----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 12:40 AM Subject: Re: Bleacher Bums
> > > > > I mean meaningless in the context of an argument about who > is better, Kofax or Martinez: > > Mechanic A builds a car using the best available technology > 50 years ago and was able to achieve performance x. > Mechanic B builds a car in the year 2001 with performance > 2x. Ergo B is a better mechanic than A? > Hmm, I think that the technology would be more the basic building blocks. We have better engines now than we did 50 years ago, better transmissions, etc. That would be equivalant to humans being genetically engineered for better bodies. I think your analogy would be like asking who was a better basketball team in 2000: the three time champion Houston Comets (the woman's team) or the Houston Rockets (who barely made it in the playoffs). My argument would be the Rockets because they would win any game handily. It sounds as though you might argue the Comets because they do more with the material at hand. A better analogy for today's vs. yesterday's ballplayer is Mechanic A and B would be to give them the same material, but mechanic B would have 50 years of increased knowledge over mechanic A. Would it be unfair to say B is better because of his greater knowledge? With the possible exception of certain supplements, which are mostly illegal now, the players of 50 years ago had access to the same food and weights that the players today have. We just didn't know as much about using them back then. Further, few ball players trained in the off season. There was no reason they couldn't. My idea of a comparison is that, if you could compose all time teams to compete in some alternate dimension ball park, and you were picking pitchers, who would you pick? I'd pick Martinez. Dan M.
