It is likely that both sides started following statistics to be entertained and informed, a concept that appeared lost in this debate. The dire nature of complaints betrayed the fun that statistics have always been able to provide. To bring back the amusement factor of the numbers game, all one has to do is fail to filter out “unqualified” players in a statistical search. If you do so, you will discover that the greatest hitter in baseball history played just one game and that the greatest pitcher was a third baseman. All you have to be willing to sacrifice is sample size.

Consider the great Babe Ruth, for instance. Under normal measurements, even the new ones, you could argue that he was baseball’s greatest hitter, better than Ted Williams and Barry Bonds and Willie Mays. But take out the idea of sample size, and suddenly Ruth’s career line of a .342 batting average, a .474 on-base percentage and a .690 slugging percentage looks pedestrian next to John Paciorek’s 1.000/1.000/1.000.

That’s right, John Paciorek. Called up to the Houston Colt .45s in 1963 after hitting .219 in 78 games of Class A baseball, Paciorek entered the lineup for the first and only time Sept. 29, in the last game of the season. Paciorek, an 18-year-old outfielder, went 3 for 3 with two walks, four runs and three runs batted in against an overmatched Mets pitching staff that allowed 11 runs.

The next season, Paciorek was injured during spring training, and his career in the majors was over. His potential was unrealized, but his legacy was secure. Other players could do more than he did, but no one could exceed his perfection. And to date, no one has even matched it.