'78 Steelers vs '12 Giants

[DougW]

OK, Not really debating those 2 particular teams, just wanted some flash to the title - and the '78 Steel Curtain brings that.

My real question is .. Team Whatever (from the past) vs. Team Whatever (alot more recent). And, really - in any sport. I hear these debates all the time, and it always makes me wonder.

Would teams of the past really have a chance against teams now ? They are so much bigger/stronger/faster. There have been advances in body performance, training, and even strategy. The time spent training/learning/working for modern athletes seem to tower over historic athletes. Does anyone else think that a modern team would just whip a historical team, almost always ?

I mean sure, I understand, you can probably have a guy or 2 on those historic teams that had that "it", or "heart" that you can't measure/train. But would those few rare guys be able to make the difference against a full squad of superior athletes ?

[SegRat]

1996 Chicago Bulls. Im not a basketball fan, but I dont see any team playing today that could beat the Bulls.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah, generally agree with Doug, and my only thought to the contrary was that I'd think that the best Jordan/Bird/Magic teams might prevail.

[Comey]

'55 Dodgers, the A's of the late 20s, the 75 Reds...

As SegRat said, the '96 Bulls. The only team I could see who could go after them would be the Spurs teams of the early 00s. The Lakers of a few years ago could give them solid run, due to their bigs. So could the 2007-08 Celtics, I suppose.

[Matthean]

I think mostly for football does the size issue really kick in. Compare teams from when Jim Brown played versus now and the more physical nature of the sport compared to baseball.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

baseball. college hoops. everything else no way.

the 86 giants maybe. just by the nature of how they played. even then idk.

[BYU 14]

Baseball for sure, but in the other pro sports not at all likely.

I think teams like the '27 Yankees, '75 Reds, etc could certainly compete today.

[albionmoonlight]

So much also depends on rule changes. Teams that dominated with defense in different sports would have trouble with the more open modern rules. And more open modern offenses would have trouble with the more physical defense allowed back then.

I think that Night Train Lane was the best cornerback to every play in the NFL. But if he played today, he'd be banned for life after the first preseason game.

And a team like the Bad Boy Pistons would have to change so fundamentally, I don't know what they would do.

On the other side of the coin, if you took a Sean Payton or Mike Martz offense back to when you could mug WRs all the way down the field, how would that even work?

[Suburban Rhythm]

I think mostly for football does the size issue really kick in. Compare teams from when Jim Brown played versus now and the more physical nature of the sport compared to baseball.

So much also depends on rule changes. Teams that dominated with defense in different sports would have trouble with the more open modern rules. And more open modern offenses would have trouble with the more physical defense allowed back then.

I think that Night Train Lane was the best cornerback to every play in the NFL. But if he played today, he'd be banned for life after the first preseason game.

And a team like the Bad Boy Pistons would have to change so fundamentally, I don't know what they would do.

On the other side of the coin, if you took a Sean Payton or Mike Martz offense back to when you could mug WRs all the way down the field, how would that even work?

These were my two initial thoughts. Those OL from the 60's and 70's, no matter how nasty they were, were 240-250 lb guys. They'd get destroyed over 60 minutes.

Same way, if the "old" teams DL are allowed to club the OL, and the DBs are allowed to beat the snot out of WRs, they can probably hang around with them.

[Apathetic Lurker]

if you took a Sean Payton or Mike Martz offense back to when you could mug WRs all the way down the field, how would that even work?

It wouldn't..

[Matthean]

It wouldn't..

Begs the question under which rules would the teams being playing under.

[larrymcg421]

When people have always asked these questions, I've assumed the approach would be normalizing for their eras, so if someone was a great athlete in 1950, we'd give them the same level of greatness for modern day.

If we're not normalizing for era, then older football and baseball teams have no chance at all. Babe Ruth probably couldn't even see a 100+ mph fastball, much less hit it over the fence. Basketball you still have an athleticism gap, but some of the great older teams could bridge that gap with their great shooting. I think the 80s Celtics teams could cause problems for modern teams.

Of course this reminds me of one of my favorite Sports Night quotes, when Casey said the "27 Yankees would be confounded by the jet airplanes flying overhead".

[Apathetic Lurker]

Begs the question under which rules would the teams being playing under.

Hopefully the ones that let Conrad Dobler wear a club on his arm....

[OldGiants]

The George Mikan Minneapolis Lakers would prevail under their set of conditions because 90% of the players now on NBA rosters would not even be allowed into the arenas.

Assuming that the best players of older eras would not avail themselves of modern training methods if allowed is, perhaps, the classic mistake of those comparing eras. Forcing modern players to travel cross-country on trains without their electronics and 'supplements' would make for interesting conditions, too.

No one knows how fast Walter Johnson threw in pre-radar days, but today's players did not have to hit legal spit balls, emery balls or other banned pitches.

Equipment is a huge difference in all sports. Gloves, bats, clubs, shoulder pads, helmets--all greatly improved over the year. Let's see Harrison try to take down a QB while leading with his head when his noggin is bare or only covered with one of those leather jobs. Watch NFL films of Hardy Brown, the old 49er middle linebacker, if you want to see how to really tackle and take a player our of a game with a legal hit.

Things have changed far too much in every sport and, more importantly, society at large, to make for meaningful comparisons between eras.

All we can really be certain of is that a team won the games they needed to in a given year, and that's about it. We can only compare the degree by which a team exceeded its competition in the end.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

People automatically assume that baseball players are timeless but is that really true?

I don't have the exact numbers but I do know that baseball fields down the lines were a lot smaller. One quick search shows Ebbets Field was 297 down the line(I do realize center field was bigger) Also, ground rule doubles were originally ruled as Home Runs (until 1930 or so). So I guess I am questioning how the all time greats would do in modern ballparks

For old time pitchers, they faced a variety of guys. There were some legitimately small guys in the majors back in the day who were only playing because of their defense. Now the smallest guy who starts for the White Sox is Alejandro De Aza who is 6 feet 190 pounds. I don't know if an old time pitcher could pitch as effectively in the modern game because of this fact.

So could the 1927 Yankees beat last year's world series champ? I am not so sure. I am not even sure they can even beat this year's Pirates.

[Matthean]

People automatically assume that baseball players are timeless but is that really true?

I don't have the exact numbers but I do know that baseball fields down the lines were a lot smaller. One quick search shows Ebbets Field was 297 down the line(I do realize center field was bigger) Also, ground rule doubles were originally ruled as Home Runs (until 1930 or so). So I guess I am questioning how the all time greats would do in modern ballparks

For old time pitchers, they faced a variety of guys. There were some legitimately small guys in the majors back in the day who were only playing because of their defense. Now the smallest guy who starts for the White Sox is Alejandro De Aza who is 6 feet 190 pounds. I don't know if an old time pitcher could pitch as effectively in the modern game because of this fact.

So could the 1927 Yankees beat last year's world series champ? I am not so sure. I am not even sure they can even beat this year's Pirates.

Pitchers back then threw complete games far more often than today's pitchers. If you you asked a pitcher from today to do what an old school pitcher did, they literally couldn't do it. I think old school pitchers would be fine being babied like modern aged pitchers are.

[DougW]

When people have always asked these questions, I've assumed the approach would be normalizing for their eras, so if someone was a great athlete in 1950, we'd give them the same level of greatness for modern day.
This is probably the 'right' way to do it.

People automatically assume that baseball players are timeless but is that really true?

I don't have the exact numbers but I do know that baseball fields down the lines were a lot smaller. One quick search shows Ebbets Field was 297 down the line(I do realize center field was bigger) Also, ground rule doubles were originally ruled as Home Runs (until 1930 or so). So I guess I am questioning how the all time greats would do in modern ballparks

For old time pitchers, they faced a variety of guys. There were some legitimately small guys in the majors back in the day who were only playing because of their defense. Now the smallest guy who starts for the White Sox is Alejandro De Aza who is 6 feet 190 pounds. I don't know if an old time pitcher could pitch as effectively in the modern game because of this fact.

So could the 1927 Yankees beat last year's world series champ? I am not so sure. I am not even sure they can even beat this year's Pirates.

These are the thoughts that creep on me when the 'comparing teams' convos pop up.

[jbergey22]

I think Id agree that the '27 Yankees would be a below average MLB team these days.

The weight lifting is advanced, the fundamentals whether we realize it or not are much better, and the athletic ability is just greater.

I do think older teams had a tougher mentality and cared more about winning but I think in the end the talent would be just too much to overcome.

I am not talking about tougher in the aspect that older players played though concussions and other unhealthy things. I just think they cared so much that winning was the most important thing. Today athletes have endorsements, money, and models that they have to look forward to if they arent winning games. You still see in todays athlete(Kobe) but you also see a lot of the I dont care athletes like Lamar Odom. I would question whether or not Odom could have played in the 70s with his seemingly fragile personality.

I think the '12 Giants would probably beat the '78 Steelers easily. The '12 Giants wide receivers would be too much for the Pittsburgh secondary. Also, the steel curtain wouldnt have much effect if the Giants decided to completely abandon the run which often times happens in todays NFL.

The NBA topic is very interesting and that seems like the most tricky to figure out. It kind of seems like the NBA product has gotten worse but when you look back at some of them great teams from the 80s the players were so skinny and not nearly as athletic. You kind of have to wonder if the reason it seems the product has gotten worse is because of the athletic talent and strength on defense has made it so difficult on the offense right now. It would be hard for me to believe the defensive stopper of the day skinny long armed Michael Cooper for Lakers would have any chance of slowing down Lebron James.