Do you think the players from the past are overrated?

Question

People like Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Joe Dimaggio, etc., Why and why not?

Answer 1

Wow, that's a tough question to answer.

I wouldn't say any of them are overrated, but certain things need to be looked at in context. For example, guys like Ruth, Foxx, Cy Young, etc., all put up their big numbers before the game became integrated. It could be argued that those numbers are inflated because of the lack of competition.

It's a tricky concept, though, to figure out exactly how good players were. I usually look at them in comparison to their competition - that's why I think guys like Mays, Ruth or Williams would still be great today. The only era I really discriminate against are those years during WWII when the competition was weak due to so many guys serving in some capacity.

Answer 2

I don't think they're as much overrated as they're idealized.
Remember, fans under the age of 30 never saw Aaron or Mays, under 40 never saw Williams or Mantle, under 50 never saw DiMaggio, and precious few people alive ever saw Ruth or Cobb. These guys would have been great whenever they played because they were tremendous talents. But it's naive to think that these players wouldn't have taken anything they could get their hands on if they thought it may give them an edge, be it steroids, speed, or anything else.

Answer 3

Are you out of your mind? Those players were probably better than any of the guys today.

Back then, there were way less teams, so the talent was even tougher. The pitching was better, the hitting was better, it wasnt so watered down by expansion. Guys like Steve Trachsel, Kei Igawa, Julian Tavarez, etc...would NEVER have been able to be in the major leagues 40, 50 years ago or more for guys to beat up on.

My opinion is the players from the past are better.

Answer 4

overrated. i dont think so.

they were the best of their generations. you cant compare them to players today

Bond will pass Aaron on the all-time list, but i still think Aaron is and always will be the true HR King. Not because of Bonds steroid accusations but other factors

Aaron broke the record without any enhancers (im talking legal ones), conditioning coaches, juiced-up balls, improved bat technology, etc.

the same thing goes for Ruth. he had even less to work with as far as technology goes and still managed to hit 714 HR

its hard NOT to call each of them the HR King because they did it in different eras under different conditions and circumstances. BUT BECAUSE the general public NEEDS to have all-time records, something which baseballl should rethink Bonds will be considered the HR King despite any advantages (im not talking about roids) he may have had over Aaron and Ruth

Answer 5

No not at all the players of now are overrated. In an age of roids half the people who hit 40+ home runs now would hit mayb 20-30 back then

Answer 6

They were the best of their times. Its unfair to compare between generations due to changes in training, medical care, fields, rules, and equipment.

Andy - I don't think those guys were using steroids. They sure didn't help DiMaggio hit in 56 straight games. That's just pure skill.

Answer 7

No, those players would still be able to do it regardless of the pitching today. The small stadiums, conditioning, and equipment in general would all be an advantage to these players.

Answer 8

No i think some are underrated. look at the people using steroids we dont know how many players use steroids. they did all those things naturally. we can do all kinds of stuff with bats mitts etc. so no

Answer 9

The seasons were much shorter, fields much bigger(ie polo grounds), and their were no steriods, if you ask me men like ted williams, willie mays, Cy Young, and bae ruth are under rated.

Answer 10

No, they aren't overrated. They are compared with their peers, which is what statistics are all about. To compare them with today's players is interesting but pointless -- no one has come up with a formula to do so.