I am a big Nate Silver fan and recognize he didn't write this article, but it seems to me the author doesn't understand swimming and how the sport has changed, particularly with respect to age.
For example...
538 states, "since 1968, only 17 athletes 31 and older have participated in any of the individual events Phelps would probably attempt (100- and 200-meter butterfly; 200-meter freestyle; and 200- and 400-meter individual medley)"
First off, going back to 1968 is way too far a look back period. In my mind, even going back to 1988 (when I was still in college) is too far a look back period. There were very, very few people who could/would swim beyond their collegiate careers as there was both little to no financial support and the 'culture' just didn't promote it. I think if you looked at the average age of male medalists from 2000 to 2012, you'd see a steady trend upwards.
There’s one other factor working against Phelps: The rest of the field is getting faster. The average time for a finalist and a gold medalist has steadily decreased in each of Phelps’s best events since 1968:
Secondly, it is very interesting to look at his trend lines of winning and average times since 1968 and, in particular what happened from 2008 to 2012. Yes, the times dropped considerably until 2008, but in Michael's marquee events graphed, the times got slower or remained stagnant from 2008 to 2012. That is, the world didn't really grab the bull by the horns when Michael was less than fully in the game at London; they got slower or remained the same.
I'm not saying Michael has it easy or that he'll top the stands. I do agree with the author's conjecture (not supported by data) that ,"Phelps might be a shadow of his former self, but even a diminished version of history’s best swimmer could be a force to be reckoned with." I just don't think his analysis is done well.
I am a big Nate Silver fan and recognize he didn't write this article, but it seems to me the author doesn't understand swimming and how the sport has changed, particularly with respect to age.
For example...
538 states, "since 1968, only 17 athletes 31 and older have participated in any of the individual events Phelps would probably attempt (100- and 200-meter butterfly; 200-meter freestyle; and 200- and 400-meter individual medley)"
First off, going back to 1968 is way too far a look back period. In my mind, even going back to 1988 (when I was still in college) is too far a look back period. There were very, very few people who could/would swim beyond their collegiate careers as there was both little to no financial support and the 'culture' just didn't promote it. I think if you looked at the average age of male medalists from 2000 to 2012, you'd see a steady trend upwards.
There’s one other factor working against Phelps: The rest of the field is getting faster. The average time for a finalist and a gold medalist has steadily decreased in each of Phelps’s best events since 1968:
Secondly, it is very interesting to look at his trend lines of winning and average times since 1968 and, in particular what happened from 2008 to 2012. Yes, the times dropped considerably until 2008, but in Michael's marquee events graphed, the times got slower or remained stagnant from 2008 to 2012. That is, the world didn't really grab the bull by the horns when Michael was less than fully in the game at London; they got slower or remained the same.
I'm not saying Michael has it easy or that he'll top the stands. I do agree with the author's conjecture (not supported by data) that ,"Phelps might be a shadow of his former self, but even a diminished version of history’s best swimmer could be a force to be reckoned with." I just don't think his analysis is done well.
