMaggio, Ruth, Gehrig, etc) was really comparing his stats against his peers.
Each of those players was vastly superior to other players of their own era. I don't think you'd call Jeter among the best of all time in any offensive category. One of the best hitters? no. Best power hitters? no. Best defensively? No. Best range? no. Best arm? no Best runner? no. The complete package and consistency makes him a hall of famer, but never would you consider Jeter the top player in the game in any of the 5 skill categories.
