
Of course you can.  You just have to be careful about what conclusions
you draw.


Huh?  The 20's and 30's were the *worst* decades for great pitching.  Grove,
Vance, Dean, and not a whole lot else.  

As for the best all-around hitters, stat-wise, Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg,
Hornsby, Cobb, etc. all played before the 40's.  Stat-wise, the 60's were 
a graveyard for hitters.


How do you know?  Which ones do you consider great?


So?  Sheffield also has better shoes.  More time between pitches.  You can
run the comparison, but there are *lots* of things to take into account.


Well, can we compare them or can't we?


Why?  We can compare players to the *standard* of their era; and we can
keep in mind era-to-era differences without throwing up our hands in
despair.


You haven't shown us what's *un*reasonable about the MAntle-Sheffield
comparison that you yourself did.