Buddy Hield is the same age as Kyrie Irving (26)

[LarBrd33]

LB has much more of an audience over on reddit - albeit not as 'attentive' as this one. Either way, glad to see you around here every now and then, Ol' Sport. I just can't get myself to totally join in the Reddit fun - hate the organizational structure.

Reddit is interesting.  In a 2 day span I've been insultingly referred to as "the Steven A Smith of the Celtics subreddit", someone maliciously called me "Budget Bill Simmons", the great Kevin O'Connor referred to one of my posts as "brilliant" and the legendary @HebertofRiffs tweeted out that I was a genius... I'd say it's been a productive week.  Lol.

I think you can have more in-depth conversations with this format, but too often involvement in those conversations would result in the threads being derailed by people calling for me to be banned.  That's less possible in a system where comments get upvoted or downvoted.  People either like the stuff I have to say and engage, or silence my idiotic posts with downvotes.  It works out nicely. 

[nickagneta]

So what you are saying in the thread name is there's still a chance Kyrie Irving gets even better because he is so young, right?

[LarBrd33]

So what you are saying in the thread name is there's still a chance Kyrie Irving gets even better because he is so young, right?

Sure.  If you consider 2017 Rookie of the Year Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield "rising prospects", you might as well consider Kyrie as well since they are all 26 years old.

[Moranis]

So what you are saying in the thread name is there's still a chance Kyrie Irving gets even better because he is so young, right?

Sure.  If you consider 2017 Rookie of the Year Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield "rising prospects", you might as well consider Kyrie as well since they are all 26 years old.

I've been arguing the last couple of weeks that years of service is far more critical then a player's actual age, both in development and for when you can expect to see them start to fade (at the tail end).  Generally players are who they are going to be somewhere towards the end of their 3rd year or their 4th year.  You almost never see a player take an insane jump in ability after that point.  That doesn't mean players won't still get better, they will, but they just don't take the huge jumps.  Occasionally you get a player like Giannis that is just so raw, that he keeps improving rapidly a bit longer than normal, or someone like Jermaine O'Neal that just didn't get any playing time his first 4 seasons, but those guys are the exceptions not the rules. 

[celticsclay]

So what you are saying in the thread name is there's still a chance Kyrie Irving gets even better because he is so young, right?

Sure.  If you consider 2017 Rookie of the Year Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield "rising prospects", you might as well consider Kyrie as well since they are all 26 years old.

I've been arguing the last couple of weeks that years of service is far more critical then a player's actual age, both in development and for when you can expect to see them start to fade (at the tail end).  Generally players are who they are going to be somewhere towards the end of their 3rd year or their 4th year.  You almost never see a player take an insane jump in ability after that point.  That doesn't mean players won't still get better, they will, but they just don't take the huge jumps.  Occasionally you get a player like Giannis that is just so raw, that he keeps improving rapidly a bit longer than normal, or someone like Jermaine O'Neal that just didn't get any playing time his first 4 seasons, but those guys are the exceptions not the rules.

we were hoping you had some data to support this and the thread just died out...

[Moranis]

So what you are saying in the thread name is there's still a chance Kyrie Irving gets even better because he is so young, right?

Sure.  If you consider 2017 Rookie of the Year Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield "rising prospects", you might as well consider Kyrie as well since they are all 26 years old.

I've been arguing the last couple of weeks that years of service is far more critical then a player's actual age, both in development and for when you can expect to see them start to fade (at the tail end).  Generally players are who they are going to be somewhere towards the end of their 3rd year or their 4th year.  You almost never see a player take an insane jump in ability after that point.  That doesn't mean players won't still get better, they will, but they just don't take the huge jumps.  Occasionally you get a player like Giannis that is just so raw, that he keeps improving rapidly a bit longer than normal, or someone like Jermaine O'Neal that just didn't get any playing time his first 4 seasons, but those guys are the exceptions not the rules.

we were hoping you had some data to support this and the thread just died out...

I didn't compile it, but you can look throughout league history and see this.  As players started entering the league younger, they started to get worse at a younger age, but their service years aligns with those of past players.  Obviously injuries alter any such analysis. 

[celticsclay]

So what you are saying in the thread name is there's still a chance Kyrie Irving gets even better because he is so young, right?

Sure.  If you consider 2017 Rookie of the Year Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield "rising prospects", you might as well consider Kyrie as well since they are all 26 years old.

I've been arguing the last couple of weeks that years of service is far more critical then a player's actual age, both in development and for when you can expect to see them start to fade (at the tail end).  Generally players are who they are going to be somewhere towards the end of their 3rd year or their 4th year.  You almost never see a player take an insane jump in ability after that point.  That doesn't mean players won't still get better, they will, but they just don't take the huge jumps.  Occasionally you get a player like Giannis that is just so raw, that he keeps improving rapidly a bit longer than normal, or someone like Jermaine O'Neal that just didn't get any playing time his first 4 seasons, but those guys are the exceptions not the rules.

we were hoping you had some data to support this and the thread just died out...

I didn't compile it, but you can look throughout league history and see this.  As players started entering the league younger, they started to get worse at a younger age, but their service years aligns with those of past players.  Obviously injuries alter any such analysis.

"Look throughout league history" is extremely vague and not particularly useful (not to mention lazy). You are also referencing an extremely confounding factor of injuries because injuries are correlated with age. Also, I would like to hear your explanation for how the 2870 regular minutes a player plays in an NBA year (can go as high as maybe 3600 with a long playoff run) outweighs the rest of the 525,000 minutes in a year that includes sleeping, nutrition, running, weight lifting, practice, scrimmages, international play, leisure time, training camp. You are making a very provocative point here to say those 3500 minutes are more important than the rest of the year combined. In order to make it have any substance there would need to be some very extensive data. On the flip side of this, there has been lots of data put together by 538 correlating age with production across multiple sports (there was recently a very lengthy one tied to Cano's age on the ringer compared to other players in that age range historically and contracts awarded. If you want to turn the entire analytics departments of the major sports on this head with your theory, you could theoretically make millions of dollars doing so.

To be clear, I am not saying minutes played is irrelevant. It certainly matters, but your idea that age/years played is MORE important than age holds zero water against any analysis i have ever seen done.

[Big333223]

This is pretty weird. Is everyone at Oklahoma sure he was eligible to be playing? I don't really know how those rules work but if everyone had his age right there, how did no one in the NBA notice that Hield was getting younger?

[Eddie20]

So what you are saying in the thread name is there's still a chance Kyrie Irving gets even better because he is so young, right?

Sure.  If you consider 2017 Rookie of the Year Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield "rising prospects", you might as well consider Kyrie as well since they are all 26 years old.

I've been arguing the last couple of weeks that years of service is far more critical then a player's actual age, both in development and for when you can expect to see them start to fade (at the tail end).  Generally players are who they are going to be somewhere towards the end of their 3rd year or their 4th year.  You almost never see a player take an insane jump in ability after that point.  That doesn't mean players won't still get better, they will, but they just don't take the huge jumps.  Occasionally you get a player like Giannis that is just so raw, that he keeps improving rapidly a bit longer than normal, or someone like Jermaine O'Neal that just didn't get any playing time his first 4 seasons, but those guys are the exceptions not the rules.

we were hoping you had some data to support this and the thread just died out...

I didn't compile it, but you can look throughout league history and see this.  As players started entering the league younger, they started to get worse at a younger age, but their service years aligns with those of past players.  Obviously injuries alter any such analysis.

"Look throughout league history" is extremely vague and not particularly useful (not to mention lazy). You are also referencing an extremely confounding factor of injuries because injuries are correlated with age. Also, I would like to hear your explanation for how the 2870 regular minutes a player plays in an NBA year (can go as high as maybe 3600 with a long playoff run) outweighs the rest of the 525,000 minutes in a year that includes sleeping, nutrition, running, weight lifting, practice, scrimmages, international play, leisure time, training camp. You are making a very provocative point here to say those 3500 minutes are more important than the rest of the year combined. In order to make it have any substance there would need to be some very extensive data. On the flip side of this, there has been lots of data put together by 538 correlating age with production across multiple sports (there was recently a very lengthy one tied to Cano's age on the ringer compared to other players in that age range historically and contracts awarded. If you want to turn the entire analytics departments of the major sports on this head with your theory, you could theoretically make millions of dollars doing so.

To be clear, I am not saying minutes played is irrelevant. It certainly matters, but your idea that age/years played is MORE important than age holds zero water against any analysis i have ever seen done.

Standing 8 count for Moranis

[jambr380]

LB has much more of an audience over on reddit - albeit not as 'attentive' as this one. Either way, glad to see you around here every now and then, Ol' Sport. I just can't get myself to totally join in the Reddit fun - hate the organizational structure.

Reddit is interesting.  In a 2 day span I've been insultingly referred to as "the Steven A Smith of the Celtics subreddit", someone maliciously called me "Budget Bill Simmons", the great Kevin O'Connor referred to one of my posts as "brilliant" and the legendary @HebertofRiffs tweeted out that I was a genius... I'd say it's been a productive week.  Lol.

I think you can have more in-depth conversations with this format, but too often involvement in those conversations would result in the threads being derailed by people calling for me to be banned.  That's less possible in a system where comments get upvoted or downvoted.  People either like the stuff I have to say and engage, or silence my idiotic posts with downvotes.  It works out nicely.

I can see why all of those individuals referred to you and your posts in the way they did. You can be very entertaining and certainly aren't afraid to put yourself out there. I even enjoy the passive aggressive contrarian posts since you often back them with data/explanation  Glad to see Reddit is helping with your platform - some of your youtube vids were also great. People around here love you, btw - yes, even Eddie - they're just afraid to admit their true feelings 

[celticsclay]

LB has much more of an audience over on reddit - albeit not as 'attentive' as this one. Either way, glad to see you around here every now and then, Ol' Sport. I just can't get myself to totally join in the Reddit fun - hate the organizational structure.

Reddit is interesting.  In a 2 day span I've been insultingly referred to as "the Steven A Smith of the Celtics subreddit", someone maliciously called me "Budget Bill Simmons", the great Kevin O'Connor referred to one of my posts as "brilliant" and the legendary @HebertofRiffs tweeted out that I was a genius... I'd say it's been a productive week.  Lol.

I think you can have more in-depth conversations with this format, but too often involvement in those conversations would result in the threads being derailed by people calling for me to be banned.  That's less possible in a system where comments get upvoted or downvoted.  People either like the stuff I have to say and engage, or silence my idiotic posts with downvotes.  It works out nicely.

I can see why all of those individuals referred to you and your posts in the way they did. You can be very entertaining and certainly aren't afraid to put yourself out there. I even enjoy the passive aggressive contrarian posts since you often back them with data/explanation  Glad to see Reddit is helping with your platform - some of your youtube vids were also great. People around here love you, btw - yes, even Eddie - their just afraid to admit their true feelings 

I invited ned over for christmas last year, but he never showed up and all our cheese was gone the next day.

[Moranis]

So what you are saying in the thread name is there's still a chance Kyrie Irving gets even better because he is so young, right?

Sure.  If you consider 2017 Rookie of the Year Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield "rising prospects", you might as well consider Kyrie as well since they are all 26 years old.

I've been arguing the last couple of weeks that years of service is far more critical then a player's actual age, both in development and for when you can expect to see them start to fade (at the tail end).  Generally players are who they are going to be somewhere towards the end of their 3rd year or their 4th year.  You almost never see a player take an insane jump in ability after that point.  That doesn't mean players won't still get better, they will, but they just don't take the huge jumps.  Occasionally you get a player like Giannis that is just so raw, that he keeps improving rapidly a bit longer than normal, or someone like Jermaine O'Neal that just didn't get any playing time his first 4 seasons, but those guys are the exceptions not the rules.

we were hoping you had some data to support this and the thread just died out...

I didn't compile it, but you can look throughout league history and see this.  As players started entering the league younger, they started to get worse at a younger age, but their service years aligns with those of past players.  Obviously injuries alter any such analysis.

"Look throughout league history" is extremely vague and not particularly useful (not to mention lazy). You are also referencing an extremely confounding factor of injuries because injuries are correlated with age. Also, I would like to hear your explanation for how the 2870 regular minutes a player plays in an NBA year (can go as high as maybe 3600 with a long playoff run) outweighs the rest of the 525,000 minutes in a year that includes sleeping, nutrition, running, weight lifting, practice, scrimmages, international play, leisure time, training camp. You are making a very provocative point here to say those 3500 minutes are more important than the rest of the year combined. In order to make it have any substance there would need to be some very extensive data. On the flip side of this, there has been lots of data put together by 538 correlating age with production across multiple sports (there was recently a very lengthy one tied to Cano's age on the ringer compared to other players in that age range historically and contracts awarded. If you want to turn the entire analytics departments of the major sports on this head with your theory, you could theoretically make millions of dollars doing so.

To be clear, I am not saying minutes played is irrelevant. It certainly matters, but your idea that age/years played is MORE important than age holds zero water against any analysis i have ever seen done.

um I never said the rest of the minutes in the year don't matter.  In fact that is just nonsense as of course they do, it is the accumulation of entire seasons that wears on a player.  That includes travel, practice, games, and everything in between.  Age is far less important then seasons.

[Big333223]

So what you are saying in the thread name is there's still a chance Kyrie Irving gets even better because he is so young, right?

Sure.  If you consider 2017 Rookie of the Year Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield "rising prospects", you might as well consider Kyrie as well since they are all 26 years old.

I've been arguing the last couple of weeks that years of service is far more critical then a player's actual age, both in development and for when you can expect to see them start to fade (at the tail end).  Generally players are who they are going to be somewhere towards the end of their 3rd year or their 4th year.  You almost never see a player take an insane jump in ability after that point.  That doesn't mean players won't still get better, they will, but they just don't take the huge jumps.  Occasionally you get a player like Giannis that is just so raw, that he keeps improving rapidly a bit longer than normal, or someone like Jermaine O'Neal that just didn't get any playing time his first 4 seasons, but those guys are the exceptions not the rules.

we were hoping you had some data to support this and the thread just died out...

I didn't compile it, but you can look throughout league history and see this.  As players started entering the league younger, they started to get worse at a younger age, but their service years aligns with those of past players.  Obviously injuries alter any such analysis.

"Look throughout league history" is extremely vague and not particularly useful (not to mention lazy). You are also referencing an extremely confounding factor of injuries because injuries are correlated with age. Also, I would like to hear your explanation for how the 2870 regular minutes a player plays in an NBA year (can go as high as maybe 3600 with a long playoff run) outweighs the rest of the 525,000 minutes in a year that includes sleeping, nutrition, running, weight lifting, practice, scrimmages, international play, leisure time, training camp. You are making a very provocative point here to say those 3500 minutes are more important than the rest of the year combined. In order to make it have any substance there would need to be some very extensive data. On the flip side of this, there has been lots of data put together by 538 correlating age with production across multiple sports (there was recently a very lengthy one tied to Cano's age on the ringer compared to other players in that age range historically and contracts awarded. If you want to turn the entire analytics departments of the major sports on this head with your theory, you could theoretically make millions of dollars doing so.

To be clear, I am not saying minutes played is irrelevant. It certainly matters, but your idea that age/years played is MORE important than age holds zero water against any analysis i have ever seen done.

um I never said the rest of the minutes in the year don't matter.  In fact that is just nonsense as of course they do, it is the accumulation of entire seasons that wears on a player.  That includes travel, practice, games, and everything in between.  Age is far less important then seasons.

This is such a weird thing to say. A 50 year old athlete who has never played professional basketball is going to have a much harder time than a 30 year old who has been in the league ten years.

[byennie]

um I never said the rest of the minutes in the year don't matter.  In fact that is just nonsense as of course they do, it is the accumulation of entire seasons that wears on a player.  That includes travel, practice, games, and everything in between.  Age is far less important then seasons.

Too much black & white thinking here, IMO.

Age has a huge direct impact on performance, This has declined somewhat over time, due to more advanced fitness, nutrition, training, etc. But still, all of modern technology maybe extends careers by a few years. Almost zero players excel athletically in the NBA past age 35 then and now.

On the other hand, wear & tear is important. This is both cumulative, i.e. my knees are bone-on-bone after 30,000 minutes played, and random -- if you play 1,000 games you have many opportunities for random injuries.

It's impossible to totally separate the two, but the way I see it:

1) The effect of age is very well understood and only slightly changed over the past 50+ years. 40 was old then, and it's still old now. The vast majority of players see a steady decline after age ~30ish, and those that don't decline often are making up for it in other ways (i.e. their body is in decline, but their overall game is not).

2) Minutes played is somewhat a factor, if for no other reason that the random chance of injury. A player who joins the league at 18 vs 22 might have another 250 NBA games in which to get hurt by age 30. They may add to a degenerative condition by a year or two down the road. It's hard to quantify exactly, because it's more of a compounding factor on top of the inevitable aging.

TL;DR; aging is a given, and playing more in your 18-22 years may very well compound it later, but it's very hard to separate the two. How many guys enter the league at 18? Are they already more physically gifted than players that join at 22? Are they more or less injury prone? There's just not a ton of data. You can count teenage NBAers with long careers on one hand, almost.

[Moranis]

So what you are saying in the thread name is there's still a chance Kyrie Irving gets even better because he is so young, right?

Sure.  If you consider 2017 Rookie of the Year Malcolm Brogdon and Buddy Hield "rising prospects", you might as well consider Kyrie as well since they are all 26 years old.

I've been arguing the last couple of weeks that years of service is far more critical then a player's actual age, both in development and for when you can expect to see them start to fade (at the tail end).  Generally players are who they are going to be somewhere towards the end of their 3rd year or their 4th year.  You almost never see a player take an insane jump in ability after that point.  That doesn't mean players won't still get better, they will, but they just don't take the huge jumps.  Occasionally you get a player like Giannis that is just so raw, that he keeps improving rapidly a bit longer than normal, or someone like Jermaine O'Neal that just didn't get any playing time his first 4 seasons, but those guys are the exceptions not the rules.

we were hoping you had some data to support this and the thread just died out...

I didn't compile it, but you can look throughout league history and see this.  As players started entering the league younger, they started to get worse at a younger age, but their service years aligns with those of past players.  Obviously injuries alter any such analysis.

"Look throughout league history" is extremely vague and not particularly useful (not to mention lazy). You are also referencing an extremely confounding factor of injuries because injuries are correlated with age. Also, I would like to hear your explanation for how the 2870 regular minutes a player plays in an NBA year (can go as high as maybe 3600 with a long playoff run) outweighs the rest of the 525,000 minutes in a year that includes sleeping, nutrition, running, weight lifting, practice, scrimmages, international play, leisure time, training camp. You are making a very provocative point here to say those 3500 minutes are more important than the rest of the year combined. In order to make it have any substance there would need to be some very extensive data. On the flip side of this, there has been lots of data put together by 538 correlating age with production across multiple sports (there was recently a very lengthy one tied to Cano's age on the ringer compared to other players in that age range historically and contracts awarded. If you want to turn the entire analytics departments of the major sports on this head with your theory, you could theoretically make millions of dollars doing so.

To be clear, I am not saying minutes played is irrelevant. It certainly matters, but your idea that age/years played is MORE important than age holds zero water against any analysis i have ever seen done.

um I never said the rest of the minutes in the year don't matter.  In fact that is just nonsense as of course they do, it is the accumulation of entire seasons that wears on a player.  That includes travel, practice, games, and everything in between.  Age is far less important then seasons.

This is such a weird thing to say. A 50 year old athlete who has never played professional basketball is going to have a much harder time than a 30 year old who has been in the league ten years.

Sure if you take things out of context then you reach these conclusions, but that is pretty strange to separate that from the context of discussion.