One thing to keep in mind when sending teams forwards and backwards in time: there are pitches today that did not exist in the 1920s (the split-finger fastball, for example), and there are pitches from the 1920s that are hardly used today (the screwball, for example).

I think the baseball might be different enough that whichever team got to play with their own ball would have an advantage. Combine that with the progression of talent and maybe it means using the old ball we'd have a close game, using the modern ball the moderns would blow out the old timers.

I'm trying to find something even resembling a cite, this will take a while, but I seem to recall that B-Pro tried to compare Ruth to Bonds, and found that the natural increase in talent in MLB (that is since more talented people want to join than leave, we'll almost always be improving as we kick out the flotsam) and increasing population pools (Ruth competed against white American citizens while Bonds had to go up against a culturally diverse international group) led them to believe that Ruth would have been roughly the equivalent of Tino Martinez.

That conclusion is pretty far out there. I believe last time we had a good timelining thread, GuyM came up with much more kind to the Babe results by setting pitcher hitting as a constant.

It's been a long time since we've had a good timelining thread.

I remember Frank Thomas being a superstar from the moment he came up until at least 2001.

The problem a modern AAA team would have against, say, the 1927 Reds, who were the closest thing to a .500 team that year, is in matching up against the pitching. Those Reds had Red Lucas, Dolf Luque, and Eppa Rixey in the starting rotation. They happen to have been pitching-heavy, of course, but take some team that wasn't, like the 1929 Dodgers, and they've got Watty Clark and Dazzy Vance at the top of an otherwise poor rotation. Even bad major-league teams of 80 years ago would have one or two pitchers who were tough, professional starters. (Whether those starters could adapt to the modern game is one of those have-to-guess-at time-machine questions.)

On the flip side, imagine the 1927 Reds facing a AAA closer in the 8th or 9th inning.

The problem a modern AAA team would have against, say, the 1927 Reds, who were the closest thing to a .500 team that year, is in matching up against the pitching. Those Reds had Red Lucas, Dolf Luque, and Eppa Rixey in the starting rotation. They happen to have been pitching-heavy, of course, but take some team that wasn't, like the 1929 Dodgers, and they've got Watty Clark and Dazzy Vance at the top of an otherwise poor rotation. Even bad major-league teams of 80 years ago would have one or two pitchers who were tough, professional starters. (Whether those starters could adapt to the modern game is one of those have-to-guess-at time-machine questions.)

We can counter that with say, the 1999 Vancouver Candaians.

Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito. The team wasn't stocked with a lot of great hitters (it had some major leaugers) but I don't see any good hitters on the 1927 Reds.

Something out of the Rays farm system

Two problems occur to me: one, even good AA and AAA teams have thin pitching staffs, often anchored by grade-Z journeymen; and two, on some of these teams you're getting Longoria or whoever, but you're getting them very young. You could still be right, but the assumptions are that Ruth and Gehrig can't get around on a mediocre 21st-century fastball, and that a 21-year-old Evan Longoria easily outclasses a 30-year-old Bob Meusel.

Is the point of it to remove each player from his historical context and assign him a era-neutral value that encapsulates his "true" ability as a player? [Edit] Or is it simply to argue that in the modern game balls are thrown faster and with more bite, hit harder, fielders and batters run faster, make more athletic catches (and whether this is because of some innate quality the modern player has that the older ones didn't, or because of historical context, is irrelevant)?

I find question 1 interesting and question 2 utterly irrelevent.

Was Norman Schwarzkopf a better general than Napoleon? Sure, if you give him tanks and jets.

On the flip side, imagine the 1927 Reds facing a AAA closer in the 8th or 9th inning

But one also has to imagine someone like Greg Reynolds (hate to pick on him, but he was the Rangers' AAA-team ace last year, and has had no success in the majors) trying to pitch into the 9th inning of a game against the '27 Reds. AROM's point about which ball to use extends to style: does the 2012 team keep its starters in, does the 1927 team assemble a modern-looking bullpen?

Two problems occur to me: one, even good AA and AAA teams have thin pitching staffs, often anchored by grade-Z journeymen; and two, on some of these teams you're getting Longoria or whoever, but you're getting them very young. You could still be right, but the assumptions are that Ruth and Gehrig can't get around on a mediocre 21st-century fastball, and that a 21-year-old Evan Longoria easily outclasses a 30-year-old Bob Meusel.

I'd say a mediocre 21st century fastball would be a grade A fastball in 1927.

what former Major League players that they would have seen were considered truly "iconic"** pretty much all during their careers, as opposed to only towards the end when their careers began to be fully appreciated?

Jeff Bagwell is the first one that springs to mind from my baseball-watching career. Tore the cover off the ball in his rookie season and never looked back.

I also remember watching the White Sox on cable, and liking Ivan Calderon, and being a little upset that this "Frank Thomas" guy was displacing him.

Was Norman Schwarzkopf a better general than Napoleon? Sure, if you give him tanks and jets.

Well, I'd say if we let Norman know what we now know and gave him Napoleon's opposing forces he'd beat Napoleon.

Napoleon was the general of his time but I think Grant and Lee having learned the tactics of the Napoleonic era and created and refined new ones during the Civil War would have beaten Napoleon in his time.

I'd say a mediocre 21st century fastball would be a grade A fastball in 1927.

But, that may be largely b/c 20's pitchers only used their best stuff for the elite hitters. They had to coast against weaker guys, in order to pace themselves to absord all those innings.

If you told them they only had to go 6-7 IP, 32 times a year, I'd bet the average velocity would leap.

Ryne Sandberg
Rickey Henderson
Don Mattingly
Mike Schmidt
Darryl Strawberry
Tony Gwynn
Barry Bonds
Mark McGwire
Jose Canseco

But, that may be largely b/c 20's pitchers only used their best stuff for the elite hitters. They had to coast against weaker guys, in order to pace themselves to absord all those innings.

If you told them they only had to go 6-7 IP, 32 times a year, I'd bet the average velocity would leap.

And if a modern pitcher got to "coast" against a bunch of hitters like pitchers did back then their velocity would go up as well.

If anyone wants to see where one the previous timelining threads ended up, try this.

They had to coast against weaker guys, in order to pace themselves to absord all those innings.

But that goes both ways. Tell the current AAA guy that all he has to do is find the plate with a couple low 80 fastballs to get 1/3 of the opposing lineup out just about every time, and he'd be ecstatic.

Napoleon was the general of his time but I think Grant and Lee having learned the tactics of the Napoleonic era and created and refined new ones during the Civil War would have beaten Napoleon in his time.

Highly doubt it. Lee and Grant fought in an entirely different context, given the minie rifle.

Napoleon was an actual genius. He ran wara, and an Empire while campaigning constantly. He would have quickly adjusted to any thing new they had to throw at him.

For anyone in the broad age group of 80 and under, what former Major League players that they would have seen were considered truly "iconic"** pretty much all during their careers, as opposed to only towards the end when their careers began to be fully appreciated?

There's a key name missing from this list, in my view, and he fits the defintion supplied here (appreciated throughout his career) as well as a more classic "visual" definition of iconic (his batting stance, his running style, his head-first slides, his swagger and home run trot, and his one-handed snatch-catch--I can't think of another player I've ever seen who is as easy to conjure up mentally in so many facets of the game. Ichiro may come close). There may never be another Mickey Mantle, but I'm even more sure there won't be another Rickey Henderson.

I think the amount of quality competition that all modern MLers face throughout their formative years is the biggest advantage they have over old timers. Its also just simple math - there are 30 ML teams that draw from a population of over 500 million (North America, Mexico, Central America, the Carribbean) whereas 80 years ago it was 16 teams and pretty much just the 110 million white people in the US.

And if a modern pitcher got to "coast" against a bunch of hitters like pitchers did back then there velocity would go up as well.

No. Their velocity would go down as they coasted.

But that goes both ways. Tell the current AAA guy that all he has to do is find the plate with a couple low 80 fastballs to get 1/3 of the opposing lineup out just about every time, and he'd be ecstatic.

Right, but that's already built in to the quality of hitters they face.

The issue is you can't just say "modern pitchers throw 92 MPH FBs and '20s pitchers threw 87 MPH FBs, QED, modern pitchers are better". If modern pitchers had to throw 150+ pitches per game, and 300 IP per season, their velocity, and effectiveness would have to go down.

Pur another way. If you made a modern team play a 1920's season using the pitcher usage patterns of the day, and they tried to pitch like they do now, they'd collapse in May when all their pitchers got hurt.

Highly doubt it. Lee and Grant fought in an entirely different context, given the minie rifle.

The civil war was largely fought, incorrectly though, with Napoleonic principles and tactics in mind. Lee, Grant, and all the American generals were raised on Napoleon and his generalship.

He would have quickly adjusted to any thing new they had to throw at him.


And yet he was soundly beaten by a general of his era. Napoleon was not perfect. He made numerous mistakes and could be beaten. He had the good fortune to arrive at a time when his enemies were divided (Germanic states and Italian states), incompetent and or corrupt (Russia and Italy), fallen into ruin and chaos (Spain) and that the most powerful nation against him was a sea power that historically had little interest amassing large armies. That isn't to say he wasn't a great general but let us not go overboard.

I think the amount of quality competition that all modern MLers face throughout their formative years is the biggest advantage they have over old timers. Its also just simple math - there are 30 ML teams that draw from a population of over 500 million (North America, Mexico, Central America, the Carribbean) whereas 80 years ago it was 16 teams and pretty much just the 110 million white people in the US.

Agreed. But that is mitigated a good deal by the much greater competition among alternative sports today (baseball and boxing were the only sports you could make a living at in the '20s), and the much greater participation in baseball (everybody played) and the complete lack of couch potatoes (50% of modern kids are eliminated from the athletic population by age 12, due to obesity or indifference, before we know anything about their skills). The 2012 14 y.o. Babe Ruth may well already weigh 300 lbs., be pre-diabetic, and be playing Call of Duty all day.

One thing to keep in mind when sending teams forwards and backwards in time: there are pitches today that did not exist in the 1920s (the split-finger fastball, for example), and there are pitches from the 1920s that are hardly used today (the screwball, for example).

I think the baseball might be different enough that whichever team got to play with their own ball would have an advantage. Combine that with the progression of talent and maybe it means using the old ball we'd have a close game, using the modern ball the moderns would blow out the old timers.

About 20 years ago I amused myself and a few of my customers by writing a short story that centered on a time travel World Series between the 1911 Philadelphia A's (the Macks) and the 1989 Oakland A's (The Billionaires). The ground rules were simple: First two games in 1989 Oakland, next three in 1911 Shibe Park, sixth game back in 1989 Oakland, and the seventh game in 1933 Comiskey Park, set on the day before the first All-Star game. All ground rules and all on-field and off-field practices and mores, with the exception of racial discrimination, had to conform to the respective years of the particular games. IOW no shrunken strike zones or air conditioned single hotel rooms for the Oaklands in Philly, and no escape from modern distractions and temptations for the Macks when they were in Oakland.

What made it fun to write wasn't any sort of sabermetric comparisons; any second rate computer program could do that. What made it fun was imagining the dueling forms of gamesmanship that were played by Mack and LaRussa, involving stuff like polio rumors and AIDS rumors and so on, plus the reactions of both teams to the joys of flying over the Rockies during a thunderstorm in a 1933 prop plane while being taunted by the stewardess about their nervousness. The real question to me is what's harder for a cloistered athelete to adjust to, the world of the distant future or the world of the distant past? I don't think the answer to that question is all that obvious.

No. Their velocity would go down as they coasted.

Yes, to levels that a 1920's pitcher would use against the best hitters.

The issue is you can't just say "modern pitchers throw 92 MPH FBs and '20s pitchers threw 87 MPH FBs, QED, modern pitchers are better". If modern pitchers had to throw 150+ pitches per game, and 300 IP per season, their velocity, and effectiveness would have to go down.

Pur another way. If you made a modern team play a 1920's season using the pitcher usage patterns of the day, and they tried to pitch like they do now, they'd collapse in May when all their pitchers got hurt.

That wasn't the scenario put forward. The initial scenario was putting a AAA team of now into a DeLorean and travel back in time.

And yet he was soundly beaten by a general of his era. Napoleon was not perfect. He made numerous mistakes and could be beaten. He had the good fortune to arrive at a time when his enemies were divided (Germanic states and Italian states), incompetent and or corrupt (Russia and Italy), fallen into ruin and chaos (Spain) and that the most powerful nation against him was a sea power that historically had little interest amassing large armies. That isn't to say he wasn't a great general but let us not go overboard.

When was he beaten when not greatly outnumbered?

He lost at Leipzig (outnumbered ~3:1), Waterloo (outnumbered 2:1, with lots more coming), and in Russia (enemy action had nothing to do with it; he would have lost if the Russian Army disbanded and went home).

#37 The thing about the 20s specifically is that you have a lot of major league pitchers stripped of the pitch (spitball) that got them to the majors. As is pointed out in the James/Neyer book on pitchers, in 1919 everybody threw a spitter.

You also have a pretty fair number of pitcher in the early 20s who knew zip about HR avoidance. With the grey/deadened balls in play until 1920 flyballs were a pitcher's best friend.

Took a while for all of this to shake out. I'm doubtful that it was complete by 1927.

There's a key name missing from this list, in my view, and he fits the defintion supplied here (appreciated throughout his career) as well as a more classic "visual" definition of iconic (his batting stance, his running style, his head-first slides, his swagger and home run trot, and his one-handed snatch-catch--I can't think of another player I've ever seen who is as easy to conjure up mentally in so many facets of the game. Ichiro may come close). There may never be another Mickey Mantle, but I'm even more sure there won't be another Rickey Henderson.

He just missed my final cut, but the truth is that base stealers and snatch catchers are never described with the sort of "iconic" terminology that's applied to power hitters and strikeout pitchers.

f you made a modern team play a 1920's season using the pitcher usage patterns of the day

I don't see why you would do this any more than make the 1920's team play by pitcher usage patters today. Both teams get to construct and manage their rosters as they see best.

Yes, to levels that a 1920's pitcher would use against the best hitters.

I don't think we have any idea. Bob Feller and Walter Johnson were estimated to throw in the high 90's.

How many guys in 1920 could have thrown 95 if they only had to pitch one inning at a time, 60 IP per year? I don't see how we have a clue?

Since velocity is governed by the strength and flexibility of joints/cartiledge, there's little season to think modern strength training has improved it much.

That wasn't the scenario put forward. The initial scenario was putting a AAA team of now into a DeLorean and travel back in time.

Well, the league is going to make them play 154 Games.

#61 Thing is that pitchers weren't selected for their ability to throw hard in the 20s.

I have little doubt that Dazzy Vance and Lefty Grove could bring it. And George Earnshaw supposedly threw harder than Grove, but they were exceptions. Look at how different Vance's K rates are from other pitchers of the day. Pretty much everybody pitched to contact all of the time.

I was just about to propose Rickey, but #67 beat me to it. He certainly meets the requirement of early success (if that's indeed a requirement - the Maddux comments suggest it is): in his age 21 season he was stealing 100 bases, an All-Star, and getting substantial MVP support.

When was he beaten when not greatly outnumbered?

I'm not sure what that proves in terms of Napoleon vs Grant or Lee. Napoleon was a megalomaniac who brought about his own downfall by trying to take over the world. You beat Napoleon, and they did, by giving him enough rope to hang himself.

Well, the league is going to make them play 154 Games.

The same amount they play in the AAA Pacific Coast League.

I don't think we have any idea. Bob Feller and Walter Johnson were estimated to throw in the high 90's.

How many kids in the minors can we say that about right now? 2? 10? 100?

How many guys in 1920 could have thrown 95 if they only had to pitch one inning at a time, 60 IP per year? I don't see how we have a clue?

Probably not as many as can do it nowadays considering that they didn't let blacks play, had virtually no hispanic players playing, and Asian kids were either just starting to play or hadn't played yet.

PS:

You're also forgetting that Napoleon's Spanish and Egyptian campaigns were absolute disasters.

About 20 years ago I amused myself and a few of my customers by writing a short story that centered on a time travel World Series between the 1911 Philadelphia A's (the Macks) and the 1989 Oakland A's (The Billionaires).

Any chance you'd post that online somewhere? Sounds like fun.

Pretty much everybody pitched to contact all of the time

Which doesn't mean batting-practice pitches, though. Jered Weaver throws about 87 MPH these days; I doubt if he'd strike out many 1920s major-leaguers who were looking to make contact. But conversely, they wouldn't hit him very well either, just as today's hitters don't. And changing speeds is an asset in any era, perhaps more so than raw speed.

I'm not sure what that proves in terms of Napoleon vs Grant or Lee. Napoleon was a megalomaniac who brought about his own downfall by trying to take over the world. You beat Napoleon, and they did, by giving him enough rope to hang himself.

OK, I didn't say he was a great Emperor, we were talking about his skills as general. The fact is Napoleon won pretty much every battle he fought, unless he was massively outnumbered. And, he won some of those too.


You're also forgetting that Napoleon's Spanish and Egyptian campaigns were absolute disasters.

Napoleon never commanded in Spain, and in Egypt, his fleet was destroyed soon after he landed. He was completely cut off from reinforcement/resupply. Still they held Egypt for 3 years, and almost conquered Syria, with only the original 40,000 troops.

The fact is Napoleon won pretty much every battle he fought, unless he was massively outnumbered. And, he won some of those too.

It is also a fact that he almost never had to face an army that was competently trained or led as well.


Napoleon never commanded in Spain, and in Egypt, his fleet was destroyed soon after he landed. He was completely cut off from reinforcement/resupply. Still they held Egypt for 3 years, and almost conquered Syria, with only the original 40,000 troops.

Napoleon didn't personally lead his men into battle even when he commanded them. Like all leaders and great generals he subordinates and his were outstanding. But Napoleon did command in Spain and it was his orders to strip Spain of massive amount of troops for his Russian invasion that led to him losing Spain to the British.

As for Egypt, sailing to Egypt and then having his fleet destroyed is a major mistake on his part. Completely abandoning his army and fleeing back to France is a defeat. Allowing his entire force to die off and the rest get captured is a major defeat.

Plus Lee was what, five-eleven? Napoleon was like 4'9". Plus he had the hand in the vest all the time. No contest.

"Agreed. But that is mitigated a good deal by the much greater competition among alternative sports today (baseball and boxing were the only sports you could make a living at in the '20s), and the much greater participation in baseball (everybody played) and the complete lack of couch potatoes (50% of modern kids are eliminated from the athletic population by age 12, due to obesity or indifference, before we know anything about their skills). The 2012 14 y.o. Babe Ruth may well already weigh 300 lbs., be pre-diabetic, and be playing Call of Duty all day."

Well stated, and I'd never considered the (valid) decrease in overall active-sport participation in today's America. Also, the urbanization of much of the population mitigates against playing baseball. When NBA/NFL "drain" has been noted in past threads, one counter is that their players are "physical freaks" who would never be in MLB. However, I'd venture that's true for maybe 40-50% of the 2,000 total roster positions in NBA/NFL (centers, power forwards, and the taller guys in other positions, and only OL/DL in football.) Also, prior to about 1960 there were hardly any Americans in the NHL (and only 6 teams), while now the much bigger league is 1/3 or more (I'm guessing here) American players. I don't think this outweighs the talent pool in Blacks and non-Americans, but it strongly mitigates it.

Going back to #10: I wouldn't put Killebrew on this list. He became an instant (and short-lived) celebrity because, after doing nothing for 5 yr in MLB, he hit bunches of HR in May of 1959. Some overimaginative reporter, remembering a then-famous Broadway play, wrote, "Joe Hardy is alive!" Killer's 15 minutes of "icon" ended when he tailed off badly during the 2nd half. Then his real peak came in 1966-70, his age 30-34 seasons, which averaged OPS+ of 162 (1959: 137) despite an injury-limited and mediocre 1968.

Napoleon didn't personally lead his men into battle even when he commanded them.

At most major battles he could see the entire battlefield, and make all key decisions.

It is also a fact that he almost never had to face an army that was competently trained or led as well.

Really? The Prussians were considered the best army in the world before he dismantled them. The Austrians were never brilliant (except under Eugene of Savoy), but always competent. And the Russians did quite well under Suvarov against the Turks and even in Sitzerland/Italy vs. the French.

Napoleon's opposition looks incompetent because he made them look that way.

As for Egypt, sailing to Egypt and then having his fleet destroyed is a major mistake on his part. Completely abandoning his army and fleeing back to France is a defeat. Allowing his entire force to die off and the rest get captured is a major defeat.

He really had nothing to do with losing the fleet, and the loss of 20,000 men was trivial to France vs. the loss of Napoleon.

He really had nothing to do with losing the fleet, and the loss of 20,000 men was trivial to France vs. the loss of Napoleon.

He had everything to do with losing the fleet. He's the one who sent the fleet to Egypt. That was a major command mistake.

Napoleon's opposition looks incompetent because he made them look that way.

The Russians and Italians always looked incompetent. Prussia was a shell of its former self by the time Napoleon took command of France. The one great enemy of his era (England) was the one enemy he could never soundly defeat and in the end defeated him by doing what they do best. Cutting off the sea to their enemies and getting the rest of Europe to align against their enemies.

He had everything to do with losing the fleet. He's the one who sent the fleet to Egypt. That was a major command mistake.

He didn't control the grand strategy at that point, his coup was after coming back. And I don't see how it's his fault the French navy was too incompetent to defend a superior position? Given how poorly they performed in the war, the potential loss of the French fleet wasn't particularly costly. If Nelson didn't sink them in Aboukir Bay he would have sunk them somewhere else.

He didn't control the grand strategy at that point, his coup was after coming back.

Napoleon is the one who wanted to go to Egypt and it was he who planned the campaign. There could be no real victory in Egypt, no matter how many battles he won. He could not hold the land nor supply his men or get them out so going was a major mistake.

Napoleon is the one who wanted to go to Egypt and it was he who planned the campaign. There could be no real victory in Egypt, no matter how many battles he won. He could not hold the land nor supply his men or get them out so going was a major mistake.

Even if we grant all that, I don't see how it was a "major mistake".

The loss of troops was trivial to France, and even the fleet had little value against a vastly superior Royal Navy. The losses suffered didn't hinder Napoleon running amok all over Europe for 12 years by one iota.

It was a reckless gamble, that didn't work out, but didn't cost much at all.

I'd like to see a comprehensive thing like:

* Here's how hitters hit against pitchers in year Z;
* Here's how X-year-old hitters hit against pitchers in year Z;
* Here's how hitters-hit against Y-year old pitchers in year Z;
* Here's how X-year-old hitters hit against Y-year-old pitchers in year Z.

"Comprehensive" meaning for all possible combinations of X, Y, and Z that don't result in zero PAs.

It would be interesting to see if there would be years or spans of years where, say, young players hit significantly better or worse against prime-age players than young players usually hit against prime-age players (relative to league average), and if that carries forth over the careers of the players in those groups.

For example, you could imagine that pitching took a great leap forward at some point, and this is reflected in the fact that (say) 27 year old hitters hit a lot worse against 22 year old pitchers, relative to league average, than 27 year olds normally do against 22 year olds. And then the next year, 28 year olds hit a lot worse against 23 year olds than 28 year olds usually do against 23 year olds, etc.

It would be interesting to see if there would be years or spans of years where, say, young players hit significantly better or worse against prime-age players than young players usually hit against prime-age players (relative to league average), and if that carries forth over the careers of the players in those groups.

For example, you could imagine that pitching took a great leap forward at some point, and this is reflected in the fact that (say) 27 year old hitters hit a lot worse against 22 year old pitchers, relative to league average, than 27 year olds normally do against 22 year olds. And then the next year, 28 year olds hit a lot worse against 23 year olds than 28 year olds usually do against 23 year olds, etc.

I'm guessing talent improvement doesn't happen this way. Things like weight training, supplements, PEDs, new pitches, and usage patterns don't arrive with a new generation, they are adopted across the league gradually. Likewise, addition of new talent sources (integration, Asia) hasn't only come via 18 y.o. amateurs, older players have entered too.

It was a reckless gamble, that didn't work out, but didn't cost much at all.

Because Napoleon was Napoleon. Egypt could have ended his rise or even killed him but Napoleon being Napoleon he deserted his men and spun the campaign in his favor.

Because Napoleon was Napoleon. Egypt could have ended his rise or even killed him but Napoleon being Napoleon he deserted his men and spun the campaign in his favor.

Well, yeah. If Napoleon wasn't Napoleon, he meets his disgrace and/or in Italy before he even gets a chance at broader power.

I'm comfortable with it in basketball or football because of the degree to which the jaw-dropping athleticism of modern players would overwhelm the Mikans or Starrs of the world.

In basketball its about rule changes. Under the rules of their day, the Mikans would mop the floor with the modern players, who would turn the ball over virtually every time they tried to dribble.

The same, I suspect, is true in football.

That's less of an issue in baseball.

One thing that I have done before is use height age and handedness to predict statistics for modern players (going back to say 1994 or so). And then use that formula to predict the stats for all the players in a league like the 1920 American League and use that as the baseline to compare rather than bringing that league all the way up to "league average."

For example the AL in 1920 would have players expected to hit fewer home runs, strikeout less, draw fewer walks and steal a few more bases, and all around be on average worse hitters than their 2011 counterparts by virtue of being smaller.