Which stats, though. The stats that have only become prominent over the past 10-20 years, or the stats that were considered important during the period when the players played?
@Mystic Merlin spoke to this earlier, but judging Golden Era players by modern metrics is inherently complicated.
Take Jim Kaat, for instance. For most, if not all of his career, a different set of stats were considered important to his role as a starting pitcher. Had he played under management that emphasized current thinking, his win totals, innings pitched, etc would have decreased while his "advanced" metrics might have improved.
To judge Golden Era or other players from past categories by current values does them a disservice, and really only serves to further feed the arrogance of those who believe that their way of evaluating careers is superior to all others.