But isn't that exactly why those players are overrated? There were so many "stars" because a lot of the players in the league weren't very good. So the players that actually were good at baseball just dominated everyone else.
I don't think those guys would be stars if they played in the 50s-now.
My opinion is that guys in the early 1900s wouldn't hold up to today's standards. I understand that some of you might say i'm an idiot, but we'll never really know unless someone invents time travel.
Those guys are all hall of famers because they dominated during the time they played. I'm fine with that. I just don't think they should be compared to today's players.
Totally. I feel like i'm one of the only people who thinks that Ruth is wildly overrated.
Ruth probably = David Ortiz if he played today. Which is great, but not close to being GOAT.
Just sayin'... If the jays had tried a suicide squeeze in that Canada day game, they probably would have won. More than a couple times, they had a runner on 3rd with 1 out and a guy like Carrera/Barney/Pillar at the plate.
I got inside the dome at 11:30am, and I sure as hell wasn't leaving until the final out. The game ended at around 7:30pm. I was in the dome for 8 f***ing hours.
Great game, i'd definitely do it again.
Those are exactly the types of moves I'm talking about. First off, Jose and Edwin won't be elite for much longer. Second, the team can be improved in the bullpen/rotation/defense to offset the loss of offense. Having solid defenders at the RF/LF corners would go a long way in offsetting the loss of Edwin/Jose.
Jesus christ, why do people keep saying this? If they don't sign Edwin/Jose, they will be signing/trading for guys to replace them. It's not like Thole, Junior Lake, and Barney will be everyday players next year.