Old Sports Teams/People vs. New Sports Teams/People

[Andarvi]

So I'm watching around the horn and israel gutierrez (worst person they have on the show) made a comment on how NBA players now as so much bigger and faster than those of the past that this years Celtics would "wipe the floor" with Bird's celtics and that Bird wouldn't score 20 points. While this is a bit of a stretch (and hes an idiot, regardless) it got me thinking of how much of a difference time makes in sports.

Can we really compare the old and new as easily as we do? Baseball had the dead ball era and was segregated for the first 50 or so years of its existence. Tennis and golf players used to use wooden rackets and golf clubs.

These days, we've got better scouting in sports, better salaries to be made thus more people taking it up as a career, the whole steroids issue that has to exist throughout sports. Are the Mickey Mantles, Walter Paytons, Muhammad Alis, and Pete Sampras better because they didn't play in such an advanced era? (Regardless of era, Tiger is the best golfer ever, yes better than Jack).

What do you think? How do we compare them?

[CMMeast]

It's impossible to compare players across eras but people persist in doing so. Even a 10 year gap is enough to invalidate many arguments comparing player ability and performance.

Any comparison has to come in context of the overall state of the game in those different periods, for example Wilt Chamberlain's dominance vs. Shaq's dominance.

[Viq]

Those comparisons are just for fun anyway. It's not like Stuffy McGinnis' corpse is going to get a prize if people think he was a better defensive 1B than Kevin Youkilis. Ted Williams' frozen head isn't going to win anything if a poll determines that he was a better hitter than Ty Cobb. Comparing players is little more than an entertaining intellectual exercise.

[aurik]

Way to forget mentioning rule changes! Basketball has undergone a huge amount of rule changes since even the 90s. Makes it hard to compare players when it was fundamentally a different game back then.

[CMMeast]

Way to forget mentioning rule changes! Basketball has undergone a huge amount of rule changes since even the 90s. Makes it hard to compare players when it was fundamentally a different game back then.

Using stats to compare MJ and Kobe is so entertaining though

[archibaldcrane]

I like to think it depends more on the specific sport. Basketball first and foremost has made leaps and bounds (no pun intended) in the athleticism of both its current stars and the average player over 15-25-35 years ago. Similarly football players are just bigger and faster now - I don't think there were many O-lines averaging 310+ lbs. 25 years ago.

I don't think most baseball pitchers are really throwing faster or with more movement now than they were 20 or 30 years ago, and besides more home runs for a variety of reasons, the battle between pitchers and hitters seems to result in very similar batting averages year to year as a whole.

Technological innovations in tennis and golf have helped current athletes and makes for some unfair comparisons. But yeah, it's mostly just for fun.

[Tyche]

Jordan would score 185 points a game in today's NBA. I think comparing Kobe to him is a complete fucking joke (and I LOVE kobe). The Tiger and Jack debate is a hell of a lot closer than you give it credit for. I'd probably lean Jack. I think the new technology has helped a disproportionate amount over how much more difficult the courses are. We have new technology, advanced training methods, advanced rehab and medical facilities, and steroids. Athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, no doubt.

[Plow]

This is why when it all comes down to it, pretty much any major professional athlete will tell you, the only valid comparison is "how many rings does he have?"

[Tyche]

Robert Horry has 7 rings. Jordan has 6. I don't much like the ring comparison.

[Mizango]

Robert Horry has 7 rings. Jordan has 6. I don't much like the ring comparison.

Exactly. Judd Beuchler has 5 rings. Stockton has ZERO.

Don't believe the hype.

[Boyiee]

I don't think most baseball pitchers are really throwing faster or with more movement now than they were 20 or 30 years ago, and besides more home runs for a variety of reasons, the battle between pitchers and hitters seems to result in very similar batting averages year to year as a whole.

I believe it's a lot harder for hitters now on just one aspect, batting average. There are A LOT more pitchers now and a lot more strategy involved in when to bring out a lefty or a righty and things like that. These hitters today are still facing pitchers they've never seen before, I believe a comment was made on ESPN on how it is a lot more difficult for say, chipper jones to bat .400 than it might have been for other hitters back in the day. I think it was also easier to get an infield base hit decades ago than it is now. You'll notice that there was a streak of hitters that bat .400 earlier in the century, then suddenly, never again.

[Andarvi]

Jordan would score 185 points a game in today's NBA. I think comparing Kobe to him is a complete fucking joke (and I LOVE kobe). The Tiger and Jack debate is a hell of a lot closer than you give it credit for. I'd probably lean Jack. I think the new technology has helped a disproportionate amount over how much more difficult the courses are. We have new technology, advanced training methods, advanced rehab and medical facilities, and steroids. Athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, no doubt.

whaaaaa? I am curious where this idea comes from (granted blown out of proportion). I love how before the finals one of the popular talks on all the ESPN shows was about Kobe challenging MJs legacy and how now afterwards they are predominantly saying you cannot bring up that discussion ever, ever again, because MJ would never have let his team play the way they did this series (or shot as poorly as Kobe did outside the first quarters).

And I know the Tiger/Jack debate can go either way as of now, and the fact Jack does have more majors and wins is a good argument. I look at it like Tiger is already ahead of Jack's pace, its so outrageously dominant, and despite this knee injury has many many years ahead of him. Tiger is 33 years old with 14 majors, Jack was 46 when he won his 18th. 13 years (assuming he lasts that long) and Tiger only needs 5 to beat him. By the time Tiger is done I cannot see anyone making the argument for Jack. But for now, its cool.

[Weeks]

The problem of comparing ballplayers across eras in baseball is actually fairly easily solved to what I would say is a pretty high degree of accuracy. Pitchers have not been selected to any appreciably degree for their hitting ability in many, many decades, so pitchers today should perform essentially as well as they did in the early 20th century, in a neutral context. It turns out that pitchers' hitting has declined since the advent of professional baseball, and has done so at a fairly steady rate since the turn of the 20th century. Pitchers were hitting about 70% as well in the early 2000s as they had been a century earlier, implying that the league was approximately 40% stronger.

[mikazuki]

humans haven't changed, but sports science has.
modern training methods and modern technology allow athletes to realise more of their potential, a simple example of which is the gradual improvements on the 100m world record, the absolute minimum time that distance can be run by a human is a long way from being recorded.

natural aptitude is spread evenly across generations.

[Andarvi]

The problem of comparing ballplayers across eras in baseball is actually fairly easily solved to what I would say is a pretty high degree of accuracy. Pitchers have not been selected to any appreciably degree for their hitting ability in many, many decades, so pitchers today should perform essentially as well as they did in the early 20th century, in a neutral context. It turns out that pitchers' hitting has declined since the advent of professional baseball, and has done so at a fairly steady rate since the turn of the 20th century. Pitchers were hitting about 70% as well in the early 2000s as they had been a century earlier, implying that the league was approximately 40% stronger.

When you say stronger do literally mean physically or stronger players? Back in the day when pitchers hit the same as any other position on the field (Babe Ruth was nasty at both) it was the norm, where as now only the National league makes pitchers bat and generally they suck balls at it. Wouldn't it be because the recognition of the value of a great pitcher and complete focus on their craft has changed considerably since then? If pitchers being able to be competent hitters was a focus nowadays I refuse to believe that David Wells and Rod Beck couldn't have hit 20+ HR a year (ok I'm joking, sort of. Wells and Beck are G's).

[Andarvi]

humans haven't changed, but sports science has.
modern training methods and modern technology allow athletes to realise more of their potential, a simple example of which is the gradual improvements on the 100m world record, the absolute minimum time that distance can be run by a human is a long way from being recorded.

natural aptitude is spread evenly across generations.

Unfortunately with all the track stars coming out lately admitting they doped during their rain i wonder if the records of the past are more legit. Of course testing across all sports should be mandatory and far more administered, I'm talking weekly, to ensure its legit. But thats expensive and would take away too many fan favorites so they dont do it. That and player's unions.

[archibaldcrane]

I believe it's a lot harder for hitters now on just one aspect, batting average. You'll notice that there was a streak of hitters that bat .400 earlier in the century, then suddenly, never again.

If you want to go over 75 years ago, sure, there were a number of players that hit over .400. But only one player has done it since 1931, and that's Ted Williams. I don't know when people consider the "modern era" of baseball to have begun, but I generally don't hear people talking about comparisons between the Ty Cobbs and Roger Hornsby's and current players - more the Mickey Mantles, Ted Williamses, post WWII players. Especially comparing hitting stats before the starting pitching rotation was established (1920ish) is kinda...silly.

It can similarly be argued that comparing stats in the all-white vs. integrated eras is foolish.

[CMMeast]

Jordan would score 185 points a game in today's NBA. I think comparing Kobe to him is a complete fucking joke (and I LOVE kobe). The Tiger and Jack debate is a hell of a lot closer than you give it credit for. I'd probably lean Jack. I think the new technology has helped a disproportionate amount over how much more difficult the courses are. We have new technology, advanced training methods, advanced rehab and medical facilities, and steroids. Athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, no doubt.

whaaaaa? I am curious where this idea comes from (granted blown out of proportion). I love how before the finals one of the popular talks on all the ESPN shows was about Kobe challenging MJs legacy and how now afterwards they are predominantly saying you cannot bring up that discussion ever, ever again, because MJ would never have let his team play the way they did this series (or shot as poorly as Kobe did outside the first quarters).

With the implementation of the hand-check rules a couple years back, it's almost impossible to stop dribble penetration from the perimeter. Drives have to be defended at the hoop. MJ made a living dunking on people early in his career. With the way the NBA is set up now, you'd see something similar to Lebron where he'd blow by everyone and finish at the rim constantly.

On the other hand, MJ was not a great shooter till much later in his career so he could be thwarted to some degree by the almost unfair zoneDs teams are allowed to use.

[Tyche]

Jordan would score 185 points a game in today's NBA. I think comparing Kobe to him is a complete fucking joke (and I LOVE kobe). The Tiger and Jack debate is a hell of a lot closer than you give it credit for. I'd probably lean Jack. I think the new technology has helped a disproportionate amount over how much more difficult the courses are. We have new technology, advanced training methods, advanced rehab and medical facilities, and steroids. Athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, no doubt.

whaaaaa? I am curious where this idea comes from (granted blown out of proportion). I love how before the finals one of the popular talks on all the ESPN shows was about Kobe challenging MJs legacy and how now afterwards they are predominantly saying you cannot bring up that discussion ever, ever again, because MJ would never have let his team play the way they did this series (or shot as poorly as Kobe did outside the first quarters).

And I know the Tiger/Jack debate can go either way as of now, and the fact Jack does have more majors and wins is a good argument. I look at it like Tiger is already ahead of Jack's pace, its so outrageously dominant, and despite this knee injury has many many years ahead of him. Tiger is 33 years old with 14 majors, Jack was 46 when he won his 18th. 13 years (assuming he lasts that long) and Tiger only needs 5 to beat him. By the time Tiger is done I cannot see anyone making the argument for Jack. But for now, its cool.

Well, MJ won 6 championship with no dominant big man, kobe won 3 with one of the most dominant ever in his prime. Challenging his legacy is absurd lol. As far as bringing up the scoring average, Jordan played against the best player on defense night in and night out in an era where the league rules (read handchecking) didn't cater to explosive scorers. I mean, remember when Bird punched Bill Lambeer in the face lol? You know what the refs told Lambeer? "Shake it off son, get your ass up". That just doesn't happen in today's NBA. David Stern, ever since Jordan Left, has tried to essentially create another Jordan by adjusting rules to allow it to happen. I love stern, and I am stoked he did it. It's made the NBA more exciting. Stern is, imo, the best commish in sports. I think Kobe can be as good and better than Jordan offensively, but he has his moments, and sometimes just chooses to involve teammates.

Chris Webber explained it much better than I can, but I can't find the quote.

[Andarvi]

Jordan would score 185 points a game in today's NBA. I think comparing Kobe to him is a complete fucking joke (and I LOVE kobe). The Tiger and Jack debate is a hell of a lot closer than you give it credit for. I'd probably lean Jack. I think the new technology has helped a disproportionate amount over how much more difficult the courses are. We have new technology, advanced training methods, advanced rehab and medical facilities, and steroids. Athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, no doubt.

whaaaaa? I am curious where this idea comes from (granted blown out of proportion). I love how before the finals one of the popular talks on all the ESPN shows was about Kobe challenging MJs legacy and how now afterwards they are predominantly saying you cannot bring up that discussion ever, ever again, because MJ would never have let his team play the way they did this series (or shot as poorly as Kobe did outside the first quarters).

And I know the Tiger/Jack debate can go either way as of now, and the fact Jack does have more majors and wins is a good argument. I look at it like Tiger is already ahead of Jack's pace, its so outrageously dominant, and despite this knee injury has many many years ahead of him. Tiger is 33 years old with 14 majors, Jack was 46 when he won his 18th. 13 years (assuming he lasts that long) and Tiger only needs 5 to beat him. By the time Tiger is done I cannot see anyone making the argument for Jack. But for now, its cool.

Well, MJ won 6 championship with no dominant big man, kobe won 3 with one of the most dominant ever in his prime. Challenging his legacy is absurd lol. As far as bringing up the scoring average, Jordan played against the best player on defense night in and night out in an era where the league rules (read handchecking) didn't cater to explosive scorers. I mean, remember when Bird punched Bill Lambeer in the face lol? You know what the refs told Lambeer? "Shake it off son, get your ass up". That just doesn't happen in today's NBA. David Stern, ever since Jordan Left, has tried to essentially create another Jordan by adjusting rules to allow it to happen. I love stern, and I am stoked he did it. It's made the NBA more exciting. Stern is, imo, the best commish in sports. I think Kobe can be as good and better than Jordan offensively, but he has his moments, and sometimes just chooses to involve teammates.

Chris Webber explained it much better than I can, but I can't find the quote.

I dont know how I have never heard the Laimbeer/Bird story seeing as its fucking epic lol. But yes, Stern is the man, definitely a good commish imo as well.