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

[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.

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.

Garnett played at a high level in Boston for 6 years, logged about 500 games and 15,000 minutes, and consistently averaged about 15/8 in 30mpg with DPOY consideration right up through age 36. In his age 35 season, he averaged 27/14/5 per 100 possession and led the league in defensive rating. This as opposed to 30/17/5 as the sole superstar in his last season in Minnesota.

Being the best player on a contender for your 13th-18th seasons doesn't support your argument, it implies that he could do it was because he was still in his early 30s.

[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.

Garnett played at a high level in Boston for 6 years, logged about 500 games and 15,000 minutes, and consistently averaged about 15/8 in 30mpg with DPOY consideration right up through age 36. In his age 35 season, he averaged 27/14/5 per 100 possession and led the league in defensive rating. This as opposed to 30/17/5 as the sole superstar in his last season in Minnesota.

Being the best player on a contender for your 13th-18th seasons doesn't support your argument, it implies that he could do it was because he was still in his early 30s.

He still wasn't the player he was though i.e. he had declined.  I've never said 12 seasons in and a player becomes a scrub, only that that is when they decline.  When you start at a MVP level you don't just disappear overnight.  Dirk, Duncan, etc. were all very similar to KG in that regard.  Jordan was the best player in the world at 35 (winning the MVP) and hadn't shown decline when he retired for the 2nd time.  That was his 13th season, but he had 2 separate seasons of 17/18 games (and only one he was injured) so it was more like his 12th season in wear and tear (who knows how the time off affected him).  Shaq's last best season was year 11, but a big guy that is always banged up it isn't surprising he would start to really decline a bit earlier than other players.  He was still very good for a couple of seasons after that though. 

[celticsclay]

Seems like players just get worse as they age and there isn’t some magic facitor of minutes or seasons that overrides that. Guess every front office in sports has it right...

[Jvalin]

That’s their fault, not my fault. I came over with a passport. My passport has 1992 on it. My driver's license has 1992 on it. I just think people got their information from Wikipedia or wherever, and they just went with it. They just got it wrong. I gave them [the Kings] my passport, Peja [Stojakovic] and Vlade [Divac] know what age I am. That’s the only thing that matters.

Weird story. I don't buy it for a second. The fact that the Kings know now, doesn't mean that they knew prior to the Boogie trade as well (or that the Pels knew prior to the draft for that matter). In any case, it's only logical for the Kings to take Hield's part and try to cover the whole thing up.

[Eddie20]

Seems like players just get worse as they age and there isn’t some magic facitor of minutes or seasons that overrides that. Guess every front office in sports has it right...

It's pretty obvious what happened here. In his usual way to disparage Kyrie, Moranis made an asinine statement that it would be better to give Butler a max contract than Kyrie because of seasons played. Instead of realizing he was wrong, he drew the line in the stand and continued harping on some imaginary "formula" to try to support his wild assumptions.

In his seasons > age in terms of decline argument, he failed to define "seasons". For example, Gibobii was playing professionally since he was 18 and didn't enter the NBA until he was 25. He didn't have his best statistical season until age 33, which is his 15th season of playing professional ball.

Other questions for Moranis...

What happens to bench warmers? Since they play sparingly is it safe to assume that they their decline is decreased? If the argument is that travel takes it's toll, then I'd be curious to see you cite some scientific based study that states that airline stewards, stewardesses, pilots, etc. have their body decline at a faster rate to altitude or what not.

How about players that miss entire seasons due to injury or suspension? Do the seasons that OJ Mayo was suspended not count and, assuming his head was on straight, teams should sign him as if he were still just 28, not 30, since he's only played 8 seasons?

[celticsclay]

Seems like players just get worse as they age and there isn’t some magic facitor of minutes or seasons that overrides that. Guess every front office in sports has it right...

It's pretty obvious what happened here. In his usual way to disparage Kyrie, Moranis made an asinine statement that it would be better to give Butler a max contract than Kyrie because of seasons played. Instead of realizing he was wrong, he drew the line in the stand and continued harping on some imaginary "formula" to try to support his wild assumptions.

In his seasons > age in terms of decline argument, he failed to define "seasons". For example, Gibobii was playing professionally since he was 18 and didn't enter the NBA until he was 25. He didn't have his best statistical season until age 33, which is his 15th season of playing professional ball.

Other questions for Moranis...

What happens to bench warmers? Since they play sparingly is it safe to assume that they their decline is decreased? If the argument is that travel takes it's toll, then I'd be curious to see you cite some scientific based study that states that airline stewards, stewardesses, pilots, etc. have their body decline at a faster rate to altitude or what not.

How about players that miss entire seasons due to injury or suspension? Do the seasons that OJ Mayo was suspended not count and, assuming his head was on straight, teams should sign him as if he were still just 28, not 30, since he's only played 8 seasons?

Yeah bench guys should be able to play to mid 40’s by this logic

[Moranis]

Seems like players just get worse as they age and there isn’t some magic facitor of minutes or seasons that overrides that. Guess every front office in sports has it right...

It's pretty obvious what happened here. In his usual way to disparage Kyrie, Moranis made an asinine statement that it would be better to give Butler a max contract than Kyrie because of seasons played. Instead of realizing he was wrong, he drew the line in the stand and continued harping on some imaginary "formula" to try to support his wild assumptions.

In his seasons > age in terms of decline argument, he failed to define "seasons". For example, Gibobii was playing professionally since he was 18 and didn't enter the NBA until he was 25. He didn't have his best statistical season until age 33, which is his 15th season of playing professional ball.

Other questions for Moranis...

What happens to bench warmers? Since they play sparingly is it safe to assume that they their decline is decreased? If the argument is that travel takes it's toll, then I'd be curious to see you cite some scientific based study that states that airline stewards, stewardesses, pilots, etc. have their body decline at a faster rate to altitude or what not.

How about players that miss entire seasons due to injury or suspension? Do the seasons that OJ Mayo was suspended not count and, assuming his head was on straight, teams should sign him as if he were still just 28, not 30, since he's only played 8 seasons?

I didn't disparage Irving at all, merely said those that have concerns about giving Butler a max should also have concerns about giving Irving a max given his injury history and mileage.  Irving will and should absolutely be given a max contract, as will Butler, but in both cases the last season or two might be a pretty significant overpay for each.

Manu's peaked at age 30, both in totals and per 36 (not sure why you think his best season was age 33 that just isn't borne out in reality).  He had a fairly steady decline after that.  Given his mileage that would comport with someone that not only was playing professional basketball at 18 but was also playing for his national team pretty heavily. 

Bench warmers still travel, they still practice, they still get the wear and tear on the body.  They still sustain the stress of the job even if they don't play as many minutes. 

As for airline pilots, they for a very long time were barred from flying past 60.  They have one of the higher rates of heart disease, because heart disease is most common in persons that have stressful jobs, that work strange and inconsistent hours, that have inconsistent sleep patterns, etc.  Pilots (and stewards) also throw their sleep off by continually leaving a time zone and entering another one.  There is a reason the term jetlag exists and it isn't good for you.  There are plenty of health risks associated with flying including an increase in the chance of getting cancer.  It really shouldn't be an argument that flying a lot isn't good for you.  It puts a terrible strain on your body, even when you fly charter and in luxury as a top level professional team does.

As for missing seasons, no one will ever argue an injury is good for you.  Even minor injuries damage the body.  That said, Jordan retired, missed a season and a half, and when he retired the second time at 35 was still by far the best player in the world.  That was his 13th season (which includes his 17 game season when he came back from retirement).  That 17 game season he came back, was also the worst non-injured season of his career (until his last 2 in Washington), also showing that rust is a real thing.  That your body actually needs the repetition to play.

And let me be clear age also affects the body.  I've never said it didn't, just that wear and tear affects it more.  Mileage on the body, experience, etc. is more critical than age. 

[celticsclay]

Seems like players just get worse as they age and there isn’t some magic facitor of minutes or seasons that overrides that. Guess every front office in sports has it right...

It's pretty obvious what happened here. In his usual way to disparage Kyrie, Moranis made an asinine statement that it would be better to give Butler a max contract than Kyrie because of seasons played. Instead of realizing he was wrong, he drew the line in the stand and continued harping on some imaginary "formula" to try to support his wild assumptions.

In his seasons > age in terms of decline argument, he failed to define "seasons". For example, Gibobii was playing professionally since he was 18 and didn't enter the NBA until he was 25. He didn't have his best statistical season until age 33, which is his 15th season of playing professional ball.

Other questions for Moranis...

What happens to bench warmers? Since they play sparingly is it safe to assume that they their decline is decreased? If the argument is that travel takes it's toll, then I'd be curious to see you cite some scientific based study that states that airline stewards, stewardesses, pilots, etc. have their body decline at a faster rate to altitude or what not.

How about players that miss entire seasons due to injury or suspension? Do the seasons that OJ Mayo was suspended not count and, assuming his head was on straight, teams should sign him as if he were still just 28, not 30, since he's only played 8 seasons?

I didn't disparage Irving at all, merely said those that have concerns about giving Butler a max should also have concerns about giving Irving a max given his injury history and mileage.  Irving will and should absolutely be given a max contract, as will Butler, but in both cases the last season or two might be a pretty significant overpay for each.

Manu's peaked at age 30, both in totals and per 36 (not sure why you think his best season was age 33 that just isn't borne out in reality).  He had a fairly steady decline after that.  Given his mileage that would comport with someone that not only was playing professional basketball at 18 but was also playing for his national team pretty heavily. 

Bench warmers still travel, they still practice, they still get the wear and tear on the body.  They still sustain the stress of the job even if they don't play as many minutes. 

As for airline pilots, they for a very long time were barred from flying past 60.  They have one of the higher rates of heart disease, because heart disease is most common in persons that have stressful jobs, that work strange and inconsistent hours, that have inconsistent sleep patterns, etc.  Pilots (and stewards) also throw their sleep off by continually leaving a time zone and entering another one.  There is a reason the term jetlag exists and it isn't good for you.  There are plenty of health risks associated with flying including an increase in the chance of getting cancer.  It really shouldn't be an argument that flying a lot isn't good for you.  It puts a terrible strain on your body, even when you fly charter and in luxury as a top level professional team does.

As for missing seasons, no one will ever argue an injury is good for you.  Even minor injuries damage the body.  That said, Jordan retired, missed a season and a half, and when he retired the second time at 35 was still by far the best player in the world.  That was his 13th season (which includes his 17 game season when he came back from retirement).  That 17 game season he came back, was also the worst non-injured season of his career (until his last 2 in Washington), also showing that rust is a real thing.  That your body actually needs the repetition to play.

And let me be clear age also affects the body.  I've never said it didn't, just that wear and tear affects it more.  Mileage on the body, experience, etc. is more critical than age.

Merry Christmas man. I hope you have a wonderful day and a better year

[Eddie20]

Seems like players just get worse as they age and there isn’t some magic facitor of minutes or seasons that overrides that. Guess every front office in sports has it right...

It's pretty obvious what happened here. In his usual way to disparage Kyrie, Moranis made an asinine statement that it would be better to give Butler a max contract than Kyrie because of seasons played. Instead of realizing he was wrong, he drew the line in the stand and continued harping on some imaginary "formula" to try to support his wild assumptions.

In his seasons > age in terms of decline argument, he failed to define "seasons". For example, Gibobii was playing professionally since he was 18 and didn't enter the NBA until he was 25. He didn't have his best statistical season until age 33, which is his 15th season of playing professional ball.

Other questions for Moranis...

What happens to bench warmers? Since they play sparingly is it safe to assume that they their decline is decreased? If the argument is that travel takes it's toll, then I'd be curious to see you cite some scientific based study that states that airline stewards, stewardesses, pilots, etc. have their body decline at a faster rate to altitude or what not.

How about players that miss entire seasons due to injury or suspension? Do the seasons that OJ Mayo was suspended not count and, assuming his head was on straight, teams should sign him as if he were still just 28, not 30, since he's only played 8 seasons?

Manu's peaked at age 30, both in totals and per 36 (not sure why you think his best season was age 33 that just isn't borne out in reality).  He had a fairly steady decline after that.  Given his mileage that would comport with someone that not only was playing professional basketball at 18 but was also playing for his national team pretty heavily. 

Merry Christmas, but I still have to respond to this because it's flat-out wrong.

So if Ginobili peaked at 30, as you suggest, how is it possible that he was selected to the all-star team at age 33? Keep in mind that this was only the second time he ever made it in his career, the other was in 2005 at age 27. In addition, he also made the all-NBA third team at age 33. This was only the second time he ever made it in his career, the other was at age 30.

You stated he had a "fairly steady decline" after age 30, so again how is it possible for a guy to have received such accolades at age 33? Which was also his 15th season of professional basketball, playing years filled with not only professional seasons, but also all the international games and practices he endured while playing for Argentina.

This all goes against your argument that age is less significant than seasons because according to you a player that's on season number 15 of his pro career simply shouldn't have had the type of season he did. That said, a decline after age 33 is consistent with both logic and other examples of player regression due to aging. Which is exactly what everyone here is trying to explain to you.

[Moranis]

Seems like players just get worse as they age and there isn’t some magic facitor of minutes or seasons that overrides that. Guess every front office in sports has it right...

It's pretty obvious what happened here. In his usual way to disparage Kyrie, Moranis made an asinine statement that it would be better to give Butler a max contract than Kyrie because of seasons played. Instead of realizing he was wrong, he drew the line in the stand and continued harping on some imaginary "formula" to try to support his wild assumptions.

In his seasons > age in terms of decline argument, he failed to define "seasons". For example, Gibobii was playing professionally since he was 18 and didn't enter the NBA until he was 25. He didn't have his best statistical season until age 33, which is his 15th season of playing professional ball.

Other questions for Moranis...

What happens to bench warmers? Since they play sparingly is it safe to assume that they their decline is decreased? If the argument is that travel takes it's toll, then I'd be curious to see you cite some scientific based study that states that airline stewards, stewardesses, pilots, etc. have their body decline at a faster rate to altitude or what not.

How about players that miss entire seasons due to injury or suspension? Do the seasons that OJ Mayo was suspended not count and, assuming his head was on straight, teams should sign him as if he were still just 28, not 30, since he's only played 8 seasons?

Manu's peaked at age 30, both in totals and per 36 (not sure why you think his best season was age 33 that just isn't borne out in reality).  He had a fairly steady decline after that.  Given his mileage that would comport with someone that not only was playing professional basketball at 18 but was also playing for his national team pretty heavily. 

Merry Christmas, but I still have to respond to this because it's flat-out wrong.

So if Ginobili peaked at 30, as you suggest, how is it possible that he was selected to the all-star team at age 33? Keep in mind that this was only the second time he ever made it in his career, the other was in 2005 at age 27. In addition, he also made the all-NBA third team at age 33. This was only the second time he ever made it in his career, the other was at age 30.

You stated he had a "fairly steady decline" after age 30, so again how is it possible for a guy to have received such accolades at age 33? Which was also his 15th season of professional basketball, playing years filled with not only professional seasons, but also all the international games and practices he endured while playing for Argentina.

This all goes against your argument that age is less significant than seasons because according to you a player that's on season number 15 of his pro career simply shouldn't have had the type of season he did. That said, a decline after age 33 is consistent with both logic and other examples of player regression due to aging. Which is exactly what everyone here is trying to explain to you.

One of these he was 30, the other he was 33, you tell me which one was better.


31.1 mpg, 19.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.4 bpg, 49.9 2PT, 40.1 3PT, 86.0 FT, 61.2 TS, 24.3 PER, 116 ORTG, 100 DRTG, 11.1 WS, 6.1 OBPM, 1.9 DBPM, 5.9 VORP

30.3 mpg, 17.4 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 4.9 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.4 bpg, 49.7 2PT, 34.9 3PT, 87.1 FT, 58.1 TS, 21.7 PER, 116 ORTG, 105 DRTG, 9.9 WS, 4.9 OBPM, 0.4 DBPM, 4.5 VORP

Decline doesn't mean a player disappears and becomes garbage.  But it is pretty clear which season Manu was better.  He was better when he was 30 then when he was 33 by any reasonable measure.  His per minute numbers and rates also pretty clearly favored his age 30 year and while he had less assists, his AST% was actually identical in both seasons.

Manu was absolutely a better player when he was 30 then when he was 33.

And for the record per 36 these are his points per game from age 26 to 34: 15.7, 19.5, 19.5, 21.7, 22.6, 20.8, 20.7, 20.7, 20.0.  Notice that middle at 22.6, just happens to coincide with the season he was 30, which is the perfect peak of the bell curve. 

[nickagneta]

Seems like players just get worse as they age and there isn’t some magic facitor of minutes or seasons that overrides that. Guess every front office in sports has it right...

It's pretty obvious what happened here. In his usual way to disparage Kyrie, Moranis made an asinine statement that it would be better to give Butler a max contract than Kyrie because of seasons played. Instead of realizing he was wrong, he drew the line in the stand and continued harping on some imaginary "formula" to try to support his wild assumptions.

In his seasons > age in terms of decline argument, he failed to define "seasons". For example, Gibobii was playing professionally since he was 18 and didn't enter the NBA until he was 25. He didn't have his best statistical season until age 33, which is his 15th season of playing professional ball.

Other questions for Moranis...

What happens to bench warmers? Since they play sparingly is it safe to assume that they their decline is decreased? If the argument is that travel takes it's toll, then I'd be curious to see you cite some scientific based study that states that airline stewards, stewardesses, pilots, etc. have their body decline at a faster rate to altitude or what not.

How about players that miss entire seasons due to injury or suspension? Do the seasons that OJ Mayo was suspended not count and, assuming his head was on straight, teams should sign him as if he were still just 28, not 30, since he's only played 8 seasons?

Manu's peaked at age 30, both in totals and per 36 (not sure why you think his best season was age 33 that just isn't borne out in reality).  He had a fairly steady decline after that.  Given his mileage that would comport with someone that not only was playing professional basketball at 18 but was also playing for his national team pretty heavily. 

Merry Christmas, but I still have to respond to this because it's flat-out wrong.

So if Ginobili peaked at 30, as you suggest, how is it possible that he was selected to the all-star team at age 33? Keep in mind that this was only the second time he ever made it in his career, the other was in 2005 at age 27. In addition, he also made the all-NBA third team at age 33. This was only the second time he ever made it in his career, the other was at age 30.

You stated he had a "fairly steady decline" after age 30, so again how is it possible for a guy to have received such accolades at age 33? Which was also his 15th season of professional basketball, playing years filled with not only professional seasons, but also all the international games and practices he endured while playing for Argentina.

This all goes against your argument that age is less significant than seasons because according to you a player that's on season number 15 of his pro career simply shouldn't have had the type of season he did. That said, a decline after age 33 is consistent with both logic and other examples of player regression due to aging. Which is exactly what everyone here is trying to explain to you.

One of these he was 30, the other he was 33, you tell me which one was better.


31.1 mpg, 19.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.4 bpg, 49.9 2PT, 40.1 3PT, 86.0 FT, 61.2 TS, 24.3 PER, 116 ORTG, 100 DRTG, 11.1 WS, 6.1 OBPM, 1.9 DBPM, 5.9 VORP

30.3 mpg, 17.4 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 4.9 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.4 bpg, 49.7 2PT, 34.9 3PT, 87.1 FT, 58.1 TS, 21.7 PER, 116 ORTG, 105 DRTG, 9.9 WS, 4.9 OBPM, 0.4 DBPM, 4.5 VORP

Decline doesn't mean a player disappears and becomes garbage.  But it is pretty clear which season Manu was better.  He was better when he was 30 then when he was 33 by any reasonable measure.  His per minute numbers and rates also pretty clearly favored his age 30 year and while he had less assists, his AST% was actually identical in both seasons.

Manu was absolutely a better player when he was 30 then when he was 33.

And for the record per 36 these are his points per game from age 26 to 34: 15.7, 19.5, 19.5, 21.7, 22.6, 20.8, 20.7, 20.7, 20.0.  Notice that middle at 22.6, just happens to coincide with the season he was 30, which is the perfect peak of the bell curve.

Players may peak at a certain age but that doesn't mean they can't be exceptionally great for 3 or more years on either side of that peak year. So I find that trying to paint players as not being good after they reached that peak disingenuous. Maybe that hasn't been said outright but has been implied in this thread.

[Big333223]

Seems like players just get worse as they age and there isn’t some magic facitor of minutes or seasons that overrides that. Guess every front office in sports has it right...

It's pretty obvious what happened here. In his usual way to disparage Kyrie, Moranis made an asinine statement that it would be better to give Butler a max contract than Kyrie because of seasons played. Instead of realizing he was wrong, he drew the line in the stand and continued harping on some imaginary "formula" to try to support his wild assumptions.

In his seasons > age in terms of decline argument, he failed to define "seasons". For example, Gibobii was playing professionally since he was 18 and didn't enter the NBA until he was 25. He didn't have his best statistical season until age 33, which is his 15th season of playing professional ball.

Other questions for Moranis...

What happens to bench warmers? Since they play sparingly is it safe to assume that they their decline is decreased? If the argument is that travel takes it's toll, then I'd be curious to see you cite some scientific based study that states that airline stewards, stewardesses, pilots, etc. have their body decline at a faster rate to altitude or what not.

How about players that miss entire seasons due to injury or suspension? Do the seasons that OJ Mayo was suspended not count and, assuming his head was on straight, teams should sign him as if he were still just 28, not 30, since he's only played 8 seasons?

Manu's peaked at age 30, both in totals and per 36 (not sure why you think his best season was age 33 that just isn't borne out in reality).  He had a fairly steady decline after that.  Given his mileage that would comport with someone that not only was playing professional basketball at 18 but was also playing for his national team pretty heavily. 

Merry Christmas, but I still have to respond to this because it's flat-out wrong.

So if Ginobili peaked at 30, as you suggest, how is it possible that he was selected to the all-star team at age 33? Keep in mind that this was only the second time he ever made it in his career, the other was in 2005 at age 27. In addition, he also made the all-NBA third team at age 33. This was only the second time he ever made it in his career, the other was at age 30.

You stated he had a "fairly steady decline" after age 30, so again how is it possible for a guy to have received such accolades at age 33? Which was also his 15th season of professional basketball, playing years filled with not only professional seasons, but also all the international games and practices he endured while playing for Argentina.

This all goes against your argument that age is less significant than seasons because according to you a player that's on season number 15 of his pro career simply shouldn't have had the type of season he did. That said, a decline after age 33 is consistent with both logic and other examples of player regression due to aging. Which is exactly what everyone here is trying to explain to you.

One of these he was 30, the other he was 33, you tell me which one was better.


31.1 mpg, 19.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.4 bpg, 49.9 2PT, 40.1 3PT, 86.0 FT, 61.2 TS, 24.3 PER, 116 ORTG, 100 DRTG, 11.1 WS, 6.1 OBPM, 1.9 DBPM, 5.9 VORP

30.3 mpg, 17.4 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 4.9 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.4 bpg, 49.7 2PT, 34.9 3PT, 87.1 FT, 58.1 TS, 21.7 PER, 116 ORTG, 105 DRTG, 9.9 WS, 4.9 OBPM, 0.4 DBPM, 4.5 VORP

Decline doesn't mean a player disappears and becomes garbage.  But it is pretty clear which season Manu was better.  He was better when he was 30 then when he was 33 by any reasonable measure.  His per minute numbers and rates also pretty clearly favored his age 30 year and while he had less assists, his AST% was actually identical in both seasons.

Manu was absolutely a better player when he was 30 then when he was 33.

And for the record per 36 these are his points per game from age 26 to 34: 15.7, 19.5, 19.5, 21.7, 22.6, 20.8, 20.7, 20.7, 20.0.  Notice that middle at 22.6, just happens to coincide with the season he was 30, which is the perfect peak of the bell curve.

Players may peak at a certain age but that doesn't mean they can't be exceptionally great for 3 or more years on either side of that peak year. So I find that trying to paint players as not being good after they reached that peak disingenuous. Maybe that hasn't been said outright but has been implied in this thread.

Yeah, there's a fundamental problem with the "steady decline" theory from any point in a player's career, be it a certain age, year, minutes played, etc.

Just look at someone like Pierce. His ppg dipped when he was 26 and 27. Is it because he started to decline? No, he was changing the way he played and averaged more points at 28 and 29 then the two season before.

And then his points dropped again at 30. Is it because he was in decline? Maybe but his ppg stayed pretty steady for the next 4 years and his percentages were better. I also think, by that time, he was a smarter basketball player (better facilitator, better at picking his spots) than he was when he was younger and putting up bigger numbers. So if he was better in other areas and a more complete basketball player, can we say he was in decline?

But that's looking at just ppg. His peak year as a rebounder came when he was 25. Was he in decline after age 25 because he never came close to averaging as many rebounds after that? He played the most mpg he would ever play at age 24 and after age 28, his mpg go down pretty steadily. Was he in decline from age 28?

We're talking about very gray areas and the fact that players get better at some things while getting worse at other makes it all that much harder to pinpoint when someone starts to decline. Honestly, there typically isn't a definitive moment for most guys when they start to decline.

[Moranis]

Seems like players just get worse as they age and there isn’t some magic facitor of minutes or seasons that overrides that. Guess every front office in sports has it right...

It's pretty obvious what happened here. In his usual way to disparage Kyrie, Moranis made an asinine statement that it would be better to give Butler a max contract than Kyrie because of seasons played. Instead of realizing he was wrong, he drew the line in the stand and continued harping on some imaginary "formula" to try to support his wild assumptions.

In his seasons > age in terms of decline argument, he failed to define "seasons". For example, Gibobii was playing professionally since he was 18 and didn't enter the NBA until he was 25. He didn't have his best statistical season until age 33, which is his 15th season of playing professional ball.

Other questions for Moranis...

What happens to bench warmers? Since they play sparingly is it safe to assume that they their decline is decreased? If the argument is that travel takes it's toll, then I'd be curious to see you cite some scientific based study that states that airline stewards, stewardesses, pilots, etc. have their body decline at a faster rate to altitude or what not.

How about players that miss entire seasons due to injury or suspension? Do the seasons that OJ Mayo was suspended not count and, assuming his head was on straight, teams should sign him as if he were still just 28, not 30, since he's only played 8 seasons?

Manu's peaked at age 30, both in totals and per 36 (not sure why you think his best season was age 33 that just isn't borne out in reality).  He had a fairly steady decline after that.  Given his mileage that would comport with someone that not only was playing professional basketball at 18 but was also playing for his national team pretty heavily. 

Merry Christmas, but I still have to respond to this because it's flat-out wrong.

So if Ginobili peaked at 30, as you suggest, how is it possible that he was selected to the all-star team at age 33? Keep in mind that this was only the second time he ever made it in his career, the other was in 2005 at age 27. In addition, he also made the all-NBA third team at age 33. This was only the second time he ever made it in his career, the other was at age 30.

You stated he had a "fairly steady decline" after age 30, so again how is it possible for a guy to have received such accolades at age 33? Which was also his 15th season of professional basketball, playing years filled with not only professional seasons, but also all the international games and practices he endured while playing for Argentina.

This all goes against your argument that age is less significant than seasons because according to you a player that's on season number 15 of his pro career simply shouldn't have had the type of season he did. That said, a decline after age 33 is consistent with both logic and other examples of player regression due to aging. Which is exactly what everyone here is trying to explain to you.

One of these he was 30, the other he was 33, you tell me which one was better.


31.1 mpg, 19.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.4 bpg, 49.9 2PT, 40.1 3PT, 86.0 FT, 61.2 TS, 24.3 PER, 116 ORTG, 100 DRTG, 11.1 WS, 6.1 OBPM, 1.9 DBPM, 5.9 VORP

30.3 mpg, 17.4 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 4.9 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.4 bpg, 49.7 2PT, 34.9 3PT, 87.1 FT, 58.1 TS, 21.7 PER, 116 ORTG, 105 DRTG, 9.9 WS, 4.9 OBPM, 0.4 DBPM, 4.5 VORP

Decline doesn't mean a player disappears and becomes garbage.  But it is pretty clear which season Manu was better.  He was better when he was 30 then when he was 33 by any reasonable measure.  His per minute numbers and rates also pretty clearly favored his age 30 year and while he had less assists, his AST% was actually identical in both seasons.

Manu was absolutely a better player when he was 30 then when he was 33.

And for the record per 36 these are his points per game from age 26 to 34: 15.7, 19.5, 19.5, 21.7, 22.6, 20.8, 20.7, 20.7, 20.0.  Notice that middle at 22.6, just happens to coincide with the season he was 30, which is the perfect peak of the bell curve.

Players may peak at a certain age but that doesn't mean they can't be exceptionally great for 3 or more years on either side of that peak year. So I find that trying to paint players as not being good after they reached that peak disingenuous. Maybe that hasn't been said outright but has been implied in this thread.

I have never said no implied a player peaked and then cratered.  Others trying to discredit my argument may have simplified my argument in that manner, but it certainly wasn't me.  Case in point, Big in the post following you, trying to imply I've argued that if a player's PPG dip, that means they peaked.  It is nonsense.

[Big333223]

Seems like players just get worse as they age and there isn’t some magic facitor of minutes or seasons that overrides that. Guess every front office in sports has it right...

It's pretty obvious what happened here. In his usual way to disparage Kyrie, Moranis made an asinine statement that it would be better to give Butler a max contract than Kyrie because of seasons played. Instead of realizing he was wrong, he drew the line in the stand and continued harping on some imaginary "formula" to try to support his wild assumptions.

In his seasons > age in terms of decline argument, he failed to define "seasons". For example, Gibobii was playing professionally since he was 18 and didn't enter the NBA until he was 25. He didn't have his best statistical season until age 33, which is his 15th season of playing professional ball.

Other questions for Moranis...

What happens to bench warmers? Since they play sparingly is it safe to assume that they their decline is decreased? If the argument is that travel takes it's toll, then I'd be curious to see you cite some scientific based study that states that airline stewards, stewardesses, pilots, etc. have their body decline at a faster rate to altitude or what not.

How about players that miss entire seasons due to injury or suspension? Do the seasons that OJ Mayo was suspended not count and, assuming his head was on straight, teams should sign him as if he were still just 28, not 30, since he's only played 8 seasons?

Manu's peaked at age 30, both in totals and per 36 (not sure why you think his best season was age 33 that just isn't borne out in reality).  He had a fairly steady decline after that.  Given his mileage that would comport with someone that not only was playing professional basketball at 18 but was also playing for his national team pretty heavily. 

Merry Christmas, but I still have to respond to this because it's flat-out wrong.

So if Ginobili peaked at 30, as you suggest, how is it possible that he was selected to the all-star team at age 33? Keep in mind that this was only the second time he ever made it in his career, the other was in 2005 at age 27. In addition, he also made the all-NBA third team at age 33. This was only the second time he ever made it in his career, the other was at age 30.

You stated he had a "fairly steady decline" after age 30, so again how is it possible for a guy to have received such accolades at age 33? Which was also his 15th season of professional basketball, playing years filled with not only professional seasons, but also all the international games and practices he endured while playing for Argentina.

This all goes against your argument that age is less significant than seasons because according to you a player that's on season number 15 of his pro career simply shouldn't have had the type of season he did. That said, a decline after age 33 is consistent with both logic and other examples of player regression due to aging. Which is exactly what everyone here is trying to explain to you.

One of these he was 30, the other he was 33, you tell me which one was better.


31.1 mpg, 19.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.4 bpg, 49.9 2PT, 40.1 3PT, 86.0 FT, 61.2 TS, 24.3 PER, 116 ORTG, 100 DRTG, 11.1 WS, 6.1 OBPM, 1.9 DBPM, 5.9 VORP

30.3 mpg, 17.4 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 4.9 apg, 1.5 spg, 0.4 bpg, 49.7 2PT, 34.9 3PT, 87.1 FT, 58.1 TS, 21.7 PER, 116 ORTG, 105 DRTG, 9.9 WS, 4.9 OBPM, 0.4 DBPM, 4.5 VORP

Decline doesn't mean a player disappears and becomes garbage.  But it is pretty clear which season Manu was better.  He was better when he was 30 then when he was 33 by any reasonable measure.  His per minute numbers and rates also pretty clearly favored his age 30 year and while he had less assists, his AST% was actually identical in both seasons.

Manu was absolutely a better player when he was 30 then when he was 33.

And for the record per 36 these are his points per game from age 26 to 34: 15.7, 19.5, 19.5, 21.7, 22.6, 20.8, 20.7, 20.7, 20.0.  Notice that middle at 22.6, just happens to coincide with the season he was 30, which is the perfect peak of the bell curve.

Players may peak at a certain age but that doesn't mean they can't be exceptionally great for 3 or more years on either side of that peak year. So I find that trying to paint players as not being good after they reached that peak disingenuous. Maybe that hasn't been said outright but has been implied in this thread.

I have never said no implied a player peaked and then cratered.  Others trying to discredit my argument may have simplified my argument in that manner, but it certainly wasn't me.  Case in point, Big in the post following you, trying to imply I've argued that if a player's PPG dip, that means they peaked.  It is nonsense.

What's nonsense is your characterization of my post which doesn't imply anything close to that.

It's a nice job of not engaging with what I was saying though, which is that players don't typically decline in a steady line from any point. I used mainly ppg but pointed out there are any number of ways we might track such a thing. It doesn't sound like you actually read the post, though, so I'm not surprised you missed it.