- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Could athletes of the 70's and 80's compete today?
Posted on 1/5/12 at 10:33 am to Stagg8
Posted on 1/5/12 at 10:33 am to Stagg8
quote:
The 46 D would destroy the Saints. FACT.
This is beyond a doubt your worst logic used to date. Yes... a base defense with 8 men in the box would stop the most prolific passing attack in league history.
How did that defense do against Marino? Hint: Miami had 31 by halftime and all they used was a moving pocket.
1
Posted on 1/5/12 at 10:33 am to Snakebucket
MLB players in the 70s were born in the 50s. The 50s was a time when the top athletes played baseball. Today, youngsters who would have been baseball players are opting for football, basketball or video games on the couch. Soccer is even pulling away a lot of young kids who would be playing baseball in 1950.
So, yes, 70s baseball players would be able to compete in today's MLB very easily.
So, yes, 70s baseball players would be able to compete in today's MLB very easily.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 10:37 am to Zach
qbs wouldn't be any different. either you can read a defense or you can't and back then you didn't have an OC holding your hand and calling the plays.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 10:37 am to Zach
baseball is a little easier to compare the actual players through generations because it's a sport that doesn't rely AS MUCH on natural athleticism as basketball and football.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 10:39 am to Zach
quote:
MLB players in the 70s were born in the 50s. The 50s was a time when the top athletes played baseball. Today, youngsters who would have been baseball players are opting for football, basketball or video games on the couch. Soccer is even pulling away a lot of young kids who would be playing baseball in 1950.
So, yes, 70s baseball players would be able to compete in today's MLB very easily.
SI did a piece several years ago on the decline of boxing. The question was asked, why aren't there any great heavyweights and the conclusion was they're playing power forward and defensive end.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 10:40 am to Zach
The only change in baseball is that players are in better physical condition over the entire year, and not going to spring training JUST to get in shape.
A hitter can hit, there's a lot of hard work involved, sure, but there's nothing new about seeing the ball. Regular video usage may allow the hitter to see his swing, and try to get consistent, but you either have the eye, or you don't.
Strike zone knowledge hasn't changed, the strike zone itself has evolved downward over the last 50 years, but IF a hitter has a good eye, and knows the strike zone, he succeeds. That has not changed.
Pitchers could throw hard, then, too. Guys could still hit. It would be a bit harder, as most hitters face the starter twice, a middle reliever, and then a closer. More relief if his team is hitting well. But that doesn't change plate discipline. That's what made Bonds so good, steroids or not, his plate discipline.
A hitter can hit, there's a lot of hard work involved, sure, but there's nothing new about seeing the ball. Regular video usage may allow the hitter to see his swing, and try to get consistent, but you either have the eye, or you don't.
Strike zone knowledge hasn't changed, the strike zone itself has evolved downward over the last 50 years, but IF a hitter has a good eye, and knows the strike zone, he succeeds. That has not changed.
Pitchers could throw hard, then, too. Guys could still hit. It would be a bit harder, as most hitters face the starter twice, a middle reliever, and then a closer. More relief if his team is hitting well. But that doesn't change plate discipline. That's what made Bonds so good, steroids or not, his plate discipline.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 10:43 am to prplhze2000
quote:
How did that defense do against Marino? Hint: Miami had 31 by halftime and all they used was a moving pocket.
One data point is meaningless. Miami was also a really good team (they hosted the AFC CG).
If the Saints beat the 85 Bears, it would be because they made big plays, like Miami, not because the Bears weren't as athletic.
This post was edited on 1/5/12 at 11:36 am
Posted on 1/5/12 at 10:52 am to RedPop4
The biggest difference between skill development in baseball is repetitions at a very young age.
Today, American kids get all their reps in organized leagues. In the 50s they played all day on their own on vacant lots...until it was too dark to see the ball.
This is why Latinos have done so well today. They play all day in the Dominican Republic unsupervised just like Americans did in the 50s.
Of all the major sports, baseball requires the development of muscle memory from constant repetition starting at an early age.
You can't take a 17 year old athlete who has never seen a baseball and teach him to play it in 5 years. The Soviets tried it. They gave up.
Today, American kids get all their reps in organized leagues. In the 50s they played all day on their own on vacant lots...until it was too dark to see the ball.
This is why Latinos have done so well today. They play all day in the Dominican Republic unsupervised just like Americans did in the 50s.
Of all the major sports, baseball requires the development of muscle memory from constant repetition starting at an early age.
You can't take a 17 year old athlete who has never seen a baseball and teach him to play it in 5 years. The Soviets tried it. They gave up.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 10:56 am to H-Town Tiger
here's the thing about baseball... the old days didn't have very many specialized shifts toward certain players based on computerized spray charts... also you used to see a dropoff in quality pitching after the starter. now it seems like everybody throws gas
scouts used to use subjective judgement, now it's more objective. major college baseball (thanks Skip!
) has emerged as a viable alternative to the low minors, affecting development
managers use those computers, more video to pull up data on players that wasn't tracked in the old days
now expansion has kept up. there are 4 more teams than there were in 1980. no one plays on the old artifical turf anymore. a new wave of baseball-specific parks has been built, including one in thin air
other countries have taken over MLB, increasing the talent pool. the media that only new york and l.a. had in those days, every city has that now. there are more playoff spots, which mean more meaningful games
scouts used to use subjective judgement, now it's more objective. major college baseball (thanks Skip!
) has emerged as a viable alternative to the low minors, affecting development managers use those computers, more video to pull up data on players that wasn't tracked in the old days
now expansion has kept up. there are 4 more teams than there were in 1980. no one plays on the old artifical turf anymore. a new wave of baseball-specific parks has been built, including one in thin air
other countries have taken over MLB, increasing the talent pool. the media that only new york and l.a. had in those days, every city has that now. there are more playoff spots, which mean more meaningful games
This post was edited on 1/5/12 at 10:59 am
Posted on 1/5/12 at 11:01 am to chalmetteowl
what sport i do think is the most similar, is soccer. the skills needed aren't much affected by physical development. yes money has changed the game but you had rich and poor teams back then also
Posted on 1/5/12 at 11:06 am to chalmetteowl
tennis is hard to say because of the rackets. give these rackets to Mac and Borg and who knows how they do. Probably the same. There is so much strategy involved in tennis. Either you have an all around game or you don't.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 11:14 am to chalmetteowl
Do you really think that teams didn't track tendencies before computers? Really?
Also, pitchers owned the inside part of the plate into the 1980's. That was their territory and if you messed with it as a hitter you got your arse knocked down.
We're going to agree to disagree about the quality of relief pitching back then.
Also, pitchers owned the inside part of the plate into the 1980's. That was their territory and if you messed with it as a hitter you got your arse knocked down.
We're going to agree to disagree about the quality of relief pitching back then.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 11:32 am to VABuckeye
quote:
We're going to agree to disagree about the quality of relief pitching back then.
By the 70s relief pitching had become very specialized and you saw a drop in complete games by starters. But in the 50s and 60s starters were expected to finish the game if they were winning because the relief pitchers were guys not good enough to start.
Also, the 50s and 60s had the old AL and NL with 8 teams in each league. The wild expansion of teams from then till now has greatly diluted the quality of starting pitchers. There are guys pitching as No. 4 or No.5 starters today that would be in AAA ball in 1960.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 11:42 am to Zach
quote:
You can't take a 17 year old athlete who has never seen a baseball and teach him to play it in 5 years. The Soviets tried it. They gave up.
Babe Ruth said seven years old was too late to start a kid playing baseball and I agree. The skills and the muscle memory have to be learned early, or it is just too late.
You could take a 50 year old guy who played a lot of baseball as a kid but who hadn't touched a glove since he was 17 and have him play catch with someone who was 17 and started playing intensively when he was 14, and you could tell in about two minutes that the 50 year old was more skilled.
This post was edited on 1/5/12 at 11:44 am
Posted on 1/5/12 at 12:12 pm to Hawgon
quote:
You could take a 50 year old guy who played a lot of baseball as a kid but who hadn't touched a glove since he was 17 and have him play catch with someone who was 17 and started playing intensively when he was 14, and you could tell in about two minutes that the 50 year old was more skilled.
So true, in fact you could probably tell after one throw and catch each.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 12:15 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
tennis is hard to say because of the rackets. give these rackets to Mac and Borg and who knows how they do.
I like the reverse too. If you could take the 2 top players from today and instantly throw them back to Mac and Borgs primes, give them the wood rackets and let them go at it.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 1:31 pm to bomber77
Football and basketball are difficult to assess because the rules have changed so much.
Sure, today's football players are much bigger and the big guys are much faster than the big guys of the old days, but up through the early 50s, every single player went both ways. And even through the 60s it was pretty common for several players to do that. So guys HAD to be smaller.
Take some of todays fat athletes in football and make them play 1949 style football going both ways with no television timeouts. They would probably dominate the first quarter and get circles run around them after that.
Basketball too is a different game. Someone talked about Bob Cousey looking funny dribbling the ball. Well, watch it again. The reason he looks funny is BECAUSE HE IS FOLLOWING THE RULES. He is dribbling the ball on top of the ball and not carrying it as every single player does today. It looks funny, but if he had tried to do what players do today, he would have turned the ball over on every play. Likewise, if today's players had to follow the rules of 1950, they would be a lot less slick in handling the ball.
Sure, today's football players are much bigger and the big guys are much faster than the big guys of the old days, but up through the early 50s, every single player went both ways. And even through the 60s it was pretty common for several players to do that. So guys HAD to be smaller.
Take some of todays fat athletes in football and make them play 1949 style football going both ways with no television timeouts. They would probably dominate the first quarter and get circles run around them after that.
Basketball too is a different game. Someone talked about Bob Cousey looking funny dribbling the ball. Well, watch it again. The reason he looks funny is BECAUSE HE IS FOLLOWING THE RULES. He is dribbling the ball on top of the ball and not carrying it as every single player does today. It looks funny, but if he had tried to do what players do today, he would have turned the ball over on every play. Likewise, if today's players had to follow the rules of 1950, they would be a lot less slick in handling the ball.
This post was edited on 1/5/12 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 1/5/12 at 1:49 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
It's really noticeable in international tournaments that other countries don't believe in weight training for baskeball players. European players are scrawny for the most part.
That's actually a great comparison. Many Euros are slower, weaker, yet highly skilled. In the end, unless they are 7+ feet tall Dirks, they are usually burned on defense and pushed around on offense. That's probably what it would look like if an 80's team played a modern team in the NBA.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 1:53 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
That's actually a great comparison. Many Euros are slower, weaker, yet highly skilled. In the end, unless they are 7+ feet tall Dirks, they are usually burned on defense and pushed around on offense. That's probably what it would look like if an 80's team played a modern team in the NBA.
But a modern NBA team playing in the 1970s and 80s would foul out in about 15 minutes.
As the rules change, players change to adapt to the rules. If they ever go the other way with the officiating, it will become more of a finesse game again where skill will be valued more than brute strength.
Posted on 1/5/12 at 1:58 pm to bomber77
quote:
I like the reverse too. If you could take the 2 top players from today and instantly throw them back to Mac and Borgs primes, give them the wood rackets and let them go at it.
True.
Same with golf. Can you imagine what a 22 year old Jack Nicklaus could do with a modern day driver?
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News