Comparing Then and Now

[diggerfoot]

Several recent threads directly or indirectly bring up the prospect of comparing then and now. One frequent assertion is that you cannot make comparisons because of how things evolved. When I see this I'm not sure if people understand what evolves over 20+ years and what does not.

Genotypes do not appreciably evolve over 20+ years. Athletes are not bigger, faster, stronger, more athletic, etc, etc because of their physical potential. The sexual prowess of basketball players like Wilt Chamberlain aside, evolution just does not work that way, that fast. It just doesn't. Some things do evolve, but before we get to that, consider our tallest player was back in 1995. Or the most athletic of all women basketball players may very well be Cheryl Miller from the 80s.

What evolves over such a short time frame are cultural factors like nutrition, training, coaching, PEDs, knowledge base, etc. Thus women basketball players on average are more athletic now because of culture, not nature. That should NOT prevent comparing then and now. People back then with less evolved training, etc, were competing against others with less evolved training, etc. If you transported them to the present, sure, they would be at a disadvantage, but not if you make the assumption that if they competed now they also would have the advantage of more evolved training, etc. Or, conversely, if you transported a current player back in time, a fair comparison would involve assuming they were only the athlete that cultural period in time enabled them to be.

As long as you make the assumption of "same period of time, same cultural factors" the differences in athleticism does not thwart a fair comparison of player statistics between eras, except .....

One cultural evolution that does make comparisons problematic is the evolution of popularity. Basketball grew in popularity for women over a period of time, though that has leveled off for about a decade. Twenty to thirty years ago the percentage of the athletic talent pool that women's basketball could draw from would be smaller. Yet this would not have as much impact with the very elite. Why? Because one characteristic of the very elite is their passion for a particular sport, a passion that probably would have drawn them to that sport then or now, particularly in a heterogeneous, high information society like ours. This leaves some wiggle room for saying "you can't compare," but it's nowhere near as problematic as some seem to think, not if you assume that if someone from twenty years ago was playing now, they would be the athlete of today via training, etc, and not of yesteryear. They would thus fare against today's competition much the same as they did against their own.

Bottom line again: humans simply do not evolve physically, particularly in a heterogeneous population, over the course of a couple generations.

 

[UcMiami]

I would agree with everything you said - and if to some degree you were referencing my last post in the Tina/Rebecca thread, I think I was careful not to mention evolutionary but list what you are grouping as cultural.

I would demur just a bit on your next to last paragraph - the advent of a viable professional option for women's basketball and to a lesser extent volleyball does have a huge effect on selection of sport for many athletes, as concussion concerns will likely have a huge effect on the talent pool for american football. A large portion of the elite athletes start out by doing seasonal sports, and the decision process of which sports to pursue comes later and involves a number of factors of which 'love of the game' is only one - skill, availability, friendships, family, and future options all also factor in. Many athletes continue as multi-sport athletes through high school and some continue even into their college careers, though usually by then the specialized training and practice for a chosen sport has squeezed out the others.

 

[Kibitzer]

Permit me to mention a less grandiose example of "then and now" evolution that is underway in the "here and now." Let me explain.

When the Boston Celtics hoisted 46 three-point shots (three shy of the NBA record) the other night, it triggered a lot of bland and boring discussion. But -- as if to reinforce my theory that you can distill a tiny vial of exotic perfume from a large mound of horse manure -- out of all this blah blah blah a gem emerged!

One tv sports talker put all the talk into sharp perspective. Something like this: "This is merely another example of how basketball continues to evolve from an outside>inside game into an inside>outside game."

OK, so he didn't verbalize a divine revelation. He summarized succinctly what has been taking place in the NBA, where those behemoths who used to camp in the low post are as obsolete as dinosaurs.

This evolution is in an advanced state in the NBA and well underway in NCAA competition. And it is catching on in wcbb, right before our very eyes. Stef Dolson spent lots of time in the high post. Nat and Morgan knock down mid-range jumpers (or longer). Incoming Kyla Irwin has treys in her arsenal. So we can count on Geno to not drop the ball on this ongoing evolution. Increasingly, inside to outside.

 

[Sonny44]

Regardless, bigger, stronger, taller, faster bodies are making their way into professional sports somehow. These specimens have far outgrown the dimensions of a basketball court IMO.

 

[UcMiami]

Kib - nice observation, and I would add two items to it -
1. Availability - finding 250+ agile skilled and tall men is not that easy - Shaqs only come around infrequently and there are not enough to go around so finding some form of countermeasure is necessary.
2. Rules changes within the game and rules emphasis have change the nature of the low post as well, including but not limited to modified zone concepts being permitted. Generally the rules favor athleticism now over strength.

Sonny - spot on. I have felt that raising the men's basket by 12" would be a vast improvement - fewer highlights but better competition and reemphasizing some team concepts that have been lost in the men's game. (Geno's suggestion of lowering the women's basket like they do with the net in volleyball is a similar idea, but would inevitably lead to women's basketball being more similar to men's. A change that I would not like to see happen, as I prefer the 'below the rim' style of basketball - I know I am in a minority on this, though probably not on this particular board.)

 

[Gus Mahler]

Regardless, bigger, stronger, taller, faster bodies are making their way into professional sports somehow. These specimens have far outgrown the dimensions of a basketball court IMO.

Agreed. The way I like to say it is that the players have outgrown the parameters of the game.

 

[Kibitzer]

UcM - Excellent thoughts. Let me take another turn -- primitive physics, not biology.

The longer the range of the shot(s), the likely longer the rebound(s). As we tally totals of individual or team rebounds (O or D) we intuitively envision catches of caroms close by the hoop. This is increasingly less often what happens as many bricks from the arc clang 10' or more to be scooped up by perimeter defenders.

I wish it were possible to see a "rebound chart" (similar to common shot charts). Since that ain't gonna happen, let's give it the "eye test," starting tonight, UConn vs. Tulane @ 8:00 p.m., SNY.