Heh...yeah, the John Stockton 51.5% amazed me. I thought he was around 45%, like Isiah Thomas. Isiah did have some seasons close to 50%, I believe. Not sure. But his career is 45%.
Baseball is a perfect example of how changing one simple rule can affect statistics. Dropping the mound from 15 to 10 inches was enough to change hitting for the last 30 years. Baseball went from its greatest pitching era into a good hitting era almost overnight. Just 5 inches, that's all it took. How big an impact has the 3-pt line, better training & scouting, new defensive schemes, 24 second clock, and various other rule changes had on play? Its impossible to compare today to 20 years ago. If you look at baseball even 5 years ago you'll see the greatest era of hitting that ever existed. Sammy was cranking out 60+ a season and now he's down to 40 a year. Has he digressed that much or maybe the game has altered in play (better pitchers) and in the rules (different strike zone)? Why is Babe so great? He doesn't have significantly better stats than Bonds yet anyone would tell you the Babe was better. Why? Unlike Bonds he played in a great pitchers era where he bombed out more than an entire team. How you are doing compared to everyone else at the time is significantly more important than how you're doing compared to all era's combined. It all flucuates, basketball is in a defensive era right now for whatever reason (rules, better defensive players, whatever) but there will be offensive ones again. And curves aren't just used in school, it would be ignorant to think so. When variables change and you're attempting to compare one population to another its just about the only viable method.
