daver
Registered User
I see a lot of heated discussions about who are the best all-time players and inevitably someone says that if Player X from today was playing against competition from 30 years ago they would be twice as good because of advancements in training, equipment, etc...
Is it just me or does it go without saying that when comparing players from different eras it's a given that the game has changed over time and that dominance against other players from the same era is the best measuring stick?
Do people think other factors such as expansion and an increased base of players makes a signifigant difference in these discussions? For example, does the 1967 expansion to 12 teams mean the talent level was considerably watered down from the year before?
Is it just me or does it go without saying that when comparing players from different eras it's a given that the game has changed over time and that dominance against other players from the same era is the best measuring stick?
Do people think other factors such as expansion and an increased base of players makes a signifigant difference in these discussions? For example, does the 1967 expansion to 12 teams mean the talent level was considerably watered down from the year before?