And we pitch just as good and hit even better than they did.

Moving the mound back was the last change to the dimensions of the diamond itself.

Ballparks have been about the same in size from the 1950s forward. In fact, before that, ballparks were either incredibly big or incredibly small... and, in reality, they haven't changed all that much at all.

Fields were the same size, just had different dimensions or were shaped oddly

Do the basic math. You can't have it both ways. If "we pitch just as good", we CAN'T "hit even better".
If league-wide average pitching is just as good,
then league-wide average hitting stats can only be
equal to the past as well.
If today's hitting is better, then today's pitching
isn't as good.
It ain't rocket surgery.

We have at least 5-10 players who hit 40+ HR, and at least 5-10 players who hit .330+ which makes us just as good if not better. Back then each team had one good hitter(unless your the Yankees) now we have 2-4 on every team. You put Roger Clemens up against the old players and he will dominate enough for us to win.

Your "arguments" are abject nonsense. The old teams only had one good hitter except for the Yankees ? Get real.
There were many, many old Dodger, Reds, Red Sox, Giants, Athletics and so many other teams that had awesome hitters up and down the lineup.

You have pretty much no knowledge of baseball today, or the history of baseball, and your incessantly uneducated responses make this forum a complete waste of time.

We are talking 1880-1940 vs 1941-Present.

Most of those teams were good more recently.

The major players in the early were Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle. All Yankees. There were others but not as many huge stars as we have now.

In a team format, this can certainly work out, and, to me, that is the topic at-hand.

The best pitchers in the game today may be better than the top pitcher in the game in, say, 1968. Due to expansion and what-not, the league-wide talent pool may be thinner - but that would have no impact whatsoever on the best of the best, beyond, perhaps, artificially inflating their numbers a bit.

Athletes today have huge advantages in nutrition and weight-training, as well as surgery and the like. If we somehow transplanted a line-up into a neutral era, with players in their primes, the modern day players would undoubtedly be more "athletic" than the legends.

If this is a debate about an all-time team (1880 through 1980) against a modern team (1981 to present), than the all-time team would probably win. If we created an "era by era" league of teams, I believe the modern players would have huge advantages that could put them over.

Yeah we are a lot healthier. I mean the one of the best players in the past, Babe Ruth, was most of the least conditioned athletes ever.

What are you talking about ?
When did you make the decision we are talking about 1880-1940
vs. 1941-present ?
You have Gehrig and Ruth from the 20's and 30's lumped in with Mantle from the 50's and 60's..these are your players from what you call "the early ?"
Again you need some knowledge of baseball history to discuss baseball history.
The 50's Dodgers had Snider, Hodges, Campanella, Robinson and Furillo in the lineup at the same time.
The Big Red Machine of the 70's had Rose, Bench, Morgan and Perez, and a couple of others like Foster and Griffey Sr.
The Giants of the early 60's had Mays, McCovey and Cepeda at the same time. The Braves of the late 50's had Aaron, Mathews and Adcock at the same time.
Early 40's Red Sox : Jimmie Foxx, Joe Cronin, Bobby Doerr, and Ted Williams.
Athletics '29 : Foxx, Al Simmons, Mule Haas, Sammy Hale-they beat the "Murderers'Row" Yankees of Ruth,Gehrig, Muesel, Combs etc. by 18 games.

No team today puts up 3 or 4 hitters like these examples.
The list could go on and on with dozens of examples of three or more top-notch hitters on the better teams. The last truly "modern" team to have three guys all hit for big averages was the '93 Jays.