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

[Moranis]

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.

Again, context matter.  Of course age matters, it is just that cumulative seasons matter more for when a player starts to really decline.  It also works on the front end of a career as most players are who are they are basically going to be 4 seasons in whether they enter the league at 19 or 23. 

That is why Hield you can expect to get better while Irving you wouldn't expect much growth in, despite them both being the same age.  It is also why you would expect Irving to start his decline before Hield even though again they are the same age.

[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.

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.

So if it contradicts what you said (of which you have given not evidence beyond saying "look at history") then it doesn't count?

[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.

Again, context matter.  Of course age matters, it is just that cumulative seasons matter more for when a player starts to really decline.  It also works on the front end of a career as most players are who are they are basically going to be 4 seasons in whether they enter the league at 19 or 23. 

That is why Hield you can expect to get better while Irving you wouldn't expect much growth in, despite them both being the same age.  It is also why you would expect Irving to start his decline before Hield even though again they are the same age.

Player development and age-based decline are two very separate issues, no?

I think the objection here is that your argument is intuitive -- wear and tear do matter -- but I'm not sure what your evidence is, except for personal observation. Guys like Kobe, LeBron, Garnett all played deep into their 30s despite entering the league at 18. Your argument makes sense, I'm just not sure what makes you so confident that there is statistically significant data out there to back it up.

[Moranis]

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.

Again, context matter.  Of course age matters, it is just that cumulative seasons matter more for when a player starts to really decline.  It also works on the front end of a career as most players are who are they are basically going to be 4 seasons in whether they enter the league at 19 or 23. 

That is why Hield you can expect to get better while Irving you wouldn't expect much growth in, despite them both being the same age.  It is also why you would expect Irving to start his decline before Hield even though again they are the same age.

Player development and age-based decline are two very separate issues, no?

I think the objection here is that your argument is intuitive -- wear and tear do matter -- but I'm not sure what your evidence is, except for personal observation. Guys like Kobe, LeBron, Garnett all played deep into their 30s despite entering the league at 18. Your argument makes sense, I'm just not sure what makes you so confident that there is statistically significant data out there to back it up.

It is obviously intuitive, but over the last 15 years or so, players have been hitting their absolute peaks before 30, they've been entering their prime earlier and earlier, but if you look at players prime years, they almost all start with the same amount of seasons into their career and those peaks still remain the same amount of years i.e. 6-10 years is when most players are at their best with around similar production in 11 and 12 before a decline starts.  It doesn't really matter if they start at 18 or 23 either.  There are obviously exceptions in players that hit their peak years earlier (Jordan for example started his peak in year 3) or that seemingly defy the aging process (Lebron who really hasn't shown much decline 16 years in), but they tend to be the exceptions.   That is why someone like Buddy Hield is still getting exponentially better while Irving has been about the same for the last 3 years (his 6th, 7th, and 8th year in the league) despite them basically being the same age.

[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.

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.

One of my great joys on this forum is when you choose a completely wrong viewpoint and then just dig in on it and die. If you could prove this to an nba front office you would literally be the most important analytics mind in the game.

[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.

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.

So if it contradicts what you said (of which you have given not evidence beyond saying "look at history") then it doesn't count?

This is one of the more insane arguments I have seen carried out on the board with zero evidence provided. In another thread he pointed out that jimmy butler and kyrie Irving has played identical career minutes despite then being 3 years different in age. If there were no limits on contract length I would bet my entire net worth Irving would be offered a longer contract than butler. Yet, Moranis is smarter than every analytics department in the league and is the only person in the world that knows they are the same cause of minutes. Jesus Christ

[celticsclay]

Hey Harvard you dummies you are looking at the wrong thing http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2017/11/what-happens-to-nba-players-when-they-age/

[byennie]

It is obviously intuitive, but over the last 15 years or so, players have been hitting their absolute peaks before 30, they've been entering their prime earlier and earlier, but if you look at players prime years, they almost all start with the same amount of seasons into their career and those peaks still remain the same amount of years i.e. 6-10 years is when most players are at their best with around similar production in 11 and 12 before a decline starts.  It doesn't really matter if they start at 18 or 23 either.  There are obviously exceptions in players that hit their peak years earlier (Jordan for example started his peak in year 3) or that seemingly defy the aging process (Lebron who really hasn't shown much decline 16 years in), but they tend to be the exceptions.   That is why someone like Buddy Hield is still getting exponentially better while Irving has been about the same for the last 3 years (his 6th, 7th, and 8th year in the league) despite them basically being the same age.

In the expansion era of one-and-done and high school players, of course some will peak at earlier ages. I think you are conflating several completely different things in order to support your thesis (which I believe is that minutes played are more important than age). As others have pointed out, actual studies have concluded the opposite.

Yes, Buddy Hield is going to grow more at age 26 when it's only his 3rd NBA season vs someone in their 8th season who reached All-Star level a long time ago. Experience and opportunity matter, and so does how much room you have left to improve. An All-Star like Irving can't make a similar leap or he'd be putting up 40ppg right now. This doesn't really support your theory. By age 30 they are statistically like to have the same level of health and decline, and both will have peaked as players. What isn't true is that you'd be better of investing in Hield at that point, to any known statistical degree.

As for peaking around season 6-12... the number of players who get drafted before age 20 into the NBA and then play 12+ seasons is so incredibly small, that you really need to at least cite a substantial list of examples. Years 6-12 is an incredibly wide net for NBA players.

As for LeBron, look at it from the other side: if it was more about minutes than calendar age, then you'd expect the LeBron, Garnett, Kobe group to have outstanding careers up to around age 30-32 and then flash out early. But they haven't -- they "get old" around 35, like other top players who entered the league at age 21-22.

[gouki88]

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.

One of my great joys on this forum is when you choose a completely wrong viewpoint and then just dig in on it and die. If you could prove this to an nba front office you would literally be the most important analytics mind in the game.

Rofl, has me cackling. TP.

What a strange argument to make

[Moranis]

Hey Harvard you dummies you are looking at the wrong thing http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2017/11/what-happens-to-nba-players-when-they-age/

That doesn't disprove a cumulative season analysis as it doesn't talk about it all.  And most players are in season 12 around 31 or 32 so the reality is the age and season analysis is often going to overlap. 

[Moranis]

It is obviously intuitive, but over the last 15 years or so, players have been hitting their absolute peaks before 30, they've been entering their prime earlier and earlier, but if you look at players prime years, they almost all start with the same amount of seasons into their career and those peaks still remain the same amount of years i.e. 6-10 years is when most players are at their best with around similar production in 11 and 12 before a decline starts.  It doesn't really matter if they start at 18 or 23 either.  There are obviously exceptions in players that hit their peak years earlier (Jordan for example started his peak in year 3) or that seemingly defy the aging process (Lebron who really hasn't shown much decline 16 years in), but they tend to be the exceptions.   That is why someone like Buddy Hield is still getting exponentially better while Irving has been about the same for the last 3 years (his 6th, 7th, and 8th year in the league) despite them basically being the same age.

In the expansion era of one-and-done and high school players, of course some will peak at earlier ages. I think you are conflating several completely different things in order to support your thesis (which I believe is that minutes played are more important than age). As others have pointed out, actual studies have concluded the opposite.

Yes, Buddy Hield is going to grow more at age 26 when it's only his 3rd NBA season vs someone in their 8th season who reached All-Star level a long time ago. Experience and opportunity matter, and so does how much room you have left to improve. An All-Star like Irving can't make a similar leap or he'd be putting up 40ppg right now. This doesn't really support your theory. By age 30 they are statistically like to have the same level of health and decline, and both will have peaked as players. What isn't true is that you'd be better of investing in Hield at that point, to any known statistical degree.

As for peaking around season 6-12... the number of players who get drafted before age 20 into the NBA and then play 12+ seasons is so incredibly small, that you really need to at least cite a substantial list of examples. Years 6-12 is an incredibly wide net for NBA players.

As for LeBron, look at it from the other side: if it was more about minutes than calendar age, then you'd expect the LeBron, Garnett, Kobe group to have outstanding careers up to around age 30-32 and then flash out early. But they haven't -- they "get old" around 35, like other top players who entered the league at age 21-22.

Garnett was 30 in his 12th season.  that was the last time he played more than 71 games in a season (he had never missed more than 6 games to that point).  That was the last time he played more than 33mpg.  Per 36 his numbers basically declined every season after that one (though he was shooting more efficiently playing on a better team).  His first year in Boston (year 13, age 31) was the last time he made an All NBA Team. 

Lebron is a physical freak, always has been.  He is an exception to basically every rule ever.  Look at his fellow draftees, Anthony and Wade, they follow a more normal career arc. 

[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.

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.

One of my great joys on this forum is when you choose a completely wrong viewpoint and then just dig in on it and die. If you could prove this to an nba front office you would literally be the most important analytics mind in the game.

Rofl, has me cackling. TP.

What a strange argument to make

Tp man. I don’t even understand it

[celticsclay]

Hey Harvard you dummies you are looking at the wrong thing http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2017/11/what-happens-to-nba-players-when-they-age/

That doesn't disprove a cumulative season analysis as it doesn't talk about it all.  And most players are in season 12 around 31 or 32 so the reality is the age and season analysis is often going to overlap.

You are literally saying that seasons played is more important than age. If that is the case than harvard is basing their analysis on the wrong primary factor. Right?

[tarheelsxxiii]

Hey Harvard you dummies you are looking at the wrong thing http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2017/11/what-happens-to-nba-players-when-they-age/

That doesn't disprove a cumulative season analysis as it doesn't talk about it all.  And most players are in season 12 around 31 or 32 so the reality is the age and season analysis is often going to overlap.

You are literally saying that seasons played is more important than age. If that is the case than harvard is basing their analysis on the wrong primary factor. Right?

They rejected me for an interview on Fri; safe to assume they're half a bubble off plumb.

[celticsclay]

Hey Harvard you dummies you are looking at the wrong thing http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2017/11/what-happens-to-nba-players-when-they-age/

That doesn't disprove a cumulative season analysis as it doesn't talk about it all.  And most players are in season 12 around 31 or 32 so the reality is the age and season analysis is often going to overlap.

You are literally saying that seasons played is more important than age. If that is the case than harvard is basing their analysis on the wrong primary factor. Right?

They rejected me for an interview on Fri; safe to assume they're half a bubble off plumb.

Tars I am sorry to hear that. Wish you were on west coast