I totally disagree with your stand. If your argument were valid, then Bill Russell is the greatest basketball player of all-time--Michael Jordan doesn't even come close. (Yeah, he won 100% of his finals but he did not get to the finals every year of his career--including college!) Does Ashton Jeanty's year this year even compare to the one Barry Sanders had in 1988? Does Jeanty compare, in your mind, with the greatness of Barry Sanders? Why shouldn't record books acknowledge that all modern records are padded by longer playing seasons? Why shouldn't record books exist? We as a culture certainly refer to records enough. Your own profession certainly relies heavily on records: I believe they're called "precedents." Which leads me to my complaint against any and all modernist perspectives on sports which automatically assume that today's athletes are better, that athletics are more difficult, refined, and, therefore, accomplished than those of prior eras. They're just simply not! They've merely achieved and conformed to standards that were/are different than those of different eras. Today's athletes may be bigger, faster, and stronger than athletes of previous generations (not counting athletes who have used steroids or succeeded in a woman's sport while having been born and raised with male chromosomes, hormones, and training and conditioning standards), but they cannot claim to possess the same degree of heart, passion, and dedication to their sport and craft as athletes from other eras (especially where money has become a main motivator and pure child-like enthusiasm for one's game are taken into consideration.) I cringe at the amount of printed granted opinions that claime Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders or Shohei Ohtani were superior all-around athletes to Vaslav Nijinsky, Rudolf Nureyev, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Jim Thorpe, Michael Phelps, Jesse Owens, or when an three-sport All-American (not to mention basketball--and one sport which had to have its rules changed in order to lessen his dominance [lacrosse]) like Jim Brown existed. Or considering Pedro Martinez in the same G.O.A.T. conversations as pitchers who pitched on three- or four-days rest while pitching 300+ innings per season over 20-year careers. If someone thinks he could have pitched the number of innings and starts that Sandy Koufax or Steve Carlton pitched regularly in their "glory" years, then show me that: show me Pedro Martinez pitching 300+ innings with 40 starts. Also, anyone who was alive in the 1970s knows that Nolan Ryan was never a premier level starter--was wild and inconsistent and never so dominant that he won everything he pitched. He was a .500 pitcher with power, stamina, and longevity. (27 years will get you some numbers! but not necessarily any Cy Young Awards.)
Asterisks are, in my opinion, almost a necessity in order to have any start to any conversation about a person's statistics: How did they compare to the players and stats of their era, to those of other eras, in awards and respect earned from their peers, etc. Likewise, how to compare the military prowess of 21st Century USA with those of 1941 Germany and Japan, Genghis Khan's Mongolian hordes, Attila's Huns, Napoleon's legions, or Alexander's or Julius Caesar's empires. Impossible but entertaining thought exercises.
Obviously, I have some emotion behind my opinions here, but I'm so tired of the "latest and greatest" perspectives on sports. I'd love to see any modern player perform with the old "masters" of their sport: Under old-time conditions & equipment (including gloves, bats, shoes, uniform materials, hats, gloveless, shin- and elbow-guardless, sans sunglasses, playing in daylight against competitors like Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Joe DiMaggio, Pete Rose, Sandy Koufax, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Brooks Robinson, and Jackie Robinson.
I totally disagree with your stand. If your argument were valid, then Bill Russell is the greatest basketball player of all-time--Michael Jordan doesn't even come close. (Yeah, he won 100% of his finals but he did not get to the finals every year of his career--including college!) Does Ashton Jeanty's year this year even compare to the one Barry Sanders had in 1988? Does Jeanty compare, in your mind, with the greatness of Barry Sanders? Why shouldn't record books acknowledge that all modern records are padded by longer playing seasons? Why shouldn't record books exist? We as a culture certainly refer to records enough. Your own profession certainly relies heavily on records: I believe they're called "precedents." Which leads me to my complaint against any and all modernist perspectives on sports which automatically assume that today's athletes are better, that athletics are more difficult, refined, and, therefore, accomplished than those of prior eras. They're just simply not! They've merely achieved and conformed to standards that were/are different than those of different eras. Today's athletes may be bigger, faster, and stronger than athletes of previous generations (not counting athletes who have used steroids or succeeded in a woman's sport while having been born and raised with male chromosomes, hormones, and training and conditioning standards), but they cannot claim to possess the same degree of heart, passion, and dedication to their sport and craft as athletes from other eras (especially where money has become a main motivator and pure child-like enthusiasm for one's game are taken into consideration.) I cringe at the amount of printed granted opinions that claime Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders or Shohei Ohtani were superior all-around athletes to Vaslav Nijinsky, Rudolf Nureyev, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Jim Thorpe, Michael Phelps, Jesse Owens, or when an three-sport All-American (not to mention basketball--and one sport which had to have its rules changed in order to lessen his dominance [lacrosse]) like Jim Brown existed. Or considering Pedro Martinez in the same G.O.A.T. conversations as pitchers who pitched on three- or four-days rest while pitching 300+ innings per season over 20-year careers. If someone thinks he could have pitched the number of innings and starts that Sandy Koufax or Steve Carlton pitched regularly in their "glory" years, then show me that: show me Pedro Martinez pitching 300+ innings with 40 starts. Also, anyone who was alive in the 1970s knows that Nolan Ryan was never a premier level starter--was wild and inconsistent and never so dominant that he won everything he pitched. He was a .500 pitcher with power, stamina, and longevity. (27 years will get you some numbers! but not necessarily any Cy Young Awards.)
Asterisks are, in my opinion, almost a necessity in order to have any start to any conversation about a person's statistics: How did they compare to the players and stats of their era, to those of other eras, in awards and respect earned from their peers, etc. Likewise, how to compare the military prowess of 21st Century USA with those of 1941 Germany and Japan, Genghis Khan's Mongolian hordes, Attila's Huns, Napoleon's legions, or Alexander's or Julius Caesar's empires. Impossible but entertaining thought exercises.
Obviously, I have some emotion behind my opinions here, but I'm so tired of the "latest and greatest" perspectives on sports. I'd love to see any modern player perform with the old "masters" of their sport: Under old-time conditions & equipment (including gloves, bats, shoes, uniform materials, hats, gloveless, shin- and elbow-guardless, sans sunglasses, playing in daylight against competitors like Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Joe DiMaggio, Pete Rose, Sandy Koufax, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Brooks Robinson, and Jackie Robinson.