Except it doesn't. I'd say the hypothetical 2nd year player has much more in common. Lets say he's also a centerfielder, who was the same age, had the same stats all during college and Triple A, the same age, from the same town.

Lets even say he has the same stats as Griffey for a season, the only difference is that he had waaaaaay more at bats. His batting average for example is way lower even though he has the same amount of hits, HRs, Runs and RBIs.

Anyone can have way better numbers then the best players in the game in one season, so long as you give them way more at bats.

 no, we live in reality, not some warped alternate reality where everything is pretty.  Do the same comparison with the PS2 to the Wii and the Wii completely wipes the table with the PS2.  It's not because the Wii is doing way better, it's because this comparison is stupid.  People that honestly take this comparison seriously as a way to show that the PS3 is selling like the PS2 need to get their head checked.

Reality is that PS3 is doing OK, it's been improving.  However, it's a huge step down from what they had last generation, and they lost tons of money and exclusives.  

I can answer this part, but you have to give us some more information about what you want to know.

Are you talking about:

1- A fictional reality in which the PS3 would be much cheaper to produce but the other two consoles cost the same, or

2- our reality, in which Sony would be losing even bigger amounts of money than they already did on the PS3?

EDIT - johnsobas kind of beat me to it :P

@Kasz216, are you BLIND? :)

I decided to make a comparison between PS2 numbers of 2001 and PS3 numbers of 2008, because:
1) 2008 is FIRST year, when PS3 will be selling WW for FULL year - 2001 was first year, when PS2 was selling WW for FULL year. NOT COMMON?

2) In 2001 were released BIG games like MGS2, GTA3, FFX, DMC, GT3. Games like MGS4, GTA4, FFXIII, DMC4, GT5P also aimed to 2008. NOT COMMON?

3) 2008 is second PS3 year, 2001 was second PS2. PS2 sold 16 mln. in 2001.
PS2 launched in March 2000. Was selling for 10 month.
PS3 launched in November 2006. Was selling for 1,5 month.

10 month of CONSOLE LIFE in 2000 close to 1 year? YES.
1,5 month of 2006 close to 1 year? NO.
12 month of CONSOLE LIFE in 2007 close to 1 year? YES. NOT COMMON?

Overall:
2000 PS2 = 2007 PS3.
2001 PS2 = 2008 PS3.

Then with WHAT PS3 has MORE COMMON things? =)))

wow, how does 2000 ps2 = 2007 ps3?
2000 PS2 included october, november, december in america
November December in Europe
March - December in Japan

2007 PS3 included full year in America
full year in Japan
march to December in Europe

Don't you see the obvious problem here? Also Japan is only around 15% of the market, and that's the only territory it was available for most of the year. It was also very supply constrained.

So that implies PS2<=PS3 (since you didn't mention 2006), which means we can indeed use the graphs I posted before.

Keep up the good fight CrazzyMan :)
I guess we will know for sure by the end of the year if the ps3 is comparable to the ps2. I would argue that considering it's price point that it is comparable in success.

Fine instead of an injury. Lets say Ken Griffey Jr. is "supply constrained" with at bats... and he gets 1 at bat per game. Vs said rookie who gets 7 at bats per game... and it's both their first seasons.

No matter how you try to phrase it, it's just a bad comparison.

VGChartz Hardware data for the period 01st Jan 2000 to 30th Dec 2000:

@Kasz216, I repeat:
Then with WHAT PS3 has MORE COMMON things?
Your answer: PS3 has MORE common with ...
Thank you. :)