Like many of you, I've been watching the Olympics, particularly swimming, and wondered about the frequency with which World Records are being broken. I've read about this new swimsuit from Speedo called the LZR Racer, which has allowed it's wearers to break 44 world records since it's launch in February.
Now I'm all for progress and innovation, but I do wonder if "World Records" should be established based on some kind of standards or set of conditions common to athletes over time. If I set some kind of biking record on my regular pedal-bike and someone comes along and breaks my record using a ten-speed, are we really comparing apples to apples?
This argument carries into other sports as well. Users of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball will obviously be looked at in a different light, but could Babe Ruth have hit as many homers against today's pitchers? Or would better training and batting equipment have made him even more formidable?
Most NBA fans know that Oscar Robertson averaged a triple-double for an entire season, but did you also know that the pace at which the game was played in that era was much faster than today? And that Magic Johnson had a season that was just as statistically impressive, when adjusted for pace of play?
What are your thoughts on the world records and the Then vs Now debate?
By the way, if you're interested in statistical analysis as it relates to the NBA, but in a not-too-technical kind of way, I highly recommend John Hollinger from ESPN.com. I think most of his stuff requires an ESPN Insider membership (best $6.95/mo I spend), but once in a while you'll see a free preview article as well.
