I still think records have meaning. In 1908 Tim Jordan led the National League with 12 homeruns, a paltry total compared to today but still, he was the 1908 NL homerun king.
I will not argue with you on this.But things have altered so much - is Bonds 73 greater than Maris' 61?Is Bonds total HR record better than Aaron 755 or 714 - the latter two I can remember, Bonds I would have to look up.Since Bonds, McGwire, Sosa no one has his 60+ HRs even with the HR ball in play.Now they want to change the ball so there are less HRs.And that is just the HR records.Strikeouts, stolen bases, batting average - allare part of circumstances.
Hornsby hit 424, Willliams hit 406 and then Brett, Carew, and Gwynn took a shot but fell short.Now BA is no longer a primary judgment of a ballplayer.
My point is that I have always liked records, but not the manipulations of seasons, and balls points out the difficulty in comparisons.When players don't care if the strikeout it should not surprise that we have pitchers with more Ks than historical pitchers had.
Even records like most hits in the post season or similar metrics don't mean much when the post season might consist of three series and in the past Yogi Berra, Mantle, Ruth, etc had seven possible games in the post season.
I will watch the stats, but my innocence has been damaged.