Regarding baseball, I wonder whether the analytics change over time and with adjustments to playing conditions. In the post war period, there was very little emphasis on stolen bases although sacrifices were more prevalent. I can remember that in the 1950's Aparicio led the AL with stolen base totals in the mid 30's and the NL was much the same. 1959 was something of a turning point but the heyday of the stolen base came in the 60's with higher mounds and dominant pitching. Wills, Brock, Henderson, Coleman etc. followed. Overtime, mounds were lowered, the ball and players were juiced and the game changed. The dominance of relief pitching increased. It has been reported that the ball will be deadened this year. Query whether that will make a difference.
Basketball is a more difficult issue. Since the advent of the jump shot as the dominant method sometime in the early to mid 60's, the principal issue has been the inherent imbalance in the design of the game. A 10 foot basket places a significant advantage on height. Much of the emphasis on rules changes has been to reduce that advantage dating back to the ban on dunking when Jabbar/Alcindor was dominating with an undersized supporting cast. The introduction of the 3 point line was another effort in that direction. I can confirm that the change in officiating to make the game less physical is also a contributing factor. I spend a fair amount of time with a former Chicago Bull from the Jordan era. He believes that Jordan would have been even more effective today because under the current rules there would have been no way to stop him and he was a marvelous free throw shooter. Going back further, I can remember some of the things people did to Chamberlain in the post and Robertson out on the floor and players would have fouled out in perhaps a quarter with current officiating. It is certainly a different game. Which is better is a matter of taste.
David and I, a couple of old tennis players (David was better without a doubt) have commented on equipment changing tennis. Quite simply, rackets used in our era would not permit the use of western grips which are now prevalent. Now the ability to get tremendous pace and topspin on low balls effectively eliminates serve and volley (maybe not a bad thing) but also severely limits the all court game exemplified by Kramer and reduces the game to powerful shots from the baseline.
Baseball has done the best job of holding the line on equipment. If wooden bats went the way of persimmon drivers, pitchers would view the fate of Herb Score as fortunate and fences would have to be extended exponentially. Periodic minor adjustments to the ball and increases/decreases in homers show how sensitive the balance can be.
Golf may be the most sensitive because of the importance of the playing fields. At least at the highest levels, the traditional venues no longer offer challenges that resemble those faced by Hogan, Nicklaus etc. More importantly, the variety of required shots has been reduced fundamentally, altering the nature of the game at the highest level. The question is, and we may be asking it too late, when was the game mature so that the challenge struck the proper balance? It is particularly important in our game not only because we love the older courses but because the cost of buying and maintaining land for golf makes reinstating the challenge by adding sufficient length too expensive. Additionally the additional length will be wasted on the vast majority of players. Hence the push in some quarters for bifurcation.