It's pretty much a law - one has to say that the greatest era of Saturday Night Live was the era that was on when they were fifteen.  Of course, noone expresses it in those terms.  It just shakes out that way.  At fifteen, you're still impressionable, but now you "get it."  You know who Colonel Angus is, but you're parents find him too dirty for television.  Of course, your parents will never admit that The Beatles were always considered hipsters with long hair.

Everything from your time was always white bread, mom, and apple pie.   (Oh and by the way, with the existence of wheat, pumpernickle, rye, sourdough, etc, why does white bread get the glory?)  Of course, we view our baseball in the same light. 

Much to my chagrin, I had to deal with this issue recently.  Compounding the frustration was that it was an in-law.  It's not a hate thing.  It's a "you can't win this road game but you feel like playing anyway" thing.  For you see, "most of today's players aren't half as good as the guys I grew up watching."

Is that really a defensible position?  Okay, let's say that this was actually a case of hyperbole.  And let's rearrange the words to give the benefi of the doubt.  Let's say "Half of these players aren't as good as the ones I grew up watching." 

Of course, we need apples to apples.  The second part of the original quote included players' names.  So the players today, according to my adversary, aren't half as good as Brooks Robinson, Mickey Mantle, and Roger Maris.  The problem is, neither was Gene Freese. 

Who's Gene Freese?  Gene Freese played third base for the White Sox in 1966.  He wasn't as good as Brooks Robinson.  I'm sure that you are surprised to learn that there were more than three dozen players who played during the sixties.  I bet you thought that Lou Brock patrolled the entire outfield.  Or that Brooks Robinson covered the whole left side, throwing to Boog Powell at second, who then threw to himself at first to complete the double play (This bit of hyperbole is totally unfair since it implies that Davey Johnson was not a damn good second baseman, but it's what I came up with right now.  I'm running with it). 

All eras had good players, mediocre players, and marginal players.  It is unfair to degrade Albert Pujols for playing in this era because Melvin Mora isn't as good Brooks Robinson.  Just for fun, some 162 game career averages:

• Freese-->17HR, 63 RBI, (.264 Avg/ 305/418) 94 OPS+, Fielded .940
• Mora-->19 HR, 80 RBI, (.279 Avg/ 354/438) 108 OPS+, Fielded .966
• Robinson-->15 HR, 76 RBI, (.267 Avg/322/401) 104 OPS+, Fielded .971

Okay, so you see these splits, and say "What should I see?"  The first two are counting stats.  They are what they are.  In parentheses I have rate stats (Avg, OBP, SLG).  These are rates that can be affected by the era.  OPS+ takes the OBP and SLG elements, and factors in the era.  100 is average.  Offensively, Melvin Mora is slightly better than Brooks Robinson, and easily better than Gene Freese. 

Kind of takes the whole "half as good as..." out with the garbage, doesn't it?  Quite simply, nobody has made a Hall of Fame case for Melvin Mora, so stop comparing him to HOFers as a way of downing his (or his era's) play.  I could do the same analysis for Carlos Beltran, Mookie Wilson, and Willie Mays.  Or how about Albert Pujols, Jack Clark, and Keith Hernandez?  Players have different assets (or liabilities) that have no knowledge of what year it is, or how old you are at home.

Then there is the money.  Maybe this is what is at the heart of the argument. You know, people really don't bat an eye at auto workers' salaries (Or perhaps they do since implicit in the price of a Detroit car is a cost structure not seen with other makers. And we know how well the Detroit cars are doing on the market, don't we?) The odd thing is, both salary structures were collectively bargained.  But one labor agreement is more noble than the other I suppose.

Brooks Robinson made $64,000 in 1966.  Gene Freese made $22,000.  Melvin Mora currently makes $ 8 million.  Melvin Mora is past his prime, so maybe that's the Orioles crime.  But it evens out since his three msot productive years (2003-2005) came with a total proce tag of $7.8 million.  Even adjusting for inflation, the $8 million far outpaces Robinson's $480,000.  So if you want to analyze how much the extra 4 points of OPS costs the Orioles, that is valid.  Of course, I'm not hearing any of that.  This was a qualitative argument that began with the infusion of knee-jerk quantitative analysis.  When I see or hear that, I mutter "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times."  Then I try to entertain you.