Interesting that baseball sometimes seems to have the opposite problem of revering its older players too much. You still see Walter Johnson and Cy Young on lists of the top pitchers of all time even though they probably threw 85 mph.
There was a documentary a few years ago about the evolution of the fastball - can’t remember the name - and I think they reconstructed Feller’s FB to be 96
In defense of old pitchers, I'm pretty sure if Walter Johnson was expected to throw five innings a start every fifth day against a bunch of dudes only trying to hit homers he'd dominate even more than he did then.
Oh no disrespect intended at all. It’s just odd that people don’t venerate the modern athletes the same way. Baseball has a bit of a nostalgia problem. But I think the stats community is well aware of the differences in eras and goes to great lengths to work within those confines.
Good point about the game’s “nostalgia problem.” In a parallel vein, it could be plausibly argued that any alternative approach thaf produced mildly positive results might’ve been as ‘revolutionary’ as Moneyball, given the iron grip of inertia on team-level strategy. But I think the larger issue is whether or not individual athletes are actually superior now in terms of ability and talent. And that’s not nearly as clear cut. Were the old timers better? No. The average player today is probably better conditioned and certainly more comprehensively coached from Littke Lwague on. But the players in days of yore were often individually just as good as today’s studs, which explains why certain historical performances may never be equalled. Just ask Hank Aaron or Ted Williams. Or, for that matter, Johnny Vander Meer or Denny McClain.
Nice! More of this kinda thing please. The world will always have its tragic, unsolveable problems and they’ll be debated endlessly. But an old fart such as myself can play with home court advantage in the Old Timers Game! A few points: ESPN & 24/7 web hilights are the likely culprits for lower ratings. Back in the day it was watch the game or be satisfied w/15 seconds of hilights at 11:25 pm. You’re right about the current biases. Is there any field as lame as the current version of sports ‘journalism’? The crisis makes our political discourse seem healthy! And how would the venerable hall-of-famers stand up against today’s crowd? Your take on Wilt says it all. He was a beast.
And not just in basketball. You look at baseball players in the early part of the 20th century, they weren't coining it - certainly not in the way that today's players are. Some of them also had other jobs.
Freddie talks about players having to fly commercial: there was a time they were all on trains and buses!
The idea that landing a contract in a pro sport is like a lottery win has totally changed the dynamic.
my favorite quick 'n' dirty comparison to use here is to think about "imagine how many more points over the course of his career larry bird would've racked up if he had a computer tell him to just take a step or two back before shooting."
(oh and how modern medicine/conditioning/travel/etc. would've saved his back)
Thinking Basketball recently posted a video cataloguing how the rules have changed in the NBA over the decades, which might even be a larger factor than technological progress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IPXSqOhykg
Highly recommend watching - what appears to be offensive basketball ineptitude in the 1960's really just reflects the much stricter dribbling and offensive foul rules.
Just some random encouragement for anyone who, like me, found this argument interesting but has never actually followed basketball to watch “The Last Dance” on Netflix. I probably couldn’t name 5 NBA teams off the top of my head and it was still one of the best things I’ve seen in years; I feel like I understand the 90s in a whole new way.
Haha same! I grew up in the midst of the fever over Jordan and the Bulls and wore several generations of Air Jordan’s but was only dimly aware of what was happening on the court. It was so fascinating to see that world fleshed out.
Most excellent. Kudos for Bob Cousy era commentary, including pterodactyl eggs for breakfast. Gold.
I watch a good amount of NBA - interestingly, has pulled me away from college basketball. But the worst thing about the NBA is the incredible hype machine (which you allude to). This manifests itself in the most terrible announcers/commentators, always overstating the value of a play, and players. Even Van Gundy has succumbed. NBA telecasts are insight-free zones.
(This coincides with incredibly bad officiating, that usually goes uncritiqued by announcers. Now that is something to explore. Is the NBA the worst? Did it used to be better?)
The hype has infected “basketball journalism” to a large degree as well, as you note. And finally, LeBron, KD and Stef have performed at a level for which there are no heirs apparent. I think that’s the reason for the decline in ratings.
I don’t watch much now, but in the 80s-90s I decided officiating must be really really hard because they missed so much. It’s always been like this I think.
Great post and very spot on. As a GenXer whose home team was the 80s Denver Nuggets with the likes of Alex English, Dan Issel, TR Dunn, Bill Hanzlik when the Nuggets were posting 126pts per game and that was back before Air Jordans and Reebok pumps and the refs actually blew the whistle for travelling and the team played as a team.
What a lot of NBA Now fans don't realize is how much game play has truly changed over the last 40 years. Teams today rarely run set plays, and visually it's a veritable free-for-all on the court which is fine for some but if you watch older games from the 80s and 90s, the game play is vastly different as is the physicality of the players.
And I agree that Wilt Chamberlin is very much one of the most disrespected players in NBA history.
I started losing interest myself when they quit calling traveling, then when professional athletes and the networks started selling politics with sports, i lost more interest. I sold Pepsi at all the games growing up wearing 2 sets of ankle weights going up and down the stairs, i got into the locker room after the Denver Rockets won an A.B.A. title and was shocked to watch Lonnie Wright light a cigarette while Spencer Haywood sprayed champaign on everyone.
Sadly, i have not watched any sports after witnessing a male wearing a wig dominate a women's collegiate basketball game.
You peddled Pepsi at McNicols Arena? I saw quite a few games and concerts there before they tore it down in '99. My professional sports watching has waned over the decades primarily because the TV/advertiser timeouts have slowed every professional sport to an absolute crawl. It's especially apparent if you're at the game. The only sports I'll make an effort to watch these days are soccer and cycling.
Yep, i peddled Pepsi for Ara-Serve so i also did it at the Coliseum, and Mile Hi, my best friend at the time filled the Pepsi trays, i went on to other things and sadly my friend Kervis stayed with Ara-Serve, he could have done about anything as he was smart and had movie star looks and mannerism. Since you are from Denver i will share my Bronco experience with you, when i was on a plane flight to Boston a few months before it became illegal to smoke on the back of a plane, John Elway bummed a few cigarettes from me during our flight. Also Lyle Alzado was a big totally sweet teddy bear, i dated his sister.
Lyle! Part of that Orange Crush defense w/ Gradishar. I loved Alzado as a Bronco but loathed him as a Raider. And it does not surprise me that Elway smoked heaters on occasion.
Lyle was one of the sweetest people there ever was, he went to Childrens Hospital nearly every day after practice to visit kids with gifts. Elway was quite nice to me and explained that he had to bum an occasional smoke because if he purchased cigarettes, he would chain smoke. Lyle's sister still lives in Centennial. Gradishar was special, i also got to have breakfast with Rick Upchurch a few years after he retired because i was at my friend Lenny Walterschied's ( #23 1985 Chicago Bears} visiting in Grand Junction when Upchurch stopped in, Lenny knew i was a big Upchurch fan because we used to argue about football a lot, so Lenny made sure i got to meet him.
Yep, i pushed Pepsi at the Coliseum, and Mile-High too, got quite a work-out trudging up and down the stairs wearing ankle weights. I still watch Pro-Rodeo, a few old friends are featured at the P.R.C. Hall of fame in the Springs if it is still around.
And the games where the high scoring Nuggets and Warriors would meet the grind it out Pistons and Knicks were crazy and suspenseful : which style would prevail? Still love that era. I don’t watch much today and feel kind of bad about it but I don’t blame the game. I went from single and living in NYC to raising a family and running a business. Intense fandom is better suited for the young I think.
Those were some exciting games. I think it also helped that TV timeouts hadn't become so dominate yet and the pace of the games were more fluid. These days, I have other things I want to do with my kids than sit and watch pro sports on TV.
So true. I was just about to add that same point to a comment below. More than PC, bottom line commercialism has damaged sports. And they were pretty freaking commercial back then!
This is true in just about any area. We can compare across eras, but each era is based upon the pervious and in its own context.
Take movies. I love watching older movies. Some are just amazing. Some just don't hold up. Some of those movies that were huge blockbusters look bad and the plots are silly. Others are timeless.
I have to remind myself to not be too harsh on some because of the context of the era and technology available. Aging CGI is going to make a lot of movies over the last 20 years look awful over time.
I moved to the US from Australia more than twenty years ago and one thing that stood out even then, before analytics swallowed fandom, was the faith that American sports fans had that statistics could settle any argument.
It was common to hear questions like the ones discussed here posed in all sincerity: Jordan vs Kobe, Ali vs Tyson, late aughts Patriots vs the Steel Curtain era Steelers - who ya got? It beats the weather as a topic of conversation I guess, but not by much.
Watching American friends go back and forth, citing statistics chapter and verse, I was touched by their belief that they ultimately would be able to puzzle it all out before the pitcher ran dry. I was also struck by something with which I was unfamiliar: sports banter as a forum for competition in itself; the idea that you could prove yourself to be the 'best' sports fan by having the most correct facts at your fingertips in service of the most correct opinions. This, of course, is the basis of a multi-billion dollar industry of punditry, fantasy sports and gambling; it's also a little alienating.
By contrast, in Australia, two men at a bar will also eventually seek refuge from awkward silence in the discussion of sport (I'm code-switching here between America's 'sports' and Australia's 'sport' because this is as close as I come to being bilingual). But the conversation takes place on entirely different terms.
"Wasn't Sterlo awesome?" one of them might say, referring to Peter Sterling, legendary half-back of the Parramatta Eels Rugby League team during the 80s.
"Yeah, he was," the other would reply, with admirable brevity.
"Or how about Mick Cronin?" the first bloke (going all out here on the Australianisms) might say, to keep the flickering flame of conversation alive.
"Yeah, he was awesome too."
And then they could just sit there, smiling, watching the highlight reels in their own mind and enjoying their beer in silence. Until one of them eventually breaks the reverie by saying, "Des Hasler was pretty fucken' awesome as well," referring to Sterling's rival at the hated Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles.
"Shit yeah," comes the reply. And once again an agreeable silence settles over them.
It's a totally different form of sports appreciation, like slipping into a warm bath. Try it sometime.
Using stats, though reductionist, is still much preferable to a lot of people's preferred method: citing intangible 'statistics' like 'being clutch' and having a 'killer instinct.'
"I was also struck by something with which I was unfamiliar: sports banter as a forum for competition in itself."
Yeah I hate that too. I had so many friends in college who would sit around for days trying to 'win' the argument over who had the best <insert one of a million qualifier stats here>. It's exhausting.
The difference, I think, comes from the fact that statistical analysis has had a real, certifiable effect on American sports, and especially baseball. Moneyball is a true story. Moneyball worked. AFAIK, it's often exaggerated, but it seems incontestable that baseball stats have evolved so much in the last two decades that everything before is basically the Stone Age. That, more than anything else, I think, is why stats-geekery really took off in the US.
My pet theory is that Sabermetrics was basically a cover for steroid use- people were trying to make use of stats in baseball for years- then by sheer coincidence the guy working with Jose Canseco discovers how to make it work.
Canseco did play for OAK during Billy Beane's first season as GM (1997), but the Canseco era you are probably thinking of was from 1988-1992. Moneyball was published in 2003 and focuses on the early 2000s years.
That said, it was still during a time rife with steroid use. Not sure what it means for Sabemetrics to be a "cover for steroid use" though.
Very true... the stop-start nature of American sports and the tightly defined positional roles really do lend themselves to slicing and dicing the data ever more finely, in a way that more fluid sports don't. Whether this is leading to better or more boring gameplay I will leave to the experts. Increasingly we're wedging stats into lots of other sports, whether they shed much additional insight or not. It does give people something to bet on, though.
Stone Age in what way though? If an ultra-granular approach to the millions of stat points for a given sport does indeed give one an advantage over another who may not be doing that...is that better? Or even good?
I just don't think something like sabermetrics is a net positive for sports. Yeah it may give you the 'W', which I suppose is all someone may care about (I personally think that's a shitty way to approach sports...it's like a business making pure profit the only goal that matters). But it also reduces almost everything to spreadsheets and charts and powerpoint presentations. It's bland, impersonal, and boring...and it kills the magic of the game.
Maybe only baseball, primarily because the number of games played in the season produces a much larger sample size. Even in the NBA, which has a pretty length season, the stats guys have done much more poorly. How much success has Daryl Morey had?
The discussions defintely get more heated in that context, but only because those foolish Cockroaches just can't understand why they keep bottling it when they come up here :)
I've noticed this as well, Rugby league seems uniquely resistant to data. I'm sure they have analysts, but you never hear much about it in commentary apart form metres made etc ... it's wierdly factual without any attempt to be predictive
Yes, this is very true. I can't make up my mind if it would be better if they did try to make a little more of the stats they do cite, but I far prefer it to the general US approach.
I assume that since all the players wear trackers now the coaching staff must be making some use of the stats collected, but it rarely comes up in interviews or in-depth reporting either.
I have heard that, apart from sport(s), the Australian conversation style is generally more collaborative (like an improv troupe's "yes, and...") as opposed to USian's more competitive/argumentative style.
In the US, I think that a big component of the role of sports fandom in our society is that it gives people something to argue passionately about that (almost) everybody realizes is not, at the end of the day, a life-and-death matter. Definitely safer than religion or politics.
In general that is true of the Australian approach to conversation. I like how Americans communicate, it's very direct and to the point, but it was a big adjustment.
One thing does travel, however, to your point: the most important advice my Dad gave me when I reached legal drinking age was, "Never discuss politics or religion at the pub."
Is it too late to make that a rule in the office too?
I think this is generally right. Possible minor exception for cricket, being a bit more focussed on stats, and I have definitely been present for discussions about how Bradman would have gone on modern flat pitches or against modern fast bowlers and how he's probably the worlds most dominant sportsman ever in any sport etc. But it doesn't really get super intense or laser-focussed on the stats aspect, it's still more about appreciation of his general greatness (and of course the perfidy of Jardine and Larwood and other sins of the English).
There's always those arguments in the Aussie rules scene though. Who was the better Ablett, Gary or Gary Jr? Would Coleman have the most goals ever if he had the benefit of modern medicine and didn't get struck down with injury? Which dynasty was better? Etc etc. But, like you've pointed out, they're just fun hypotheticals, not an exercise to show big your sports eggplant is.
Largely agree with everything you wrote, but just wanted to throw out a few thoughts (that don't contradict you, but one of which I rarely seen made):
- The players aren't just better for all the modernity reasons you point out, but the overall depth of quality is undoubtedly better because it's drawing from a much larger pool of players from around the world. The 8th best player on the Kings in the 70s would still be an amazing player in 2022, but might not be on a roster. There were about 10-15 foreign players when Jordan played, for example. There are something like 130+ now. This part always seems glossed over.
- I think the ratings have largely dropped due to the totality of entertainment options, but also because of how much politics has been wrapped up with the sport. I mean this sincerely: I've not met a Republican who is an NBA head in the last ten years or so. This might also have something to do with how obnoxious certain NBA fans can be, like the Twitter folks.
- The space in today's game is great, but when the games become simple three point shooting contests, it can get boring, no doubt. They need to change some rules, I think.
The NBA playoffs are still the best sports 'event' there is, though.
Oscar Robertson. Not Robinson.
Autocorrect, I swear
So...MJ or Lebron?
Lebron!
Interesting that baseball sometimes seems to have the opposite problem of revering its older players too much. You still see Walter Johnson and Cy Young on lists of the top pitchers of all time even though they probably threw 85 mph.
It’s all relative. Btw, though a bit more recent, Bob Feller’s heater supposedly hit 100.
There was a documentary a few years ago about the evolution of the fastball - can’t remember the name - and I think they reconstructed Feller’s FB to be 96
In defense of old pitchers, I'm pretty sure if Walter Johnson was expected to throw five innings a start every fifth day against a bunch of dudes only trying to hit homers he'd dominate even more than he did then.
Oh no disrespect intended at all. It’s just odd that people don’t venerate the modern athletes the same way. Baseball has a bit of a nostalgia problem. But I think the stats community is well aware of the differences in eras and goes to great lengths to work within those confines.
Good point about the game’s “nostalgia problem.” In a parallel vein, it could be plausibly argued that any alternative approach thaf produced mildly positive results might’ve been as ‘revolutionary’ as Moneyball, given the iron grip of inertia on team-level strategy. But I think the larger issue is whether or not individual athletes are actually superior now in terms of ability and talent. And that’s not nearly as clear cut. Were the old timers better? No. The average player today is probably better conditioned and certainly more comprehensively coached from Littke Lwague on. But the players in days of yore were often individually just as good as today’s studs, which explains why certain historical performances may never be equalled. Just ask Hank Aaron or Ted Williams. Or, for that matter, Johnny Vander Meer or Denny McClain.
Nice! More of this kinda thing please. The world will always have its tragic, unsolveable problems and they’ll be debated endlessly. But an old fart such as myself can play with home court advantage in the Old Timers Game! A few points: ESPN & 24/7 web hilights are the likely culprits for lower ratings. Back in the day it was watch the game or be satisfied w/15 seconds of hilights at 11:25 pm. You’re right about the current biases. Is there any field as lame as the current version of sports ‘journalism’? The crisis makes our political discourse seem healthy! And how would the venerable hall-of-famers stand up against today’s crowd? Your take on Wilt says it all. He was a beast.
This should be completely uncontroversial. I am genuinely not sure how someone could disagree with this except just being contrarian.
Keep in mind that there is a ton more money in today's game, which is a hellova incentive to attracting talent.
And not just in basketball. You look at baseball players in the early part of the 20th century, they weren't coining it - certainly not in the way that today's players are. Some of them also had other jobs.
Freddie talks about players having to fly commercial: there was a time they were all on trains and buses!
The idea that landing a contract in a pro sport is like a lottery win has totally changed the dynamic.
Thank you, this is how I feel EVERY TIME I see folks make these extremely confident comparisons.
my favorite quick 'n' dirty comparison to use here is to think about "imagine how many more points over the course of his career larry bird would've racked up if he had a computer tell him to just take a step or two back before shooting."
(oh and how modern medicine/conditioning/travel/etc. would've saved his back)
This was a delightful argument to read, thanks. Added benefit of being true, of course!
Thinking Basketball recently posted a video cataloguing how the rules have changed in the NBA over the decades, which might even be a larger factor than technological progress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IPXSqOhykg
Highly recommend watching - what appears to be offensive basketball ineptitude in the 1960's really just reflects the much stricter dribbling and offensive foul rules.
Things look a lot less fluid when you actually couldn’t move your pivot foot or palm the ball
This is an important point, the euro-step and the ability to palm the basketball etc. all give today's offensive players a big advantage.
Just some random encouragement for anyone who, like me, found this argument interesting but has never actually followed basketball to watch “The Last Dance” on Netflix. I probably couldn’t name 5 NBA teams off the top of my head and it was still one of the best things I’ve seen in years; I feel like I understand the 90s in a whole new way.
Haha same! I grew up in the midst of the fever over Jordan and the Bulls and wore several generations of Air Jordan’s but was only dimly aware of what was happening on the court. It was so fascinating to see that world fleshed out.
Most excellent. Kudos for Bob Cousy era commentary, including pterodactyl eggs for breakfast. Gold.
I watch a good amount of NBA - interestingly, has pulled me away from college basketball. But the worst thing about the NBA is the incredible hype machine (which you allude to). This manifests itself in the most terrible announcers/commentators, always overstating the value of a play, and players. Even Van Gundy has succumbed. NBA telecasts are insight-free zones.
(This coincides with incredibly bad officiating, that usually goes uncritiqued by announcers. Now that is something to explore. Is the NBA the worst? Did it used to be better?)
The hype has infected “basketball journalism” to a large degree as well, as you note. And finally, LeBron, KD and Stef have performed at a level for which there are no heirs apparent. I think that’s the reason for the decline in ratings.
I don’t watch much now, but in the 80s-90s I decided officiating must be really really hard because they missed so much. It’s always been like this I think.
Great post and very spot on. As a GenXer whose home team was the 80s Denver Nuggets with the likes of Alex English, Dan Issel, TR Dunn, Bill Hanzlik when the Nuggets were posting 126pts per game and that was back before Air Jordans and Reebok pumps and the refs actually blew the whistle for travelling and the team played as a team.
What a lot of NBA Now fans don't realize is how much game play has truly changed over the last 40 years. Teams today rarely run set plays, and visually it's a veritable free-for-all on the court which is fine for some but if you watch older games from the 80s and 90s, the game play is vastly different as is the physicality of the players.
And I agree that Wilt Chamberlin is very much one of the most disrespected players in NBA history.
I started losing interest myself when they quit calling traveling, then when professional athletes and the networks started selling politics with sports, i lost more interest. I sold Pepsi at all the games growing up wearing 2 sets of ankle weights going up and down the stairs, i got into the locker room after the Denver Rockets won an A.B.A. title and was shocked to watch Lonnie Wright light a cigarette while Spencer Haywood sprayed champaign on everyone.
Sadly, i have not watched any sports after witnessing a male wearing a wig dominate a women's collegiate basketball game.
You peddled Pepsi at McNicols Arena? I saw quite a few games and concerts there before they tore it down in '99. My professional sports watching has waned over the decades primarily because the TV/advertiser timeouts have slowed every professional sport to an absolute crawl. It's especially apparent if you're at the game. The only sports I'll make an effort to watch these days are soccer and cycling.
Yep, i peddled Pepsi for Ara-Serve so i also did it at the Coliseum, and Mile Hi, my best friend at the time filled the Pepsi trays, i went on to other things and sadly my friend Kervis stayed with Ara-Serve, he could have done about anything as he was smart and had movie star looks and mannerism. Since you are from Denver i will share my Bronco experience with you, when i was on a plane flight to Boston a few months before it became illegal to smoke on the back of a plane, John Elway bummed a few cigarettes from me during our flight. Also Lyle Alzado was a big totally sweet teddy bear, i dated his sister.
Lyle! Part of that Orange Crush defense w/ Gradishar. I loved Alzado as a Bronco but loathed him as a Raider. And it does not surprise me that Elway smoked heaters on occasion.
Lyle was one of the sweetest people there ever was, he went to Childrens Hospital nearly every day after practice to visit kids with gifts. Elway was quite nice to me and explained that he had to bum an occasional smoke because if he purchased cigarettes, he would chain smoke. Lyle's sister still lives in Centennial. Gradishar was special, i also got to have breakfast with Rick Upchurch a few years after he retired because i was at my friend Lenny Walterschied's ( #23 1985 Chicago Bears} visiting in Grand Junction when Upchurch stopped in, Lenny knew i was a big Upchurch fan because we used to argue about football a lot, so Lenny made sure i got to meet him.
Yep, i pushed Pepsi at the Coliseum, and Mile-High too, got quite a work-out trudging up and down the stairs wearing ankle weights. I still watch Pro-Rodeo, a few old friends are featured at the P.R.C. Hall of fame in the Springs if it is still around.
And the games where the high scoring Nuggets and Warriors would meet the grind it out Pistons and Knicks were crazy and suspenseful : which style would prevail? Still love that era. I don’t watch much today and feel kind of bad about it but I don’t blame the game. I went from single and living in NYC to raising a family and running a business. Intense fandom is better suited for the young I think.
Those were some exciting games. I think it also helped that TV timeouts hadn't become so dominate yet and the pace of the games were more fluid. These days, I have other things I want to do with my kids than sit and watch pro sports on TV.
So true. I was just about to add that same point to a comment below. More than PC, bottom line commercialism has damaged sports. And they were pretty freaking commercial back then!
This is true in just about any area. We can compare across eras, but each era is based upon the pervious and in its own context.
Take movies. I love watching older movies. Some are just amazing. Some just don't hold up. Some of those movies that were huge blockbusters look bad and the plots are silly. Others are timeless.
I have to remind myself to not be too harsh on some because of the context of the era and technology available. Aging CGI is going to make a lot of movies over the last 20 years look awful over time.
I moved to the US from Australia more than twenty years ago and one thing that stood out even then, before analytics swallowed fandom, was the faith that American sports fans had that statistics could settle any argument.
It was common to hear questions like the ones discussed here posed in all sincerity: Jordan vs Kobe, Ali vs Tyson, late aughts Patriots vs the Steel Curtain era Steelers - who ya got? It beats the weather as a topic of conversation I guess, but not by much.
Watching American friends go back and forth, citing statistics chapter and verse, I was touched by their belief that they ultimately would be able to puzzle it all out before the pitcher ran dry. I was also struck by something with which I was unfamiliar: sports banter as a forum for competition in itself; the idea that you could prove yourself to be the 'best' sports fan by having the most correct facts at your fingertips in service of the most correct opinions. This, of course, is the basis of a multi-billion dollar industry of punditry, fantasy sports and gambling; it's also a little alienating.
By contrast, in Australia, two men at a bar will also eventually seek refuge from awkward silence in the discussion of sport (I'm code-switching here between America's 'sports' and Australia's 'sport' because this is as close as I come to being bilingual). But the conversation takes place on entirely different terms.
"Wasn't Sterlo awesome?" one of them might say, referring to Peter Sterling, legendary half-back of the Parramatta Eels Rugby League team during the 80s.
"Yeah, he was," the other would reply, with admirable brevity.
"Or how about Mick Cronin?" the first bloke (going all out here on the Australianisms) might say, to keep the flickering flame of conversation alive.
"Yeah, he was awesome too."
And then they could just sit there, smiling, watching the highlight reels in their own mind and enjoying their beer in silence. Until one of them eventually breaks the reverie by saying, "Des Hasler was pretty fucken' awesome as well," referring to Sterling's rival at the hated Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles.
"Shit yeah," comes the reply. And once again an agreeable silence settles over them.
It's a totally different form of sports appreciation, like slipping into a warm bath. Try it sometime.
Using stats, though reductionist, is still much preferable to a lot of people's preferred method: citing intangible 'statistics' like 'being clutch' and having a 'killer instinct.'
True, although the vagueness of such claims does lend itself nicely to the overall goal of not being able to resolve anything, which I find appealing
Completely disagree. Those intangibles are what make sports compelling in the first place.
"I was also struck by something with which I was unfamiliar: sports banter as a forum for competition in itself."
Yeah I hate that too. I had so many friends in college who would sit around for days trying to 'win' the argument over who had the best <insert one of a million qualifier stats here>. It's exhausting.
The difference, I think, comes from the fact that statistical analysis has had a real, certifiable effect on American sports, and especially baseball. Moneyball is a true story. Moneyball worked. AFAIK, it's often exaggerated, but it seems incontestable that baseball stats have evolved so much in the last two decades that everything before is basically the Stone Age. That, more than anything else, I think, is why stats-geekery really took off in the US.
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/yes-sabermetrics-ruined-baseball
My pet theory is that Sabermetrics was basically a cover for steroid use- people were trying to make use of stats in baseball for years- then by sheer coincidence the guy working with Jose Canseco discovers how to make it work.
Canseco did play for OAK during Billy Beane's first season as GM (1997), but the Canseco era you are probably thinking of was from 1988-1992. Moneyball was published in 2003 and focuses on the early 2000s years.
That said, it was still during a time rife with steroid use. Not sure what it means for Sabemetrics to be a "cover for steroid use" though.
"cover for steroid use" in that players were using steroids and they wanted some reason as to why they were punching above their weight.
Very true... the stop-start nature of American sports and the tightly defined positional roles really do lend themselves to slicing and dicing the data ever more finely, in a way that more fluid sports don't. Whether this is leading to better or more boring gameplay I will leave to the experts. Increasingly we're wedging stats into lots of other sports, whether they shed much additional insight or not. It does give people something to bet on, though.
Stone Age in what way though? If an ultra-granular approach to the millions of stat points for a given sport does indeed give one an advantage over another who may not be doing that...is that better? Or even good?
I just don't think something like sabermetrics is a net positive for sports. Yeah it may give you the 'W', which I suppose is all someone may care about (I personally think that's a shitty way to approach sports...it's like a business making pure profit the only goal that matters). But it also reduces almost everything to spreadsheets and charts and powerpoint presentations. It's bland, impersonal, and boring...and it kills the magic of the game.
Maybe only baseball, primarily because the number of games played in the season produces a much larger sample size. Even in the NBA, which has a pretty length season, the stats guys have done much more poorly. How much success has Daryl Morey had?
You're not worng but Wait for State of Origin though ...
The discussions defintely get more heated in that context, but only because those foolish Cockroaches just can't understand why they keep bottling it when they come up here :)
You chose correctly :-)
I've noticed this as well, Rugby league seems uniquely resistant to data. I'm sure they have analysts, but you never hear much about it in commentary apart form metres made etc ... it's wierdly factual without any attempt to be predictive
Must be something to do with all that "turning defense into attack in the blink of an eye"
This has to be up there on nichest comments on an FDB post.
I love this comment.
Yes, this is very true. I can't make up my mind if it would be better if they did try to make a little more of the stats they do cite, but I far prefer it to the general US approach.
I assume that since all the players wear trackers now the coaching staff must be making some use of the stats collected, but it rarely comes up in interviews or in-depth reporting either.
Nice to have an honorary Qld'er on the boards where are you based?
I live in Newstead, grew up near Toowoomba. You?
Grew up in Rockhampton. Live in tasmania now
Ah nice. Bit of a change in climate :) Love Tasmania, only spent a few weeks there but would very much like to spend more.
No offense but that Australia scene sounds awful. Sports bar debates are fun. Or maybe we just love to argue here.
I think you may have proven your own point here, mate ;)
I have heard that, apart from sport(s), the Australian conversation style is generally more collaborative (like an improv troupe's "yes, and...") as opposed to USian's more competitive/argumentative style.
In the US, I think that a big component of the role of sports fandom in our society is that it gives people something to argue passionately about that (almost) everybody realizes is not, at the end of the day, a life-and-death matter. Definitely safer than religion or politics.
In general that is true of the Australian approach to conversation. I like how Americans communicate, it's very direct and to the point, but it was a big adjustment.
One thing does travel, however, to your point: the most important advice my Dad gave me when I reached legal drinking age was, "Never discuss politics or religion at the pub."
Is it too late to make that a rule in the office too?
Most offices outside of the not for profit or academic space are.
I think this is generally right. Possible minor exception for cricket, being a bit more focussed on stats, and I have definitely been present for discussions about how Bradman would have gone on modern flat pitches or against modern fast bowlers and how he's probably the worlds most dominant sportsman ever in any sport etc. But it doesn't really get super intense or laser-focussed on the stats aspect, it's still more about appreciation of his general greatness (and of course the perfidy of Jardine and Larwood and other sins of the English).
There's always those arguments in the Aussie rules scene though. Who was the better Ablett, Gary or Gary Jr? Would Coleman have the most goals ever if he had the benefit of modern medicine and didn't get struck down with injury? Which dynasty was better? Etc etc. But, like you've pointed out, they're just fun hypotheticals, not an exercise to show big your sports eggplant is.
Largely agree with everything you wrote, but just wanted to throw out a few thoughts (that don't contradict you, but one of which I rarely seen made):
- The players aren't just better for all the modernity reasons you point out, but the overall depth of quality is undoubtedly better because it's drawing from a much larger pool of players from around the world. The 8th best player on the Kings in the 70s would still be an amazing player in 2022, but might not be on a roster. There were about 10-15 foreign players when Jordan played, for example. There are something like 130+ now. This part always seems glossed over.
- I think the ratings have largely dropped due to the totality of entertainment options, but also because of how much politics has been wrapped up with the sport. I mean this sincerely: I've not met a Republican who is an NBA head in the last ten years or so. This might also have something to do with how obnoxious certain NBA fans can be, like the Twitter folks.
- The space in today's game is great, but when the games become simple three point shooting contests, it can get boring, no doubt. They need to change some rules, I think.
The NBA playoffs are still the best sports 'event' there is, though.
Good point, the quality of the talent coming from overseas is incomparable to the 70s.
the NHL playoffs are still the best sports 'event' there is, though.
(FIFY)