Are Professional Sports Slowly Dying?

Cliffy6745

tempo_n_groove said:

Cliffy6745 said:

The quality of player is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better in every sport.

To Ottavino's point, he would strike out Babe Ruth every time.

Kevin Durant would beat Bob Cousy 21-0 with a blown Achilles. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE5SDgXLb1g

Bob Cousy is 6'1" so I hope Durant could beat him, lol.

As for Ruth getting struck out?  Not so sure.  They through junk ball spitters back in the day and still had some fireball throwers.  Hand eye is still there.

But as for overall quality of a player, yes, it is better.

Better training, nutrition and medicine now.

Curry then.. Curry would win 21-0 and KD would beat BIll Russell.

Ruth would strike out every time.  Fireball throwers were hitting what? 80? He swung a tree trunk at that.  He would strike out every single time.

tempo_n_groove

Cliffy6745 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Cliffy6745 said:

The quality of player is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better in every sport.

To Ottavino's point, he would strike out Babe Ruth every time.

Kevin Durant would beat Bob Cousy 21-0 with a blown Achilles. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE5SDgXLb1g

Bob Cousy is 6'1" so I hope Durant could beat him, lol.

As for Ruth getting struck out?  Not so sure.  They through junk ball spitters back in the day and still had some fireball throwers.  Hand eye is still there.

But as for overall quality of a player, yes, it is better.

Better training, nutrition and medicine now.

Curry then.. Curry would win 21-0 and KD would beat BIll Russell.

Ruth would strike out every time.  Fireball throwers were hitting what? 80? He swung a tree trunk at that.  He would strike out every single time.

I would argue that Johnson threw better than 80.  I threw 70 in warmups...

Curry and Cousy would actually be fun to watch.  Best shooters of their generation.  I can't argue that Curry wouldn't win.  It was a diff game back then.

MayDay10

The major difference with Ruth is.  He would be studied and pitchers would keep the ball in zone(s) and throw pitches where he was less likely to drive the ball.  Also pitch around him when mathematically expedient to do so.  

In his day, they really didnt use relievers much either.  Guys would throw until their arms fell off

tempo_n_groove

MayDay10 said:

The major difference with Ruth is.  He would be studied and pitchers would keep the ball in zone(s) and throw pitches where he was less likely to drive the ball.  Also pitch around him when mathematically expedient to do so.  

In his day, they really didnt use relievers much either.  Guys would throw until their arms fell off

Never thought about that?

He did change the game of baseball though.

Cliffy6745

tempo_n_groove said:

MayDay10 said:

The major difference with Ruth is.  He would be studied and pitchers would keep the ball in zone(s) and throw pitches where he was less likely to drive the ball.  Also pitch around him when mathematically expedient to do so.  

In his day, they really didnt use relievers much either.  Guys would throw until their arms fell off

Never thought about that?

He did change the game of baseball though.

He is the best player ever (contradicting myself here a bit, but taking generational changes out of it).  He was hitting more home runs than teams had combined.

tempo_n_groove

Cliffy6745 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

MayDay10 said:

The major difference with Ruth is.  He would be studied and pitchers would keep the ball in zone(s) and throw pitches where he was less likely to drive the ball.  Also pitch around him when mathematically expedient to do so.  

In his day, they really didnt use relievers much either.  Guys would throw until their arms fell off

Never thought about that?

He did change the game of baseball though.

He is the best player ever (contradicting myself here a bit, but taking generational changes out of it).  He was hitting more home runs than teams had combined.

True but I never thought about the angle of seeing the same pitcher 3 or 4 times.

I still stand behind that he would learn and eventually hit off todays pitcher.

MayDay10

go the other way.

What would happen if you took Mike Trout and transplanted him to 1920?  Or even Cameron Maybin?

MayDay10

tempo_n_groove said:

MayDay10 said:

The major difference with Ruth is.  He would be studied and pitchers would keep the ball in zone(s) and throw pitches where he was less likely to drive the ball.  Also pitch around him when mathematically expedient to do so.  

In his day, they really didnt use relievers much either.  Guys would throw until their arms fell off

Never thought about that?

He did change the game of baseball though.

Yes, he certainly did, and players deserve the accolades for what they accomplished during their respective eras.  

Cliffy6745

MayDay10 said:

go the other way.

What would happen if you took Mike Trout and transplanted him to 1920?

He would hit .900 most of which are home runs or inside the park home runs 

The Fixer

No.

college hoops has been for years though.  Which is a good thing since it's unwatchable

tempo_n_groove

Cliffy6745 said:

MayDay10 said:

go the other way.

What would happen if you took Mike Trout and transplanted him to 1920?

He would hit .900 most of which are home runs or inside the park home runs 

Parks were bigger though.  Imagine him playing the Polo grounds?

Can we talk Hockey dying?

Ever since they changed rules and dump the puck EVERY play the goal scoring or "sniping" is gone.  Will anyone ever get 50 goals in 50 games again or 70+ goals?

I find hockey to be difficult to watch unless it's playoffs and then at least in the later rounds the competition is good.

I will pay $25 for lower bowl tix to see the Isles though.  Can't pass that up.

MayDay10

In hockey, again, everyone is so efficient and polished, the net affect is a negative.  I also suspect that millionaires who arent really that vested in a team and city arent selling themselves out every game in an 82 game schedule.

As I mentioned with goalies too.  They take up soo much space in the net now and are spreadsheets on cutting angles and making themselves bigger.  

Players are overall way bigger, faster, and more efficient.  Equipment is bigger, but the playing surface remains the same (with an added referee). Games are bogged down, and like I mentioned, they are just an exercise in waiting for the other team to make a mistake and get out of 'position'. zzzzzzzzz.   You also have lost a lot of physical play and fighting with the concussion knowledge and litigation.  These things would keep fans at the edge of their seats, even in a 4-0 game.  

Cliffy6745

tempo_n_groove said:

Cliffy6745 said:

MayDay10 said:

go the other way.

What would happen if you took Mike Trout and transplanted him to 1920?

He would hit .900 most of which are home runs or inside the park home runs 

Parks were bigger though.  Imagine him playing the Polo grounds?

Can we talk Hockey dying?

Ever since they changed rules and dump the puck EVERY play the goal scoring or "sniping" is gone.  Will anyone ever get 50 goals in 50 games again or 70+ goals?

I find hockey to be difficult to watch unless it's playoffs and then at least in the later rounds the competition is good.

I will pay $25 for lower bowl tix to see the Isles though.  Can't pass that up.

Which is why I mentioned inside the park jobs!

I don't watch much hockey outside of playoffs anymore.

tempo_n_groove

MayDay10 said:

In hockey, again, everyone is so efficient and polished, the net affect is a negative.  I also suspect that millionaires who arent really that vested in a team and city arent selling themselves out every game in an 82 game schedule.

As I mentioned with goalies too.  They take up soo much space in the net now and are spreadsheets on cutting angles and making themselves bigger.  

Players are overall way bigger, faster, and more efficient.  Equipment is bigger, but the playing surface remains the same (with an added referee). Games are bogged down, and like I mentioned, they are just an exercise in waiting for the other team to make a mistake and get out of 'position'. zzzzzzzzz.

Is that why they just dump the puck?

No good one timer passes?

tempo_n_groove

Cliffy6745 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Cliffy6745 said:

MayDay10 said:

go the other way.

What would happen if you took Mike Trout and transplanted him to 1920?

He would hit .900 most of which are home runs or inside the park home runs 

Parks were bigger though.  Imagine him playing the Polo grounds?

Can we talk Hockey dying?

Ever since they changed rules and dump the puck EVERY play the goal scoring or "sniping" is gone.  Will anyone ever get 50 goals in 50 games again or 70+ goals?

I find hockey to be difficult to watch unless it's playoffs and then at least in the later rounds the competition is good.

I will pay $25 for lower bowl tix to see the Isles though.  Can't pass that up.

Which is why I mentioned inside the park jobs!

I don't watch much hockey outside of playoffs anymore.

With todays metrics and stats they'd make Trout take a double rather than exert himself too much in running an inside the park homer, lol!

The Juggler

tempo_n_groove said:

Cliffy6745 said:

The quality of player is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better in every sport.

To Ottavino's point, he would strike out Babe Ruth every time.

Kevin Durant would beat Bob Cousy 21-0 with a blown Achilles. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE5SDgXLb1g

Bob Cousy is 6'1" so I hope Durant could beat him, lol.

As for Ruth getting struck out?  Not so sure.  They through junk ball spitters back in the day and still had some fireball throwers.  Hand eye is still there.

But as for overall quality of a player, yes, it is better.

Better training, nutrition and medicine now.

Bob Cousey. Ha. 
I was thinking the OP posing this question was in his 40’s not 80’s. 

eddiec

MayDay10 said:

There are so many more quality athletes out there.  Exponential.  Think about the number of countries that have quality development programs, the amount of humans on earth, the training and nutritional knowledge applied to athletes.  It is unheard of, even from just 25 years ago.

Fundamentally, just as good/better, but the fundamentals have changed.  A goaltender used to need to be agile and ultra-reactive.  Nowadays, they are a spreadsheet.  They need to be agile, but they know exactly where to be to make themselves the biggest/leave as little of an opening as possible based on where the puck is.  They memorize tendencies of the shooters.  Maximize the size of the equipment.  Being a gargantuan is also an trait that teams draft for.  Its not real exciting to watch, it clogs the game down, but it is effective.  

The only thing that may be watered down is quarterback play in the NFL.  But that seems to have been the case for a long time.

I think it's just a case of the secondary being so much better. Quarterbacks have to place the ball into tiny gaps in the coverage. Very few receivers tend to blow big holes in the secondary like they used to.

MayDay10

Yeah, thats a good point.  Imagine bart starr trying to beat a calculated thoroughbred like stephon gilmore or pat Peterson 

The Juggler

MayDay10 said:

Yeah, thats a good point.  Imagine bart starr trying to beat a calculated thoroughbred like stephon gilmore or pat Peterson 

Now imagine Dan Marino? I’m guessing the OP grew up in the 80’s or 90’s as opposed to the 60’s...

Marino would have numbers out of this world in today’s NFL

pearljammr78

The Juggler said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Cliffy6745 said:

The quality of player is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better in every sport.

To Ottavino's point, he would strike out Babe Ruth every time.

Kevin Durant would beat Bob Cousy 21-0 with a blown Achilles. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE5SDgXLb1g

Bob Cousy is 6'1" so I hope Durant could beat him, lol.

As for Ruth getting struck out?  Not so sure.  They through junk ball spitters back in the day and still had some fireball throwers.  Hand eye is still there.

But as for overall quality of a player, yes, it is better.

Better training, nutrition and medicine now.

Bob Cousey. Ha. 
I was thinking the OP posing this question was in his 40’s not 80’s. 

I have never heard of Bob Cousey. Yes, I’ll be 41 in a couple month. 

A lot of great points were made here. Such as the perfection effect and the whole everyone is their own brand. It gets old. No more team loyalty or team to town loyalty. So many broken things. Replays, making a sport a science. The wonder is gone. 

Well done by all. Way better than my unarticulated ramblings.