A little self-promotion, but I thought some of you might want to follow along:

The Tweet

The Bracket

Very cool.

Only 10 out of 16 went with Babe Ruth in a must win game?

Posted by crazystengel on 5/18/2020 2:02:00 PM (view original):
Only 10 out of 16 went with Babe Ruth in a must win game?

There’s more details on why people chose who they chose in Marc’s original article. But yeah, some chose only players they covered in their real-life beat, others had him as their DH (which was ignored), and others just plain didn’t choose him at all.

People not choosing Ruth on their teams is one of the things that struck me the hardest as well!

And I could be wrong, but I think it’s 10/32 that took Ruth

Posted by chargingryno on 5/18/2020 7:01:00 PM (view original):
And I could be wrong, but I think it’s 10/32 that took Ruth

I missed that in the post above, but yes, it is just 10/32 that chose Ruth.

Ha. Even worse!

Round One is up:

https://www.whatifsports.com/MLBBestLineup/round1.asp

Posted by crazystengel on 5/18/2020 2:02:00 PM (view original):
Only 10 out of 16 went with Babe Ruth in a must win game?

He strikes out too much.

By the way, are any of these people WIS players? Because if you do not know or understand the program, they will pick some stinkers.

Joe Morgan for example.

A few of them are, but none of these people picked their team with WIS in mind.

Even my own lineup in here was chosen without WIS in mind, but was partly what inspired me to try to run it on WIS.

I made my own lineup in response to that tweet awhile back, and everyone just discounts deadball players because “today’s players are just better.”

Its like that for any pre-integration player really, I don’t get it. No Ty Cobb, no Babe Ruth, no Honus Wagner.

They'd rather have Manny, Bonds, and Jeter/ARod

If anybody took Tip, and Nap stud seasons they are the favorites.

Posted by d_rock97 on 5/19/2020 2:56:00 PM (view original):
I made my own lineup in response to that tweet awhile back, and everyone just discounts deadball players because “today’s players are just better.”

Its like that for any pre-integration player really, I don’t get it. No Ty Cobb, no Babe Ruth, no Honus Wagner.

They'd rather have Manny, Bonds, and Jeter/ARod

Tom Tango has a thread kind of addressing this idea here:

https://twitter.com/tangotiger/status/1262582879651016705?s=21

essentially that the only way to measure is relative to peers and since a number of careers and peaks overlap we can get a sense of true talent across eras and that modern players aren’t necessarily better, they just have access to better equipment/training, but the more talented players in overlap show the talent level as the embrace the changing equipment/training.

Goes on to follow up with examples of Nolan Ryan leading league in K in 1972 and 1990, Has Tony Gwynn, David Ortiz, and a bunch of hockey examples of how a player who was the best at a skill in teens/twenties was still among best in forties across different generations of talent/equipment/training...

There’s some good comments in the replies, too