no you're not correct, lol. You can't say "the numbers prove it" because you can't compare the level of competition from today to then. If all the hitters in the league in 10 years from now were comparable to all the double A hitters today, then in 70 years from now everyone could say that in 2024 that the MLB had the most dominant pitching ever!
but it's all relative. In comparision to the rest of the league then YES that stats would show that....but otherwise they are completely meaningless.
Overall I would say that in most sports, the athletes today are better than they were decades ago. There is more money, more of a talent pool, better scouting, better coaches, better strength and conditioning etc etc etc. It is inherently correct that today's level of athlete is more athletic. We continiously see across all sports that athletes are getting quicker and stronger. Almost every year the world record for strength, running distance etc etc etc etc are being broken. That is because over time the human species has become increasingly better at pushing themselves to the limits. I say baseball is no different.
A statistic that measures performance can show me that a pitcher in 1970 was better than a pitcher in 2014. But unless that pitcher in 1970 travels to the future and faces the 2014 batters and vis versa I can't and I don't think ANYONE can say that they were "better" a player playing in single A could travel back to 1890 and might dominate the league. Did he become a better player? or is the level of competition different? Obviously it is easier to put up better numbers if the competition is different. Point is, all stats prove, and the only thing they prove here is how good a player is compared to his peers....but we are comparing two completely separate pools of talent decades apart. I'm not defending David Ortiz here, I actually DON'T think he is the greatest Sox player of all time but I don't think the statement that the pitching 40 years ago was better than it is today. I just feel that is inherently wrong.
again....unless you use the word "better" subjectively, I say you're wrong.