To me, the game was too different for the pre WW 2 guys, at any position, those guys tend to have higher averages, more steals, and lower power numbers. I understand this, but i think it actually helps build a case for some of the more modern guys anyway...because well, they did it against tougher competition..although the pitching ranks may have been thinned out a bit...and they weren't dying of tuberculosis or anything.. I think Ted should be helped by the era he played in..the 70's depressed runs quite a bit comparitively speaking...Ted's last full year was 1985...he lost out on a big spike in hitting production that a guy like Fisk took advantage of (87-91) I think that HELPS Ted's case...as he shouldn't be penalized because he stopped being productive right before the start of the juiced ball era... i think this argument applies for alot of the guys weve talked about so far like rice, murphy, etc...their productive days ended right at the beginning of the steroid era, so they were contemporaries, however briefly with barry bonds and the likes...though they don't fairly compare to them... I think these guys (simmons, Murphy, Rice...) are completely screwed by the fact that their best playing days occured in the late 70's and early 80's...something just causes that era to be totally ignored...