The vast majority of disagreements that you will find in the comments of the top-100 lists on this site have to do with how athletes from competitively weak generations are rated. Not only do these comments not surprise me, they are the reason this site exists. We are so programmed to pine for the good ole days when everyone and everything was “better” that any suggestion otherwise is met with resistance ranging from incredulity to straight-up vitriol. I’m not interested in rehashing why our idolization of the weakest eras is misplaced–I have written thousands of words on the site exploring this notion–but I will highlight the consequences of such idolization. For all of its benefits (and consequences), artificial intelligence is merely a reflection of us. ChatGPT and the like take a deep look into our souls and spit out our reflection–the good, the bad, and the ugly. Recently, ChatGPT was asked to list the greatest baseball players of all time, and the results were, well, totally absurd. There were zero players in the top 10 who started their careers after 1959, and just one in the top 15. This is, of course, a statistically ridiculous representation of the greatest baseball players who ever lived. Even the vintage league players who reenact baseball the way it was played in the early 19th century would side-eye the claim that the last 65 years haven’t produced a single baseball player worthy of the top ten.
This sort of disconnect from reality isn’t new. The Sporting News made the same miscalculation in 1998 when its entire top-25 list included zero baseball players who debuted after 1967. Bias toward the past is present in every sport, and it’s really hard to change. Fans take personal offense when an athlete they (or their parents) idolized isn’t rated in “the usual” spot. However, for the ordering of the greatest athletes of all-time to be a worthwhile endeavor, these top-100 lists must have integrity, which means they need to not only represent players by performance, but also represent eras proportionately by league size and competition level.
ChatGPTs Top-15 Baseball Players of All-Time
By and large, most sports saw their weakest eras occur when their top leagues were either completely or largely segregated. Due in part to the Civil Rights Movement, the last three decades of the 20th century saw an uptick in competition level, but still proved largely inaccessible to the global population. Sports started to see a significant shift in global talent pools at the turn of the 21st century, which has led to the most competitive eras across the board during the 2000s. You will notice that every list on this site has the same basic framework, featuring competition level and league size as the guiding principles. If we don’t do this, these lists lose integrity in a hurry. ChatGPT’s opinion of the greatest baseball players of all time is all the proof we need.
It’s no surprise you chose baseball as your example for all sports falling in love with the oldies. To me it seems Baseball is the only sport guilty of this. Football, hockey, soccer and apparently basketball are forgetting players from early on. True, there were far less people in the world, therefore far less people in sports. Meaning fewer teams and fewer players and less competition. That is what those athletes were presented with so… they can’t possibly be as good as today’s athlete because…?. It’s impossible to truly know who’s better from one Era to another. I’d be happy to put Wilt Chamberlain up against Jokic. Unfortunately we can’t. Most all-time lists I’ve come across try to show some love and respect for all Eras, except for baseball. I get it, you love this generation and it shows. Elgin Baylor at #82. Yikes. Also, LeBron is great. His athleticism, his basketball IQ, his versatility and his longevity is unparalleled. But, if I’m putting a team together and I can pick MJ or LeBron, not both. It’s Jordan. Not because he’s a human highlight reel, but because it plays better defense. He takes over games. He makes the last second shot even when everyone knows he taking the shot. You seemingly can’t stop him. He won 6 championships in 8 years. And it would have been 8 in 8 years if he hadn’t tried playing baseball. Although, I suppose that’s only true because he played in a weaker Era. I know that’s what you’re going to say in 20 or 30 years.
Andrew, I appreciate the perspective. I’ve written quite a bit on this site exploring much of what you’ve written. However, I will respond to your points. My hope is to change archaic perspectives by using logic, reasoning, and statistical analysis. However, some people are too committed to the cause to entertain a different perspective. Like I’ve said several times on this site, nostalgia is a seductive mistress.
It’s no surprise you chose baseball as your example for all sports falling in love with the oldies. To me it seems Baseball is the only sport guilty of this.
It happens in every sport. The NFL included 49% of its 100th anniversary team from years prior to the NFL/AFL merger. That shows a gross misunderstanding of population and degree of difficulty analysis. Even 35% would’ve been far too high. FYI–You’ve also proven how pervasive the bias in favor of previous generations is in basketball by favoring Wilt Chamberlain over Jokic. Statistically, it’s an indefensible position.
True, there were far less people in the world, therefore far less people in sports. Meaning fewer teams and fewer players and less competition.
It’s not necessarily about the population being smaller, or the competition being worse. What matters most is what percentage of the population had access to the top leagues. In bygone eras, leagues were composed almost solely of Americans and whites. If our professional leagues continue to see a higher percentage of international players, then future generations will have a degree of difficulty advantage over the present generation. If the demographics of the top professional leagues stay roughly the same, then future generations will be viewed on equal footing in terms of degree of difficulty as the current generation.
That is what those athletes were presented with so… they can’t possibly be as good as today’s athlete because…?.
Succeeding in a small league that openly prevented minorities from competing and included only athletes from America should not be considered equivalent to succeeding in a fully globalized league welcome to all minorities. The biggest mistake anyone can make when putting together a list like this is not accounting for this.
I get it, you love this generation and it shows.
This shows that you don’t quite get it. I don’t love any era. It has never been harder to succeed in any sport than it is right now. Fully globalized leagues are novel to the 21st century. If you don’t account for this, you end up doing things like choosing Wilt Chamberlain over Nikola Jokic. BTW–You will find that the player representation on these lists is roughly proportional to the number of players who played in each decade. So, yes, there is full respect for each era, which includes accounting for the number of players from each era and the demographics of those players.
Elgin Baylor at #82.
Elgin Baylor won zero MVPs and zero championships in an 8-team league that prevented the vast majority of qualified black players from playing and included virtually no international players. He never led the league in points or rebounds, shot 43% from the field, and is 87th on the all-time Win Shares list. What exactly is the argument for Elgin Baylor?
Although, I suppose that’s only true because he played in a weaker Era. I know that’s what you’re going to say in 20 or 30 years.
Yes! LeBron has played in a fully globalized league. Jordan did not. It is much more difficult to win today with international players routinely winning the regular season and finals MVP than it was in the 80s and 90s. I’m not going to say that in 20 or 30 years, I’m saying it now.