Comparing athletes across generations \ stacker news ~mostly

3870 sats \ 22 comments \ @Voldemort 8 Apr mostly_harmless

I have debated people on the merits of Michael Jordan vs. Lebron James too many times to count. I see people talking about how Kyrie Irving is better than legends from the 70s like Jerry West. These discussions always drive me nuts as they completely miss the point.

The argument used that Kyrie Irving is better than Jerry West is what you would expect - better dribbler, shooter, would dominate 70s basketball. If we follow this logic to its conclusion, however, something like 99% of D1 college PGs and all NBA PGs are better than Jerry West.

Let me give another example. I have an advanced degree in math and took PhD level math courses while I was in grad school for econ. None of you would recognize my name if I told it to you. Yet, despite that, when I was at my peak in math I would have destroyed the likes of Isaac Newton and Pythagoras in a math contest. The math I learned in grad school wasn't even known when they were alive. Similarly, there are probably a lot of average physicists in the world today who actually know more about general relativity than einstein. Yet no one in their right mind would ever claim I am better at math than Isaac Newton or some fresh Physics PhD is better than Einstein.

So, yes, Kyrie Irving would destroy the NBA in the 1970s. People would think he is a wizard. Much like people would think I am a wizard if I went back in time and advanced math by a couple of centuries.

How do we compare the greatness of athletes across generations, then? It has to be a function of where someone falls in the distribution of "greatness" during their playing days. This applies when comparing statistics across generations as well. Someone scoring scoring 50 points in the 90s was more of an accomplishment than someone scoring 50 today. In all of the 90s, there were 55 total 50, 60, 70 point games. There are already more than 117 in the 2020s. They are on pace to have more than 6x or so, and that is assuming the rate of 50 point games doesn't continue to increase.

Just some back of the napkin math, MJ had 13 50 point games in the 90s. Assuming he would have got 3 more had he played the full decade, that puts him at 16.

2020s are on pace to have roughly 5-6x more 50 point games than the 90s. In order for someone to dominate in scoring the way MJ did, they would have to have 80-96 50 point games this decade. So far the leader has 10.

Point being, next time someone acts like players from previous eras are garbage, ask them what grade they learned the pythagorean theorem. It was probably middle school.

view all related items

260 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 8 Apr

there are probably a lot of average physicists in the world today who actually know more about general relativity than einstein.

As with the general thesis, the general consensus is actually that most physics BS's understand relativity better than Einstein did.

Why don't you ever weigh in on the ~Stacker_Sports conversations? We'd love to have more perspectives. I've got a GOAT related post up right now: #498631

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @Voldemort OP 9 Apr

Why don't you ever weigh in on the ~Stacker_Sports conversations?

Good question - I never really see those posts. I will take a gander.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 8 Apr

Super cool post.

Another thing that gets muddled in here is: what are the ingredients to greatness? To take a trivial example, the ingredients for greatness for pro ballers in the 60s almost never included having to deal with constant scrutiny starting before you have pubes and then unfathomable wealth when you're still a teenager. Think whatever you like about the nature of those challenges, the skills to successfully circumvent them (or perhaps, take advantage of them) are different from the equivalent challenges 60 years ago. There's no reason to expect that people optimized to succeed now would have been the same as the ones optimized for it then.

The more interesting question, to me, is to go full science fiction: what if Michael Jordan were transported through time, into the current era? Or maybe Allen Iverson? Setting aside the differences in training, nutrition, recovery, everything known about sports science and psychology -- if you just had those guys suit up on a modern team, how would they do? I can think about that for hours at a time.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Voldemort OP 9 Apr

I think if we transported them from the day they were drafted and let them play out their full careers they would both do well. MJ would be like Kobe and AI would be like Kyrie/Curry. My favorite young player right now, Anthony Edwards, plays a bit like MJ/Kobe and he is doing very well.

If we took them from their prime and let them play one season, I also think they would do well. Not sure either of them would be front runners for MVP, though. Though you never know. When MJ played PG for a few games pretty sure he averaged a triple double.

One other thing - people will say MJ played against plumbers but forget that means he played with plumbers as well. Who knows what he would do with the current stock of talent in the NBA on his team.

310 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 8 Apr

This phrase is what you brought to mind.

We are standing on the shoulders of giants.

The other thing is in running. I forget whether it was the 100 meter or 1 mile or both but there was a barrier that hadn't been broken but once it was the record kept falling to new runners. We learn from those before us. The world changes, the game changes. Most don't care to think about things. They are more interested in dunking on others for easy points.

When it comes to sports the games change. It is pretty hard to compare athletes from different eras in most sports if you care to be honest. If MJ played in today's NBA I imagine he'd have different stats. If Lebron played in the 80-90s era he'd be met with different defense. It would be cool to see someone like Bird play today for example or some of the new crop play in the past but this pissing match is kinda dumb. That said, athletes whose dominance triggers a rule change hold a special place.

60 sats \ 0 replies \ @Turdinthepunchbowl 8 Apr

I just want to laugh about the inflation of stats in modern sports :)

60 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 8 Apr

I agree you always have to pay respect to those who came before you. I think the game and rule changes really make it hard to compare. For example Jerry west didn’t have a 3pt line and you could hand check. Now little guys like kyrie can have more of an impact thanks to the 3pt line and the removal of the hand check.

But great players can play in all eras in my opinion. The all time greats have tremendous impact on not only the game but the culture

152 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 8 Apr

Great post. I like your framing when thinking about comparing across generations. Training, coaching, strength and conditioning, data, analysis have all improved vastly.

Is the best hitter in MLB history the guy who faced pitchers who used to throw 4 games a week and throw 150 pitches a game or the guy who faces 3 different rested, specialist pitchers throwing at their peak every single game?

It really seems unreasonable to compare and almost impossible to find the right answer so I think you have to base it on who was most dominant compared to their peers at the time they played and for how many years they were able to dominate their peers.

15 sats \ 0 replies \ @PlebeiusG 8 Apr

I hear that men today are dominating women's sports.

I wonder if men could have done that in the '70's. Prolly not...

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @Satosora 8 Apr

I have this arguement with my family, too. My family is big on the cycling world, and cycling tech has really boomed since the 70s. Can you imagine someone like Lance Armstrong with the bikes they are using now? Not saying he is the greatest, just a name everyone would recognize. If everyone in cycling was giving the same bike, would the greatest still be the greatest? Cycling is a team sport, it really depends how the team plays. Its not like swimming where it depends only on yourself. Lots of things to think about, how teamwork really make the player. Would any of these basketball players be the "greatest" without their team members or their foils?

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Voldemort OP 9 Apr

Cycling is super interesting because of the science that has gone into it. Nutrition on the bike being one that comes to mind. Some riders eat like 140mg of sugar per hour. That is insane to me. The ubiquity of power meters has changed the game as well. I think they are one of the main reasons why we see younger racers winning grand tours more frequently. Back in the day you'd have to pace yourself through RPE. If you have never done a 21 day stage race before the odds of getting your pacing right is low. Now you can just read your power meter (for the most part).

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 10 Apr

Right, now a lot of things are down to science. Its insane how much wind tunnel testing they do now. All it takes is one little slip, and the whole season can be over. I guess that is just the way sports are.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kilianbuhn 9 Apr

I think the best athletes ever always live right now.👇🏻

Medicine and food is always better than it was in the previous generation
Biggest most important point: more people than ever on earth don't live in poverty and hunger anymore. There is the biggest competition ever and the biggest talent pool ever
Don't underestimate: Technology. Every sport can take advantage of computer analysis and big screens for analyzing stuff

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @Voldemort OP 9 Apr

Yes - I agree 100%. Even things like the internet give kids access to better drills and whatnot. Back when I was in elementary school I made up my own drills. They were highly inefficient. Nowadays I can find shooting coaches who work with pros going over drills on social media. I was very good, but I would have been so much better now. Probably within the same area of the distribution though. I wouldn't have gone from D3 talent to D2 talent.

But that is exactly why you can't compare across generations in this simple way.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @gmd 8 Apr

Sure you might destroy Isaac Newton in a math competition (who wouldn’t??)…

but the real question is how would you fare against 12 year old Cognition AI founder Scott Wu?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 8 Apr

Well-said. I get the desire to compare athletes (especially in the post-sabremetrics/Bill James sports world), but sometimes comparisons just aren't possible.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IamSINGLE 8 Apr

The comparison of athletes with Newton or Einstein is delusional.

Even the comparison between athletes from different generations is delusional.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @pj 8 Apr

To add to your point, even players one generation ago can’t really be compared to today’s players.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Coinsreporter 8 Apr freebie

Great post with great arguments!

Yet, despite that, when I was at my peak in math I would have destroyed the likes of Isaac Newton and Pythagoras in a math contest. The math I learned in grad school wasn't even known when they were alive. Similarly, there are probably a lot of average physicists in the world today who actually know more about general relativity than einstein.

I disagree. We admire them because they were the pioneers for some or the other thing. The world used to know much less before them.

Let me give you an example. The 10-second mark had been widely considered a barrier for the 100 metres in men's sprinting. The first man to break the 10 second barrier with automatic timing was Jim Hines at the 1968 Summer Olympics. Since then, over 180 sprinters have run faster than 10 seconds.

Can you give me a solid reason why in 72 years previously to 1968 summer Olympics , we never had any athlete to break 10 second barrier?

And why do we have more than 180 athletes after 1968 to run 100 metres in less than 10 seconds?

This is about 'belief'. All the pioneers, including Jim Hines, Einstein, Newton etc. were there to prove the real possibilities to upcoming generations. But, you are doing it in the opposite way, you boast of your achievements but can never think that they are the result of our ancestors who illuminated a candle of new reality with belief.

Be boastful but never forget and flaunt the pioneers because they were there so we are here. There work was also the same as ours is. We need to carry forward the knowledge by making our contributions if we can.