How Can We Compare the Past and Present?

In Sam’s post, he wrote about the fact that “talking heads” (or TV studio hosts/announcers as they are more widely known as) tend to proclaim that an event that was just witnessed as the best event of its kind in the history of sport. I agree with him that “talking heads” tend to exaggerate and be overly positive when talking about a player or a game. This can be annoying (except when they are talking about how great the 49ers are =)). They get carried away and throw things around like “One of the top five players in history” and “best Superbowl, best Wimbledon match, best offensive performance, best whatever in the history of the sport” all the time. And after several weeks, you figure out that the announcer’s top five list actually contains 12 players or that they have two to three #1 players in the league. They talk first and think later. Sam’s right. They say crazy stuff to attract and get viewers.

But what if they are arguably right when they talk about a performance as being the best in history?

Several years ago, I remember reading a letter to the editor in Sports Illustrated criticizing Rick Reilly’s (He has since moved to ESPN) most recent article in which Reilly wrote that he still considered George Sisler to be the MLB single season hits record holder, even though Ichiro Suzuki had just hit 262 hits in a season, breaking Sisler’s 257 hit record. I don’t recall Reilly’s reasoning since I didn’t read the article, but it probably had to do with baseball having fewer games in a season in 1920 than it does now, and other half-assed arguments. The reader pointed out that Sisler didn’t face the same level of competition that Ichiro did (He had other great points, but, unfortunately, I forgot them all). He didn’t face the quality of athletes that play the game today (for example, he didn’t face relievers that threw 100 mph and he didn’t bat against defensive players with more range and skill in the field). After reading that letter, I have always thought about records differently.

How can we compare records from the past to achievements in the present? Who can say that Kobe Bryant’s 81-point game isn’t as impressive as Wilt Chamberlain’s 100-point game? Was it easier for Chamberlain to score against the players guarding him or was it easier for Bryant to score against the players guarding him? Should Chamberlain’s talent level being higher than anyone playing in the 1960s be a factor in the record? How do rule changes affect the game and the records (like the addition of the 3-point line)? I don’t know the answers.

I don’t know what to think about records anymore. Some records will never be broken, like Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hit streak and Cal Ripken Jr’s 2,632 consecutive game streak. Some records seem impossible to top, but are broken, like Tom Brady throwing 50 touchdown passes in a season to break Peyton Manning’s then-record 49 TD passes in a season. And then there are records that are being destroyed by improvements in technology, not necessarily due to human achievement.

So, next time an announcer is spouting off about how it was the best offensive performance, best Superbowl, best whatever, stop and think about all the different factors that went into the record/event before you dismiss him/her.