Times Change: The Sport, The Game, The Athlete
Don’t you love it when someone says “Well, that player wouldn’t be able to compete in today’s game.” Or the inverse, “He wouldn’t last 5 minutes back in the day.” Often times, that might be true. But does it really matter?
Many people, mostly fans, get caught up in how players would fare in other generations. I never really understood why that was important. The players 50 years ago were playing the rules, style, and competition of, you got it, 50 years ago. Same holds true for today’s game. I agree, many of the current NFL players would have a very difficult time dealing with the physicality and “anything goes” rules the defenses were playing within then. I am also aware than many of the NBA players from 40 years ago could never compete with the speed and athleticism the players have today. And how do you think Babe Ruth would be able to handle a 103 mph fastball? It doesn’t matter, does it? Times change, and the players change along with it.
In football, the rules have drastically changed the last 20 years or so. And the players have changed along with it. The defenders (mainly the defensive backs) are basically no longer able to touch the receivers more than 5 yards down the field, allowing the receivers more free reign to get open. Combine that with much stricter helmet-to-helmet and targeting rules, and the receivers have a much easier time getting open and running downfield after the catch. Not the mention how the QBs are protected these days. Meaning, they basically can’t be touched. Side note – Back in 1978, hard-nosed Steelers LB Jack Lambert famously said “Quarterbacks should wear dresses” because of how he perceived QBs being protected. Curious what he thinks now. Anyways, the rules have changed, and as you’d expect, the strategies and players have adjusted to that. Think of players like Dick “Night Train” Lane, Jack Tatum, Bill Romanowski, and Rodney Harrison. Some of the hardest hitters in NFL history. Their approaches would not be allowed in today’s game, as their number of ejections and suspensions might match their tackle totals. Great players then, but within today’s rules, not allowed. By contrast, look at QBs in today’s game. Sure, your greats (Brady, Rodgers, Manning, etc) would be great then or now, but do you think they would have the numbers and longevity we are seeing today? No way. They are basically throwing to receivers that can’t be touched, while being untouched themselves. The flipside to this, is that there are some players that would absolutely thrive in a different generation. Imagine Johnny Unitas or Dan Fouts being able to play QB under today’s rules. Can you imagine their stats? Same can be said about Wide Receivers back then. Or think about Ray Lewis, James Harrison, or J.J. Watt playing in the NFL 50 years ago. Their size, strength, and SPEED would be absolutely unstoppable. Great players now, but even better then. Hell, even Chuck Cecil (he of the bloody nose), Vontaze Burfict, or Danny Trevathan, their games would better fit in the NFL then, as their hits (and dirty antics) were generally accepted then. Marginal players in their time, but potentially greats then, as their games were better suited for the game “then”. Same logic applies to Running Backs. The rule changes have benefited the QBs and WRs so much that the NFL has turned into a pass-first game, with the RBs being somewhat devalued. I think of players like Le’Veon Bell or Todd Gurley. Great players now, but if they played 20 years ago, where featured Running Backs ran the ball 30 times a game, their stats and overall effectiveness would be much more than now. In contrast, Barry Sanders. Sure, he would have been outstanding now, but more than likely would not be looked at as a generational player. Times change.
In basketball, there have been some rule changes that have changed the landscape, but the main difference between then and now is the size, speed, and athleticism of these players. Let’s take George Mikan for example. He was one of the more accomplished players in NBA history. He played only 7 seasons, but won 5 Championships and a slew of individual awards. He was the first “dominant” player in the League’s history. But how would be fare now? Well, he was 6’ 10”, with no outside shot. Seems likely be would at best be a solid role player. Does that take away from his accomplishments though? Absolutely not. Different times. What about a current sharp-shooter like Kyle Korver or J.J. Redick? Would they be effective 50 years ago? Well for starters, there was no 3-point line. And back in the day, teams did not rely on outside shooters like they do now. Could Korver or Redick have a role on a team, sure. But their value would be much lower. Opposite can be said for players like Rick Barry or Pistol Pete Maravich. Both were Hall-of-Famers in their playing days, but think of how more valuable they would be now. Both were lethal shooters, however the 3-point line wasn’t introduced to the NBA until 1980, the season they both retired. With so much emphasis on 3-point shooters in today’s NBA game, these guys would have been possible MVP candidates every year. But times change. Also worth thinking about – How do you think players a few generations ago would have been able to defend LeBron James. 6’ 8”, 250 pounds, and one of the fastest players on the court. Would John Havlicek or Jerry West be able to defend him? Or, how dominant do you think Michael Jordan would be now, with the game as spread out as it is, not to mention the defenders not being able to hand-check him. But times change.
In baseball, with the exception of the Designated Hitter being introduced in 1973 and the pitchers mound being lowered in 1969, there have not been many significant rule changes to baseball in the last 100 years (not saying that is a good thing). But the strategy has been changed mightily. Even as recently as 25 years ago, both pitchers and batters were handled much differently. Starting pitchers were expected to pitch at least 6 innings, then a few middle relievers got it to the 9th inning for the closer to finish. Now, once a pitcher nears the 100 pitch count, they are almost always removed from the game, for the half-dozen (sometimes more) relievers to finish the game. The concept of a Complete Game has almost been nullified. 25 years ago, it was not at all uncommon for a starter to have 10 or more Complete Games in a season. In 2018 not 1 pitcher had more than 2. Only 1 pitcher has thrown double-digit Complete Games (James Shields in 2011) this century! Some teams now, driven by statistical analysis (Sabermetrics), have even experimented with having a relief pitcher start the game. How does that affect players value now? Well, look at pitchers like Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, or Greg Maddux. One of their more valuable assets was their ability to pitch late into games, which in theory saves your bullpen. Workhorses. Would that be as valuable now, with computers, I mean managers being inclined to pull them in the 5th inning after 95 pitches? I don’t believe it would be. Opposite can be said for relievers. With as specialized as relievers have become, about half of your bullpen is only expected to come out to face 1 or 2 batters. Some lefties will ONLY pitch to lefties, some will only be brought in to induce a ground ball, others will come in because the batter on deck has a tendency to pull the ball in late innings in night road games in September. You get the point. Would those pitchers be needed 50 years ago? Probably not, since the starter pitched 8 innings, and the closer pitched 1 inning. But, they are highly coveted in today’s game, due to the change in strategy. And that’s OK. Now looking at the offensive side of things, although the approach to the game has changed significantly, the player values have not been affected quite as much. If a player can hit, a player can hit. However, there is 1 glaring exception – Speedsters. Before the power surge of the 1990’s, most teams relied on solid hitters, hit and runs, base-stealing, and timely hitting to produce runs. Small Ball. That trend has since been eradicated. Now teams wait around for the 3-run HR. That’s about it. Small Ball heavily relied upon your guys that would find a way to get on, best case scenario steal a base (or two). Guys like Maury Wills, Vince Coleman, and Kenny Lofton were fairly average hitters, but their speed and ability to steal bases made them huge assets. Would there be a big need for those players now? Sure they could serve a purpose, but being in a starting lineup (let alone leading off) for about 15 years. Perhaps not. Best example of this would be Rickey Henderson. My neighbor and I were talking the other day, and he asked me if Rickey’s value would be higher or lower in today’s game as it was back in the 80’s and 90’s. My initial answer was he would be much more valuable now, due to the fact that so few (if any) current players can do what he did. Not to mention his ability to hit for power (297 career HRs, and a record 81 leadoff HRs), he wreaked absolute havoc on the basepaths. Once he got on base, which was often (3,000+ hits, retired as career-leader in walks), he changed the game. Not only did he swipe 1,406 bases, it was what his presence did to opposing teams. The pitcher would have to constantly keep an eye on him, throw over to 1st base, slide-step to home, etc. Those things don’t even factor into the psychological and mental aspect of knowing he’s there. Same effect can be said for the infielders. The 1st baseman had to hold his position at the bag and one of the middle-infielders had to cheat middle, both of which opens up the infield gaps. Better for the hitters at the plate. Once he got on base, he completely changed the aspect of the game. Now with all that said, the more I thought about the value of his game, based on the generation, I came to the conclusion that his value would actually be much lower in today’s game. His skills would be exactly the same, and he could still bring the same assets to the table (or basepaths). However, Sabermetrics tells us that your best chance for scoring runs is to let your runners stay put, and have one of your big guys hit a HR. He would still be on base as much as he was before, but he would not add the additional value by adding those additional bases. Without the stolen bases, he would in theory be as valuable as any other player with a similar BA, SLG, OPS, WPA, and WAR. Very very good, but not a great like he was in his generation. And yes, I used those abbreviations on purpose, as to indicate how much statistical analysis has affected the game. Good or bad.
This debate will go on forever. And that is a good thing. As a fan, it’s always fun to think about how players would fare outside of their generation. Your old-schoolers will always say their players were better, fans now think the old players could never compete in today’s game. That is fine. They might both be right. You know what though? It doesn’t matter. In several decades from now, the games will have changed again, and what you think is great now, may not be at all relevant. But the debate will continue. Which is one of the many reasons sports is so great.
Like this article? Share it on Twitter or Facebook. Like us? Follow us on Twitter (@big3sportsblog1) or like our Facebook page (@big3sportsblog). Not a fan? Tell us why!