I’m not sure this follows entirely. The talent pool is always limited, inasmuch as the entire universe is not scouted and teams can only sign a finite number of players. Plus, teams with financial advantages always have an advantage in signing the best talent available at the time.

I guess you are arguing that the disparity in talent in MLB is less now than in the old days, but I am not convinced that desegregation had as much of an impact on that as is often posited. Unless one believes that non-white players are inherently better athletes, desegregation of the league only increased the potential talent pool by around, say, 10 or 12%.

A more significant expansion of the effective talent pool has resulted from more systematic scouting, both within and outside the US. Though here to, it follwos that teams with more money can afford to scout and sign more widely.

So, yes, Ruth played against inferior talent. The best player at any given time is always playing against inferior talent.

This is not the same thing as a subset of players in the league gaining (theoretically) an unfair advantage over other players in that same league.

I agree that it is not worth putting asterisks all over the place. But I disagree strongly that the problems raised by the PED era (or the Greenie era) are analogous to those of the segregation era, unless it can be demonstrated that every single player in the league used greenies or PEDs.

Also, for perspective, the worst in MLB history was the 1932 Boston Red Sox, which had a run differential/game of -2.27. That means the 1939 Yankees made their opponents look like the worst teams to every play the game…WITH HALF A RUN TO SPARE.

I am not actually arguing for all the asterisks, just that there are arguments for them on a number of factors.

And given the widespread use of PEDs, it seems there was a fairly level playing field in the steroid era. Sadly, it looks like Jose Canseco is the most believable person out there. As distasteful as it is to write that.

So that gives me a bit of hope, that Betances’s UCL wasn’t torn as horribly as most people’s.

The arguments about Neyer being a Yankees hater are (in my experience) that he can’t be objective when it comes to the Yankees…

Yes, good point.

The arguments about Neyer being a Yankees hater are (in my experience) that he can’t be objective when it comes to the Yankees – hence why my statement, that he’s written a book that argues the ’39 Yanks are the best team of all-time, would refute such baloney. I was thinking primarily of the Mauer-Jeter MVP bantering from a couple weeks back.

Of course he’s always going to be a little bitter that his Royals lost to our Yanks so much in the 70s. Are we not bitter about 2001, 2003, 2004 etc? I know I am, just a little.

[11] If the Yanks hadn’t slipped in 1940 – wasn’t that the year of the “you can’t trade with the team that won the World Series last year” rule? – it would have been 8 straight World Series appearances, and possibly 6 straight wins (’36-’41) (assuming, of course, they would have won the Serious in 1940).

That is just sick.

And only one of those would have been lessened, just a bit, by the folks missing because of WWII.

Remember that, folks who proclaim Mr. Neyer as a “Yankee hater” – he’s on the record as saying a Yankees team is the greatest team in the history of Major League Baseball.

This doesn’t really say much about whether or not he is a “Yankee hater.”

Asterisks are a mess.

I would say that 1961 was the last, best gasp of a strong dynasty. And while not the greatest team, it was a fairly solid team. But the late 1930s, 1927, and the 1950s teams were better.

Remember that, folks who proclaim Mr. Neyer as a “Yankee hater” – he’s on the record as saying a Yankees team is the greatest team in the history of Major League Baseball.

As for the book, because it was written back in 2000, it doesn’t quite have all the more advanced metrics and knowledge we have today. Still, its an outstanding read, and IIRC, the argument about the ’39 Yanks is ridiculously convincing.

[5] 1936 to 1939 was a ridiculous squad. All four teams ranked among the top-10 in terms of run differntial.

I also seem to recall more than a few laughs at the not-disputed notion that a certain “Chairman of the Board”, from time to time, performed some surgery on the ball before he threw it . . . seems like that would be very relevant to the 1961 team, among others . . .

PEDs are just a red herring.

[3] The problem, as ever, with using OPS+ for anything is that it undervalues OBP and overvalues SLG. So, of course its going to show the Yanks (and their superior slugging, .442 vs Detroit’s .421) as being “better” than the Tigers (who had the superior OBP, .347 vs .330 for the Yanks).

Since nothing correlates with scoring runs like OBP, I have no problem with Steven’s argument there.

Now, if you want to tell me that the ’61 Yanks’ team EqA was .278, versus the Tigers’ .273, and ergo the Yanks were the better offensive team – that I’ll go along with.