The only way to do an exercise of this type is to put it into the proper context. You have to consider-Was a guy the best of his time and by how much? Just using stats without context to how the game is different in each era is faulty. I tend to think that the best guys back when would be the best guys now. And vice versa.
Jim would be somewhere 4-7 and that's close to what he was in his era too.