PING: Baseball Guys (Re: Best/Worst Eras in History)

[albionmoonlight]

No, not best/worst earned run averages--we are talking periods of time here.

Baseball is a game with a long history--long enough that people like to talk about the various periods of baseball history as "eras." We will leave aside the hyper-technical definition of era as the longest common division of geologic time and instead accept this common meaning of era in the context of baseball.

So, in your opinion, what was/is the best era in baseball history? The worst? Why? Feel free to define eras however you want (long, short, whatever) and to use whatever reasoning you want.

[MrBug708]

The Steroid era, because people were naive

[kcchief19]

Well, I'm not as old and crusty as Bucc but ...

The Best: 1946-1960
The is the so-called "Golden Age" of baseball, and I tend to agree. It was during this time we saw the integration of the game, which to me makes it inherently better than any other era. The players still played solely for the love of the game, with money and TV not yet ruining everything. Baseball was at its peak as the national pasttime. Despite downsides like the Dodgers and Giants leaving New York, the influx of baseball in other parts of the country was a major boom. There were still some good times in the early '60s, although as soon as they started toying with the pitching mound and whatnot I think the game started to lose its luster. By the early 1970s, I think the ugly side of baseball was beginning to show with the money and egos. There may have very well been egotistical jerks during the '40s and '50s, but we only got to see the positive sides of players. I choose 1946 as the starting point because the war was over and best players were returning to the league. I choose 1960 as the end point because I think Bill Mazeroski's homerun in the World Series puts an emphatic exclamation point on the end of a great era.

The Worst: August 1994-present
I think to a certain degree the decline began around 1990 and was accelerating in the early '90s. As a Royals fan, I still remember those heady days in the early '90s when Ewing Kauffman went out and tried to put together the best team money could buy -- in 1990 we were the first team in baseball to field both reigning Cy Young Award winners. While it seemed fun at the time -- until almost all the free agent signings imploded -- it also started the arms race that would explode following the '94 lockout. That season was shaping up to be historic -- exciting races, competitive teams, great stories. Then the bottom fell out and nothing has been the same since. Salaries skyrocketed as teams went on a spending splurge. The gap between the haves and have nots exploded. As players saw money in greater performance, they took new measures to gain a competitive edge. Baseball had lost its grip on the American consciousness and the powers that be decided that home runs were the path back to glory and made changes to encourage the long ball. All of these moves did nothing but to cheapen the accomplishments of today's players. We will never know for sure if the incredible offensive numbers put up during this era were achieved by juiced players, a juiced ball, both or neither. The players are jerks, the owners are jerks and there seems like there is no one worth rooting for anymore.

[Huckleberry]

Obviously "best" is in the eye of the beholder. I don't base my view on quality of play, dynasties, or anything like that. I base mine purely on style of play.

So I define best to mean "most exciting" style of play. And in my opinion, home runs and strikeouts are boring. I want to see action on the field. To me there's no better play than a bases-loaded line drive to the gap. More players are involved on that play than any other.

So I define the best eras as those where home runs and strikeouts were lowest. Predictably, that was the old days. I ran a formula on the National League that took the league home runs per game multiplied by 7 and the league strikeouts per game and added them together.

I define my best era as 1921-1946. In 1947 this number went over 15 for the first time ever (all the way to 18) and never looked back. Fewer balls in play = not as good to me.

Of course if you look at it when you realize when integration occurred, there is a correlation there. That's my only hesitation calling this era the best. But if I stick with the style of play definition, then that's my answer.

[st.cronin]

The best era is whatever era was going on when you first became a fan.

[SelzShoes]

The best era is whatever era was going on when you first became a fan. Truer words were never spoken.

My Take:
The Best: Late Expansion Era 1969-1993

Probably the most balanced time in baseball. Speed, power and pitching all were as close to equal as we’ve ever seen and probably ever will see. Good mix of clubs winning divisions, several classic World Series (76 and 91 especially). Small market teams (Kansas City, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati) all can compete at a high level.

The Worst:
The Golden Age 1946-1961

The Golden Age was the most boring baseball you can imagine. Station to Station; just waiting for a home run. The major difference from today: No one ran at all. Dom DiMaggio lead the AL with 15 one season. Competitive balance is nowhere to be found. Attendance was way down, so the people of the time didn’t care for it either. (Put it this way, a pennant contending club in New York with Willie Mays should draw more than 10K a game if this is the true golden era).

[John Galt]

I really don't have a strong opinion on this. I think it is best to appreciate every era for its own value. I think certain eras have black marks that make me think less of them (segregration, strike cancelling the World Series, Bud Selig, owner collusion, etc.), but in all I don't really feel that strongly either way about any era. I really don't know about my favorite era at all.

[Crapshoot]

Well, I'm not as old and crusty as Bucc but ...


Yes, Yes you are. :D


The Best: 1946-1960
The is the so-called "Golden Age" of baseball, and I tend to agree. It was during this time we saw the integration of the game, which to me makes it inherently better than any other era. The players still played solely for the love of the game, with money and TV not yet ruining everything.



What is it about players making money that bothers some of you old guys so much ? Other people were making money of baseball at this time - just not the players. I hate this puritanical stance. I agree with you about integration, but it didn't fully occur till the late 50's or early 60's - before that, there was a "de facto" limit on African American players, with rare exceptions like the Dodgers.


Baseball was at its peak as the national pasttime. Despite downsides like the Dodgers and Giants leaving New York, the influx of baseball in other parts of the country was a major boom. There were still some good times in the early '60s, although as soon as they started toying with the pitching mound and whatnot I think the game started to lose its luster. By the early 1970s, I think the ugly side of baseball was beginning to show with the money and egos.


Again with the money ? What makes you think ego's were any smaller back in the day ? Have you ever read some of Ted Williams' quotes, or Joltin' Joe's ? These were all proud men, and were revered - what makes you think ego was lacking here ? As for pitching, the mound was raised because the public was losing interest - baseball was its offensive trough, and the advantage of pitching was too dominant.



There may have very well been egotistical jerks during the '40s and '50s, but we only got to see the positive sides of players. I choose 1946 as the starting point because the war was over and best players were returning to the league. I choose 1960 as the end point because I think Bill Mazeroski's homerun in the World Series puts an emphatic exclamation point on the end of a great era.


Aha, and there in lies the root of the problem - the media wasn't an privacy invading pain in the ass back then. People knew about Ruth's affairs and drinking, or about Dimaggio's women, and they didn't publish it - there was media discretion - something I find it hard to blame baseball for. Its a fulcrum of our society today. I do wish we let ballplayers be ballplayers instead of invading every minute detail of their lives - but ESPN has a lot more to do with that then MLB.



The Worst: August 1994-present
I think to a certain degree the decline began around 1990 and was accelerating in the early '90s. As a Royals fan, I still remember those heady days in the early '90s when Ewing Kauffman went out and tried to put together the best team money could buy -- in 1990 we were the first team in baseball to field both reigning Cy Young Award winners. While it seemed fun at the time -- until almost all the free agent signings imploded -- it also started the arms race that would explode following the '94 lockout. That season was shaping up to be historic -- exciting races, competitive teams, great stories. Then the bottom fell out and nothing has been the same since. Salaries skyrocketed as teams went on a spending splurge.



The money - again with the money. Its entertainment - what do you expect ?
Fun fact about the "salary explosion." Since 1994, the average baseball salary has gone from $1.4 million to $2.9 million. In that period, the S&P 500 has tripled . What's happened to your salary from 1994 to now ? People are making more money - everywhere.


The gap between the haves and have nots exploded. As players saw money in greater performance, they took new measures to gain a competitive edge. Baseball had lost its grip on the American consciousness and the powers that be decided that home runs were the path back to glory and made changes to encourage the long ball.



Another accepted cliche that needs to be challenged. From 1946 to 1960, 8 different teams have won the world series. From 1995 to now, 8 different teams have won the world series. From 1946 to 1960, the Yankees won the AL pennant 11 times - the only other winners where the Indians (twice), the Red Sox, and the White Sox. In the NL, the Dodgers won it 7 times in that period - with the Braves and Giants both winning twice, and the Cardinals/Pirates/Phillies winning it once. From 1994 to present, the Yanks have won the AL 6 times, the Indians twice, and the Angels/White Sox/ and Red Sox once. Again, in the NL -- 8 different teams have won pennants over the 11 year period. Competitive Balance is the classic old timer cliche, with little in the way of factual basis.


All of these moves did nothing but to cheapen the accomplishments of today's players. We will never know for sure if the incredible offensive numbers put up during this era were achieved by juiced players, a juiced ball, both or neither. The players are jerks, the owners are jerks and there seems like there is no one worth rooting for anymore.

No, the players aren't jerks - they're people, like you and me, who probably don't like their privacy invaded ad nauseum. Gilted thoughts of a bygone era when all the "bad" details about someones life was filtered are hardly a fair comparison for our 24-7 news network lifestyle today. I don't like the degree to which the idea of discretion has gone out the window, but again - this isn't baseball's fault.

As for the steroid pulpit- shall we forget spitballs, greenies, amphetamines ? None of these make the ballplayer, and it absurd to suggest (using purely conjecture) that these alone explain an era.

I like you Kc, and I think you're a knowledgable guy, but you seem to be one of those "back in my day" types about baseball that absolutely drive me nuts. Things change, and have changed for the better.

[SelzShoes]

Great post crapshoot. People just need to stop looking at the "Golden Era" through thier sepia toned glasses. THe same issues/problems "plaguing" baseball today are the same issues that have "plagued" the game since the beginning. Players of the ____ (insert decade from 1870 to 2000)'s were greedy insensitive jerks who cared nothing about the history of the game. At least that's what the press and fans have always thought.

[Crapshoot]

I mentioned this on another board, and someone pointed out to me that in the baseball abstract, Bill James has a great section on this titled "Old Ballplayers Never Die" - full of quotes like this, players of various era's insisting their successors were only in it for the money, that the end was near, and so forth. A very Malthusian view, if anything.

[finketr]

for me, it's probably 80s-93 or so...
the 94 strike killed my interest in baseball.

[st.cronin]

I first started watching baseball in the late 70s. There were only two Major League teams back then, the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. The best player in the world, and according to some, the best player of all time, was Jim Rice. Unless you were a Yankee fan, then it was Reggie Jackson. There was this fairly reputable minor league called the National League where Pete Rose and Johnny Bench were considered to be good players.

[kcchief19]

I like you Kc, and I think you're a knowledgable guy, but you seem to be one of those "back in my day" types about baseball that absolutely drive me nuts. Things change, and have changed for the better. Well, first, I was born in 1971 so my love of that era definitely has nothing to do with "back in my day" feeling. It has to do with the stories, the personalities, the statistics and the feel of the era.

If you don't think money changes people then I think you are being incredibly naive. I believe there has been a noticeable change in attitude and effort among both players and owners as the game got bigger due to the money.

And while I know you read my entire post since you quoted it in detail, I readily admit that we saw little if any of the ugly side of baseball during that era. I think baseball was romanticized during that era. But that's part of the charm. I like the fact that baseball was about what was happening on the field. I like the games. I don't like having to read about what Barry Bonds injected himself with or which players don't sign autographs or whose wife is a wannabe porn star.

As for things changing for the better, I have to completely disagree with that contention. If that were the case, baseball would still be the national pasttime. It's clearly not. But if you like reading about steroids and losing a World Series to labor issues, that's your prerogative. More power to you.

[Johnny Slick]

Best: The Expansion Era: 1997-1993. I know I am biased because this is when I grew up, but I really and truly believe that this was the best baseball ever. You had all kinds of strategies tossed together in one big melting pot, and no one strategy was necessarily way better than another. On the one hand you had Earl Weaver (at least for the early part of the period) and 3 run homeruns and good starting pitching winning ballgames. On the other, the Oakland A's under Billy Martin stole 5 trillion bases, and the Herzog Cardinals and Howser Royals were not unaccustomed to one-run ball either. Yes, the game had its scandals, but all eras have those.


Worst: The Post-War Era: 1946-1960: Jackie Robinson tried and tried, but could not lift the game out of its doldrums. Baseball was flat-out BORING during this period. Everybody and their dog drew 100 walks a year, meaning that at-bats stretched out forever, and once guys got on base they just stayed there. No steals, no hit and runs, just pure station-to-station baseball. It's no wonder so many of the minor leagues died out during this time and the game declined so much in popularity. They learned their lesson in the 60s and 70s, but by then it was too late: football had captured the hearts of the American public.

[kcchief19]

Two things from Crapshoot that I think deserve to be addressed.

Another accepted cliche that needs to be challenged. From 1946 to 1960, 8 different teams have won the world series. From 1995 to now, 8 different teams have won the world series. From 1946 to 1960, the Yankees won the AL pennant 11 times - the only other winners where the Indians (twice), the Red Sox, and the White Sox. In the NL, the Dodgers won it 7 times in that period - with the Braves and Giants both winning twice, and the Cardinals/Pirates/Phillies winning it once. From 1994 to present, the Yanks have won the AL 6 times, the Indians twice, and the Angels/White Sox/ and Red Sox once. Again, in the NL -- 8 different teams have won pennants over the 11 year period. Competitive Balance is the classic old timer cliche, with little in the way of factual basis.
Great -- the exact same number teams in both eras won World Series titles. You've completely ignore the fact that during 1946 to 1960 there were 16 teams -- half the league won a title. From 1994 to now there have been 30 teams -- Just more than a quarter have won a title. How has competitiveness improved? The numbers you site don't prove what you think they prove.
As for the steroid pulpit- shall we forget spitballs, greenies, amphetamines ? None of these make the ballplayer, and it absurd to suggest (using purely conjecture) that these alone explain an era.
You seem like a bright guy too, Crapshoot, but this argument makes no sense logically or historically. The spitball was banned in 1920. Were pitchers cutting and shining up the ball during 1946 to 1960? Sure. Are they doing it today? Absolutely. So which era is worse? They both have the same problem.

As for greenies and amphetamines in baseball, you're mixing your eras. Yes, amphetamines began to emerge as a commonplace stimulant during World War II when people were trying to figure out a way to stay awake while working in factories for the war effort, but I have seen nothing that suggest amphetamines were a regular practice in baseball before the 1960s. Even if I graned to you that amphetamines were used by players between 1946 and 1960, I would contend that the usage among players in the last 30 years is much more rampant and serve than it was during the '46-'60 era.

[Johnny Slick]

The NL was pretty competitive in the post-war era. The AL really was not. Granted that some of that was due to stupidity on other AL teams (well, racism in the case of the Bosox passing on Willie Mays), but that only underscores my point. Dynasties are boring to fans of every team except the one that wins every year. Even in the more competitive of the two leagues, the Dodgers left Brooklyn because even in years where they won the pennant they were barely breaking even, and the Braves, Browns, Athletics, and the Giants weren't doing so well as the second teams in one-team towns.

[kcchief19]

The more I think about this, the more disappointed I am. I think baseball discussions at the FOFC are becoming what political threads have become -- quagmires only for the hardcore types.

Albion posed an opinion-oriented question based on subjective evaluation. I offered an opion based on my subjective evaluation. And not only does only one of two other people actually do the same thing, but the most involved participants simply do nothing but shoot down another person's opinion based on only their own subjective reasons.

I love to argue and debate baseball, but some of you people just drain the fun out of having different opionions and arguing who or what is best with both sides realize that there is no way to be proven right.

To better eloquently express something I tried to express in the Koufax discussion that broke out recently, I have a real problem with people who are obsessed with trying to find a way to prove something that cannot be proven. In a debate about whether Koufax or Martinez is better, or 1946 or 2005 is a better year for baseball, it comes down to opinion. There are plenty of fax, but there is no one way to determine who or what is better.

So congratulations. You've drained the fun out of something that is supposed to be fun and turned it into a colossal waste of my time.

[Johnny Slick]

If the fun in having a debate like this is everyone agreeing that you're right, then yes, these debates are probably not going to be all that fun for you. FWIW I find the "waah players make money now" arguments to be dreadfully boring, but that's just me.

[ISiddiqui]

In a debate about whether Koufax or Martinez is better, ... it comes down to opinion.

Actually a lot of that is objective. In terms of career and short run, Martinez was better than Koufax. It only comes down to opinion when you start in on "from my eyes, X was better". The Maddux v. Martinez question is far more interesting and does involve a lot of opinion.

You've drained the fun out of something that is supposed to be fun and turned it into a colossal waste of my time.

I think you, unfortunatly, find discussions where statistics and facts can be used to counter subjective opinions to 'drain the fun' out of those debates. I think the contrary. They make it more interesting and take all the BS, I saw v. I saw.

[Huckleberry]

In honor of kcchief19, I put a rough number together using better source data. The number is percentage of plate appearances that end with a ball in play.

http://www.hornfans.com/recruiting/huckleberry/ppawbip.jpg

Now I certainly wish I had been around to watch every baseball season that's ever happened, but because that's a difficult thing I went ahead and looked at the data. It agreed with my thoughts that baseball was more exciting in the late '80s and early '90s. Remember that I consider action exiciting which to me corresponds to balls in play.

I'm hopeful that the year 2000 wasn't just a localized low point but the overall low point. I'm hopeful that the current uptick is real. Then again I'm a dreamer. Please keep in mind that I have no problem with teams doing what makes the most sense in terms of helping them win ballgames. I just wish the game were setup to where it made more sense to put the ball in play more often.

[Crapshoot]

I'm hopeful that the year 2000 wasn't just a localized low point but the overall low point. I'm hopeful that the current uptick is real. Then again I'm a dreamer. Please keep in mind that I have no problem with teams doing what makes the most sense in terms of helping them win ballgames. I just wish the game were setup to where it made more sense to put the ball in play more often.

Agreed - I think of a lot of people enjoy seeing that kind of baseball, and if the trends continue, more teams will build parks that slightly favor pitchers (I believe BP or someone did a study showing that the more successful teams built parks that slightly depressed offense, reducing the stress on their pitching staff). Nonetheless, in today's environment, the station to station baseball is more productive per se - unless you have someone who can steal at a Jimmy Rollins circa rooke year pace (85-90%), the SB is pretty limited in its usefulness.

[oykib]

What most people who hate the "Steroid Era" (and there's little chance of that not becoming the popular appellation) don't realize is that it not just because of walks and dingers that keep the balls in play down.

Strikeouts have been at an amazingly and historically high level.


But I think the the late expansion era mid 60s to late 80s was the best too. The variety in the game was great. There were downsides, though. Ballparks from that era were an eyesore and uniforms were worse.

[Huckleberry]

Agreed - I think of a lot of people enjoy seeing that kind of baseball, and if the trends continue, more teams will build parks that slightly favor pitchers (I believe BP or someone did a study showing that the more successful teams built parks that slightly depressed offense, reducing the stress on their pitching staff). Nonetheless, in today's environment, the station to station baseball is more productive per se - unless you have someone who can steal at a Jimmy Rollins circa rooke year pace (85-90%), the SB is pretty limited in its usefulness.

There are two options to get the game to where I want it to be. Obviously I realize this is simply a mental exercise as it won't happen even though I should in fact rule the world.

1.) Deaden the ball

I'm not saying it's been juiced. To be honest, I don't care. But I do think deadening it would help. Suddenly waiting around for the home runs that don't come as often would be less fruitful. Take 5% out of the ball. Make being a home run hitter mean something. Maybe 5% is too much or too little, the exact number isn't the point right now.

2.) Bigger ballparks

Bigger foul ground is dead. People want to pay too much money to be near the action. So you have to make the outfields bigger. Make the home run less likely so people won't swing for the fences. Make doubles and triples more likely so speed is back in the game. Speed to make it to 3rd and speed to cover the ground out there. There isn't a whole lot of money made of those outfield bleachers, so I think this is more feasible.

[korme]

Will White had a particularly shitty ERA deadball-era wise in 1880 for the Reds. His ERA was 2.14, and he ended up with an 18-42 record (most losses in a single season, ever).

[korme]

As I read the thread I realize I am totally off-base.

[John Galt]

As I read the thread I realize I am totally off-base.

It's funny because I thought albionmoonlight's first sentence was totally unnecessary. You proved me wrong.

[Buccaneer]

The best era is whatever era was going on when you first became a fan.

Not true at all.

I grew up as a fan in the 1970, esp. being a fanatic about the Big Red Machine. I followed them until about 1983 when I switched over to the Pads. On top of that, I had two card collection phases: 1970-1978 and 1983-1989. So what's my favorite era? The Golden Age, of course. It was before my time where even I never saw Mantle play at all and do not recall any of the old stadiums.

I think kc hit it right, for the best and worse. I am constantly reminded how much I like this age as my yearly OOTP career is always in this era, and that much rather expensive card collection now focus solely on this era as well. I like this era, not so much the players (even though Willie Mays was my first baseball "hero") but for the teams and stadiums.

16 teams still sound about right and anyone who had to watch baseball being played in those generic artificial-turfed flying saucers, probably wished for more of the classic stadiums instead of just Tigers, Red Sox and Cubs.

Also, as I look at my cards, I just love those uniforms. Contrast that to softball unis of the 70s and 80s.

Final note: I extend the Golden Age until 1969. Not sure why but 1969/70 is a dividing line for me, just like in pro football. I don't like modern baseball and while as a kid I fell in love with the Big Red Machine, not much else of that era appeals to me (the Free Agency Era). Also, I'm not a fan of pre-war baseball except perhaps for the really early years like the 1840s to 1860s.

[clintl]

The Golden Age of Baseball wasn't much of a golden age if you live outside of the New York Metropolitan Area.

[Buccaneer]

The Golden Age of Baseball wasn't much of a golden age if you live outside of the New York Metropolitan Area.

Which is why I extend it into the 1960s. Dodgers and Giants had some good teams out in California. But don't forget about the Milwaukee Braves (Aaron, Mathews and Spahn) and the Cardinals during the 1950s. They, from what I've read, were quite popular as well. Plus, the Pirates did have a tremendous bandwagon effect in the early 60s. Finally, I would venture to say that the most popular player of the 50s was Ted Williams in Boston.

[clintl]

To be honest, I think every era has had its good points and charm, and also its bad points. Including the current era.

Also, do you really think that in that time, Williams was more popular than Mays, Mantle, and Stan Musial? That has never been my impression when reading about baseball in the 50s. It's always been my impression that Williams was kind of the Barry Bonds of his time - surly and not that well liked outside of Boston - and that the Williams lovefest came after his retirement.

[Buccaneer]

To be honest, I think every era has had its good points and charm, and also its bad points. Including the current era.

Also, do you really think that in that time, Williams was more popular than Mays, Mantle, and Stan Musial? That has never been my impression when reading about baseball in the 50s. It's always been my impression that Williams was kind of the Barry Bonds of his time - surly and not that well liked outside of Boston - and that the Williams lovefest came after his retirement.

That's a good question. You are right about Williams being more surely but those that heard more about it were those in the Boston area! Those outside of the region had a more filtered view since they weren't close enough to hear stuff everyday. But overall, he was more popular than Mays because Giants played third fiddle. Musial was definitely beloved out west, probably more popular than any other local player - including those in NY. What was happening in NY was interesting because it did take a few years for the NYY fans to accept Mantle since he had so much hype and expectations. They didn't want to let go of Dimaggio so soon (even Dimag had a hard time passing the baton).

One of the key indicators for me in the popularity of Williams was what Topps did. Bowman had the exclusive on Williams in the first few years of the 50s and when Topps finally signed him in 1954, his cards were so much in demand everywhere that they included him (by himself) as card #1 AND the last card (#250) in the set. That was and still is unprecedented. In 1957 and 1958, Williams was again the card #1 in the set The other thing is that when Williams was rumoured to be retired after the 1958 season, Fleer came back into the market (after being out since the late 1940s) and produced a very popular 80-card set of nothing but Ted Williams cards for the 1959 season! (He did come back for that season though.) If you look at Fleer's 1960 set of the greatest stars, Williams popularity back then (and now) was only second to Babe Ruth.

[clintl]

That's a pretty strong indication.