I just don't get the nostalgia for the unchanging game of baseball. It's a myth generated by baseball's endless comparison of stats across eras. Stupid, raw stats, totally unadjusted for changes in the game. In just the time I've followed baseball: the balls have changed, the bats have changed, the gloves have changed, the height of the mound has changed, the strike zone has changed, the time between innings has changed, the rule regarding blocking home plate has changed, the enforcement of balks has changed, the game has added a draft, arbitration years, free agency, compensatory picks for unsigned top picks were added to draft, then the comp picks were changed to only one pick below the one you lost, bonus picks for 'poor' teams like the Cardinals were added, amphetamines then steroids entered the game as did exotics like human growth hormone, the number of teams making the playoffs expanded drastically, the game added the unfair unbalanced schedule, rules for handling the injury list and moving players up-and-down-and up from the minors, even the length of the season -- all have changed. The DH and how to handle tie games are minor compared to the cumulative effect of all the other changes. I'm sure I've missed a number of other significant changes. Yet 'purists' talk about who is the all-time leader in HRs, RBIs, wins, strikeouts, even batting average. You can't compare raw stats across eras, precisely because the game has changed so drastically. But, by continuing to make those unadjusted changes, this myth of unchanging baseball tradition is reinforced.
Roger Maris didn't deserve an asterisk for breaking Babe Ruth's HR record because of a different season length, he deserved it because he was playing a very different game in which it was easier to hit a HR.