UCONN NC Teams Semi Final #2 1995 vs 2009

[Wally East]

JRRRJ - nice post. Agree about the speed of the game.
But I think you discount the change in athleticism. The 2009 athlete ran faster, jumped higher, and had greater stamina and strength than the 1995 athlete.The Olympics is a perfect measure - year over year variations at the top of the sports world are not as clear, but looking at a four year slice which the Olympics provide - every Olympic's track and field competition provides a few new world's records, but usually provides almost 50% new Olympic records - spread it out to 8 and 12 years and the number of Olympic records that still stand are very few. Occasionally they is an outlier record that stands for 15 years, but that is the exception. I think the same would be true of WCBB players.

This made me curious. I pulled the world records for men's and women's track and field events, both indoors and outdoors, and computed the age of the record in each event.

The average age of the records was 13 years.

I thought the development of female athletes, so I just did the age of women's records: 14.5 years.

Well, what about U.S. athletes? 13.91 years.

What about U.S. women? 11.6 years.

I used to believe that athletes are faster now. Now, I'm not so sure. I'm going to need definitive proof and I'm not sure where to look for it.

(Track and field is the way to go here since it's the least influenced by outside technological development as compared to swimming and cycling.)

 

[UcMiami]

This made me curious. I pulled the world records for men's and women's track and field events, both indoors and outdoors, and computed the age of the record in each event.

The average age of the records was 13 years.

I thought the development of female athletes, so I just did the age of women's records: 14.5 years.

Well, what about U.S. athletes? 13.91 years.

What about U.S. women? 11.6 years.

I used to believe that athletes are faster now. Now, I'm not so sure. I'm going to need definitive proof and I'm not sure where to look for it.

(Track and field is the way to go here since it's the least influenced by outside technological development as compared to swimming and cycling.)

Interesting research - but I would be curious if you looked at Olympic records? I use that because it is a single event so a single chance at improving on history as opposed to thousands of chances to set a record. The Olympic records are always a fair way behind the world record and I think the world records are more often a fluke.
I remember watching one race and the commentator saying ... the top half of the field all would have beaten the previous best time.

 

[UcMiami]

Not discounting it at all. And I specified 10 games (5 weeks?) to tune up. But the '95 team was the best-passing of all Geno's teams. They ran the sets, always boxed out, and they had height to burn. Few have been more athletic than Nykesha, and she, Jen, Jamelle & Carla were quick.

Putting execution against athleticism, I still pick the '95 team. (Remember, sheer athleticism hasn't been enough for NC.)

P.S. I think you are forgetting how versatile Rebecca was. Even if she wasn't fast by today's top-of-the-line standards, she was fast enough to take advantage of her array of skills. Very similar to EDD. Who do you send to the 3-pt line to guard her? Tina? Leaving Jamelle & Kara to Kaili & Maya? Not good. That's a good part of why she averaged 3.5 assists.

Nope - not forgetting Lobo, and I think I once used the progression Lobo to Lauren to EDD to say that I didn't think there was as much 'new' in what EDD brought as to what Griner brought to the game.
And I think 10 games would not be enough to build the stamina and strength.
But I definitely voted for 1995 - that was an incredible team as their stats show.
And I'll give them one more prop - I think what they did made it easier for 2002 and 2009 to do what they did - because they were the ones that proved a Uconn team could do it. And same for 2000 - of course we can win a title, 1995 proved it. People may discount that, but it was a mental hurdle to negotiate - from being really good to being a champion.

 

[Wally East]

Interesting research - but I would be curious if you looked at Olympic records? I use that because it is a single event so a single chance at improving on history as opposed to thousands of chances to set a record. The Olympic records are always a fair way behind the world record and I think the world records are more often a fluke.
I remember watching one race and the commentator saying ... the top half of the field all would have beaten the previous best time.

Olympic performances for track and field are only a valuable indicator for this exercise in the sprint distances -- up to 400 meters -- along with the field events. Races 800 meters and up are tactical races.

Further, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the Olympics and performance. The Olympics are subject to such a wide range of vagaries, from bad conditions for a marathon to a top athlete being enjoyed to boycotts. It's like basing the perception of a baseball player's career on how he performs in a single World Series.

Your last statement is true for the men's 100 and 200 meters. Usain Bolt is being chased by men who would be lionized just a few years ago. (Also, he ran faster in both events in 2009 at the World Championships than he did in '08 or '12 Olympics.)

On the other hand, the women's 100 and 200 meters? Those records have stood since 1988. Florence Griffth Joyner set both, one in the Seoul Olympics and one at the Olympic Trials.

However, I ran the numbers for the Olympics records. The men's records are an average of 10.9 years old and the women's records are an average of 13.6 years old -- about what one would expect given the numbers from the world records.

 

[SWHuskyFan]

Using track and field as an indicator of improvement for athletes in general is a bit dicey IMO. I really mean in the last few decades as we know how rampant cheating has been in that sport.

 

[Wally East]

Using track and field as an indicator of improvement for athletes in general is a bit dicey IMO. I really mean in the last few decades as we know how rampant cheating has been in that sport.

This is true. A number of records have been lost to cheating. I'm option to another suggestion that's (easily) quantifiable.

But if there's progress, shouldn't the non-cheaters be breaking old records?

In any event, with that in mind, I looked at U.S. college records. I tossed out relay events and the mile (which is now run very infrequently) and kept it strictly to American-born collegians.

Men: 19.9 years
Women: 11.8 years

Looked at high school records next, tossing out relays and the pole vault for girls since it's a very recent addition:

Boys: 13 years
Girls: 13 years

Anyway, this really has been illuminating to me, as well. I'm open to suggestions of other ways to look at this problem.

Data source: Track and Field News

 

[diggerfoot]

Given the gestation time of humans natural selection simply does not occur as fast as is being implied here. Athletes do improve due to training, diet, gear and some other things, but not because they've anatomically/physiologically evolved in a short 20 year span. Dr. J, Dominique Wilkins, Chamberlain ... track athletes for that matter ... have the same potential across a generation. What changes is how that potential is tapped into, which should be considered controlled for in a comparison between one simple generation.

 

[UcMiami]

Wally and Digger - thanks, and maybe I took us all off on a tangent, but very interesting research and not quite what I expected. The reason I was suggesting the Olympics was for a world record you have thousands of chances (athletes x meets) every year vs. Olympics where you have maybe four (heats and final) chances with a more limited but absolute top level of competitors.
Definitely true on human evolution being a much slower process, and 'athletic freaks' get thrown out randomly which explains some of the longer standing records. The difference I was looking for and that has a much shorter lead time is in the science of nutrition and training (and of course cheating!) And the greater distribution of those advance, and the easier access to the support necessary to be truly dedicated.
Something as simple as the new training facility at Uconn will make it easier for the team to find space and time to improve skills.
And probably the number that would support my original thesis would be 'average' performance of the field year over year - and no I am not asking anyone to try and research that.

 

[SWHuskyFan]

This is true. A number of records have been lost to cheating. I'm option to another suggestion that's (easily) quantifiable.

But if there's progress, shouldn't the non-cheaters be breaking old records?

In any event, with that in mind, I looked at U.S. college records. I tossed out relay events and the mile (which is now run very infrequently) and kept it strictly to American-born collegians.

Men: 19.9 years
Women: 11.8 years

Looked at high school records next, tossing out relays and the pole vault for girls since it's a very recent addition:

Boys: 13 years
Girls: 13 years

Anyway, this really has been illuminating to me, as well. I'm open to suggestions of other ways to look at this problem.

Data source: Track and Field News

In my mind breaking the old records has been made harder because of the cheating that has been going on for decades. I'm sure the high-level college sprinters were equally likely to have been cheating. The stuff they were using with impunity in the 90's and early 2000's was more performancing enhancing than say HGH which is the new flavor. HGH is in vogue not because it has a better effect than steroids but because it's harder to detect. I would expect that records would be harder to break now even for cheaters. I would expect that there are some records that have been set recently that will last until chemistry comes up with something better. I would imagine we won't see 73 home runs in baseball again.

All of this is just my opinion based on what I've heard over the years on the steroid/PED discussions.

 

[Wally East]

In my mind breaking the old records has been made harder because of the cheating that has been going on for decades. I'm sure the high-level college sprinters were equally likely to have been cheating. The stuff they were using with impunity in the 90's and early 2000's was more performancing enhancing than say HGH which is the new flavor. HGH is in vogue not because it has a better effect than steroids but because it's harder to detect. I would expect that records would be harder to break now even for cheaters. I would expect that there are some records that have been set recently that will last until chemistry comes up with something better. I would imagine we won't see 73 home runs in baseball again.

All of this is just my opinion based on what I've heard over the years on the steroid/PED discussions.

Okay. So what of high school records being the same age? Were high school kids using PEDs, too?

 

[JRRRJ]

Given the gestation time of humans natural selection simply does not occur as fast as is being implied here. Athletes do improve due to training, diet, gear and some other things, but not because they've anatomically/physiologically evolved in a short 20 year span. Dr. J, Dominique Wilkins, Chamberlain ... track athletes for that matter ... have the same potential across a generation. What changes is how that potential is tapped into, which should be considered controlled for in a comparison between one simple generation.

It's not evolution, but something's going on. I used to be average height for a an American male: 5' 9". My ex-wife was average height for an American female: 5' 4".

When I go to a mall these days, I am dwarfed by a large number of the teenagers in attendance. Wikipedia confirms my observations, saying the measured averages between 2003-6 for those 20-29 were 5' 10" and 5' 4.5" respectively. Big difference in 30 years! Maybe nutrition? Health care?

Between that and the money spent on training technique research, I'm surprised at the age of the records. Perhaps the PED crackdown of recent decades plays a part.

 

[UcMiami]

It's not evolution, but something's going on. I used to be average height for a an American male: 5' 9". My ex-wife was average height for an American female: 5' 4".

When I go to a mall these days, I am dwarfed by a large number of the teenagers in attendance. Wikipedia confirms my observations, saying the measured averages between 2003-6 for those 20-29 were 5' 10" and 5' 4.5" respectively. Big difference in 30 years! Maybe nutrition? Health care?

Between that and the money spent on training technique research, I'm surprised at the age of the records. Perhaps the PED crackdown of recent decades plays a part.

Interesting point - and certainly nutrition and childhood care has a lot to do with it. There was a truly amazing statistical difference between US citizens born from 1940 - 1950 compared to Europeans. War privation that lasted until the early 50s in Europe really made a huge difference in childhood physical development It affected the children as they grew, but also the mothers during pregnancy and therefore the initial health of the babies.

 

[diggerfoot]

It's not evolution, but something's going on. I used to be average height for a an American male: 5' 9". My ex-wife was average height for an American female: 5' 4".

When I go to a mall these days, I am dwarfed by a large number of the teenagers in attendance. Wikipedia confirms my observations, saying the measured averages between 2003-6 for those 20-29 were 5' 10" and 5' 4.5" respectively. Big difference in 30 years! Maybe nutrition? Health care?

Between that and the money spent on training technique research, I'm surprised at the age of the records. Perhaps the PED crackdown of recent decades plays a part.

Your cited source, which I checked, lists 5'10" for males. Funny. When I graduated from high school 40+ years ago at precisely 5'10" I thought I had read then that I was at average height, so I tried to find a source for that. Instead, the first six sources I found indicated the current average to be 5'9," at that point I stopped looking mainly because I did not think I was going to find historical data for the 60s and 70s easily. There is, of course, shrinkage over time, even outside of a pool. How relevant all this is to athleticism anyways, particularly when our tallest squad was the 1995 squad, remains to be seen.

 

[Wally East]

I'm going to drag this into its own thread. It's interesting to us and other people might find it interesting, too.