Do NBA Players peak at 24 ?

[LarBrd33]

EDIT: This post is from 2013, but I'm bumping it, because I think it's relevant to the debates the community is having about prospects available at #3 such as Buddy Hield and Kris Dunn - both of which will turn 23 years old their rookie season:


I've always been under the assumption that NBA players reach their prime sometime around 27 or 28... then after age 31 begin to decline.

I've recently been playing NBA GM sim game and I was confused to see that the players in the game peaked at 24.  I'm in the midst of losing a debate about it. 

Here's a couple articles that were shared to me:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574612553424283372.html

NBA players peak at 24 years old and basically stay at that level until they turn 25, at which point they start declining, according to a study by Dave Berri, a professor of economics at Southern Utah University. Mr. Berri's research, which examined every player from 1977-2008, says the statistical output of the average 24-year-old is equal in value to six wins per season for his team if he plays 35 minutes a night. From then on, the average player keeps getting worse each year until age 35, at which point he begins costing his team wins.

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2010/07/11/185890/implicit-leverage-in-the-nba/

NBA player performance peaks, on average, at age 25 which means that with the exception of rookies signing their first contract extension you’re normally talking about purchasing a depreciating asset.

http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

Players have a u-shaped curve in the NBA. The get better as they reach their 25th birthday. The peak around 25-26. After that they slowly decline as they approach 30 and after 32 they rapidly decline.

Of course, there are exceptions to this like Steve Nash.  I brought up how conventional wisdom says players like Jordan and LeBron peaked in their late 20s.  The response to that:  "on average, they stop improving substantially at about 24. If we're using anecdotes as proof, look at LeBron's advanced stats. He just improved his game so much this year and won the MVP and blah blah blah... but he put up the same PER and WS/48 when he was 24." ... Frankly, I can't say I disagree.  LeBron's improved his shooting from certain areas, but in general his success has more to do with the competition and talent he's finally surrounded with.  Same with Jordan... he didn't win titles until Pippen turned into a superstar and the Pistons/Celtics/Lakers faded away.  Jordan's best statistical seasons happened before he was winning titles (ex: he averaged 37 points as a 23 year old).

Thoughts on the topic?...

And how do you feel this pertains to Rajon Rondo (turning 28 this season and coming off ACL injury) and Jeff Green (just turned 27).   We talk about these guys like they are part of our future... but in reality they have probably already peaked.  We're looking at a 4-5 year window where they might remain in their peak... which perfectly coincides with the 4-5 years it's going to take us to get back to the playoffs.  I can see why the rumors persist that we'll try to trade Rondo at the earliest opportunity.  Can we really talk about these guys as being our "Future" if their best years are behind them?

[Celtics18]

Didn't you already post a link to this study in another discussion?

Anyway, I'm not buying it.  First of all, I'm sure that Wages of Wins' Wins Produced statistic has some merit to it (it certainly has a lot of math), but when one glances at it, it doesn't seem to give a very accurate representation of who are actually the best players in the league.

http://www.thenbageek.com/players?direction=desc&sort=%22WP48%22

It seems shady to me to make such a grand scale announcement based on a metric that has Jeremy Evans as one of the top players in the league and Kyrie Irving as one of the worst.

And, while it may be true that average level players, on average, peak at 24, I don't think it's true for elite level players.  If this study doesn't make those kinds of distinctions, that's another mark against it. 

I understand that the writers of this study don't appreciate the anecdotal evidence that refutes it, but it's not just Steve Nash.  There is mountains and mountains of evidence of top level NBA players who had a number of seasons after the age of twenty-five, and even after the age of 30 that were among their career best.

As for Rondo, I expect him to follow in the foot-steps of the likes of Steve Nash, John Stockton, Chauncey Billups, Gary Payton, Tony Parker, and Jason Kidd, and continue to improve his game as he enters his thirties.

If someone else expects him to have a career arc that more closely resembles Stevie Francis, then, by all means, have at your opinion.

Thinking that you have some kind of empirical evidence that he's washed up, though, that's just silly. 

[BballTim]

  I'd say that much of the talk about players peaking at those young ages come from people who's understanding of the game doesn't extend very far beyond what they get from a stat sheet. If players peak when they're young, why don't they win the majority of their titles when they're in their early 20s? The answer you'll always hear is "they don't have great teammates".

  While this is frequently true, it should be fairly obvious that when good players are on worse teams they shoulder more of the load and put up, you guessed it, better stats. If anyone's looking for an easy example of this look no further than the Celts. Pierce and Allen and KG didn't all get significantly worse when they were put on the same team, they simply shared the load. The result was a large drop in their stats, which was clearly unrelated to their all aging rapidly in the summer before they were put on the same team.

  Beyond that, you can't just look at raw output to determine how much of an impact a player has on a game. It's not just how many points they score or how many rebounds they get, it's when they get those points and rebounds. It's also all of the little things that they do to help a team win that don't show up directly in a stat sheet. Case in point, loathe though I am to admit it, LeBron. Look at his stats from this year's playoffs and you'd come to the conclusion that he had one of his least productive playoffs and did less to help his team win than in some of his earlier seasons. Watch his impact on the games and you come to a completely different conclusion.

[D.o.s.]

  I'd say that much of the talk about players peaking at those young ages come from people who's understanding of the game doesn't extend very far beyond what they get from a stat sheet. If players peak when they're young, why don't they win the majority of their titles when they're in their early 20s? The answer you'll always hear is "they don't have great teammates".

  While this is frequently true, it should be fairly obvious that when good players are on better teams they shoulder more of the load and put up, you guessed it, better stats. If anyone's looking for an easy example of this look no further than the Celts. Pierce and Allen and KG didn't all get significantly worse when they were put on the same team, they simply shared the load. The result was a large drop in their stats, which was clearly unrelated to their all aging rapidly in the summer before they were put on the same team.

  Beyond that, you can't just look at raw output to determine how much of an impact a player has on a game. It's not just how many points they score or how many rebounds they get, it's when they get those points and rebounds. It's also all of the little things that they do to help a team win that don't show up directly in a stat sheet. Case in point, loathe though I am to admit it, LeBron. Look at his stats from this year's playoffs and you'd come to the conclusion that he had one of his least productive playoffs and did less to help his team win than in some of his earlier seasons. Watch his impact on the games and you come to a completely different conclusion.

Agreed. I think that this issue is muddied by the fact that most superstars really start to emerge around age 24, which is when they begin to put up monster numbers, advanced or traditional.

Those numbers are what make people recognize them as superstars. I think part of the reason there was so much vitriol thrown LeBron's way early in his career had to do with the fact that he was treated like a superstar well before he'd made it into the NBA--before he'd "earned it" with the aforementioned eye-drawing stats and plays.



So, no, I'm not sold on the logic that leads to NBA players peaking at 24, which is to say they are playing their best basketball at 24.

I would say instead that 24 is roughly the age when the wheat is most clearly separated from the chaff and the potential NBA superstardom is either apparent or lacking in a given player (easy example; Pierce was 24 during the 2001-2002 run).

[nickagneta]

Given that the average career length of a player is 6 years and the average starting age for an NBA career is 21 years old, the number makes some sense. How can the AVERAGE players's peak start at 27 if that is when their career is ending.

But we all know that it isn't the average player that is the difference makers in the NBA, its the stars and superstars. My guess is the star or superstar's average peak season is around 28-30

[LilRip]

i hear what the other posters are saying, but maybe here's another way to look at this:

i think NBA players can be mainly categorized into Stars, Starters, Role Players and Bench Warmers.

Given that, i would think that the norm would be for an NBA player to show under which category they fall under by around age 24. Afterwards, they continue on their path without much significant improvements but instead, make small, incremental improvements and refinements in their skills. Thus, possibly why it could more or less by labeled their "peak". The thing about stars though is that they can sustain this peak over a number of years, continuing to incrementally refine until they begin to decline. And usually, the truly great ones have a very slow decline.

[Who]

25-30

[Eja117]

I wouldn't be shocked if players peak offensively around 24ish, but I would think defensively it would be later.

[banty19]

Didn't you already post a link to this study in another discussion?

Anyway, I'm not buying it.  First of all, I'm sure that Wages of Wins' Wins Produced statistic has some merit to it (it certainly has a lot of math), but when one glances at it, it doesn't seem to give a very accurate representation of who are actually the best players in the league.

http://www.thenbageek.com/players?direction=desc&sort=%22WP48%22

It seems shady to me to make such a grand scale announcement based on a metric that has Jeremy Evans as one of the top players in the league and Kyrie Irving as one of the worst.

And, while it may be true that average level players, on average, peak at 24, I don't think it's true for elite level players.  If this study doesn't make those kinds of distinctions, that's another mark against it. 

I understand that the writers of this study don't appreciate the anecdotal evidence that refutes it, but it's not just Steve Nash.  There is mountains and mountains of evidence of top level NBA players who had a number of seasons after the age of twenty-five, and even after the age of 30 that were among their career best.

As for Rondo, I expect him to follow in the foot-steps of the likes of Steve Nash, John Stockton, Chauncey Billups, Gary Payton, Tony Parker, and Jason Kidd, and continue to improve his game as he enters his thirties.

If someone else expects him to have a career arc that more closely resembles Stevie Francis, then, by all means, have at your opinion.

Thinking that you have some kind of empirical evidence that he's washed up, though, that's just silly.

Wages of Wins isn't perfect but it's better than a lot of the alternatives. The big downside of Wins Produced is it gives too much credit to low usage players like Marcus Camby and Reggie Evans. And one more is that it probably values rebounding a little too much. But besides that, it's solid. And you should check out Jeremy Evans numbers. Prorated to 36 minutes, he put up 12.6 PTS (on .614 FG%), 9.7 REB, 1.3 STL, and 2.2 BLK. Those are some really good numbers. Of course, he probably wouldn't do that if he played 36 minutes a game, but that's not an issue with Wins Produced.

And about how Rondo's game will age, it's definitely not looking like it'll be Nash/Stockton-like. Those guys are/were great shooters. Unless Rondo improves his shot, things will be tougher. The one thing Rondo does have going for him is he's intelligent/crafty, so I could see him turning into an Andre Miller later in his career.

[coco]

I would say they peak at 27.  But that's on average.  After that, some stay in top of their game for 5yrs more, but some can only keep up the pace for 2 years longer past 27.

[Fan from VT]

The easiest answer to the question of why most star players win titles after 24 even if 24 is their peak is quite simple.

First, a players rate of improvement approaching their peak is quite rapid. Think about it: at age 16, 18 years before the peak, they were scrawny high schoolers several inches shorter, a few dozen pounds lighter, and thousands of hours of high quality practice away from a peak. The ascent to their peak is rapid not just due to the rapid physical improvement from 16-24, but because they are also developing mentally. Then, at 24, the mental development continues (slower pace; less to learn, but still positive learning). Further, the physical decline is much slower than the physical improvement preceding the peak. THis is obvious; 8 years after the peak you are 32, 8 years before you are 16! a 32 vs a 16 year old is a no brainer. The slow decline in physical continues, allowing many players to hang on until late 30s.


Furthermore, every player has 1 peak season, regardless of when it happens. It is very unlikely to win a title in your peak season, since there's only one. You just need to be really good to lead a team to a title. So when does that happen? Enter the league at 19, still with a lot to learn, still maturing physically. Maybe you hit that threshold to be a best player at 21. Rapid improvement continues until 24-25. THen slow decline begins, probably not noticeable on an individual basis and only uncovered when you look at large population stats. So a player can thus maintain MVP level play until say 32, and still be an all-star/capable of being best player on a contender until 34 or so.  Now let's look: Here we have a peak at 24, say, and a window of being a leader on a title contender from 21-34. So that's 14 years of possibly winning the title as the leader. Ages 21,22,23 are pre-peak, 24 is peak, then 25-34 post peak. So that's a 3/14 chance of winning a pre-peak title, 1/14 winning a peak title, and 10/14 chance winning a post peak title. So obviously you have more of a chance to win a title post peak because you have more seasons on a slow decline post peak.

Furthermore, most NBA studs are known to be studs in the draft and are drafted by teams earning a top 5 pick. To earn a top 5 pick you have to be bad. It takes a few seasons to fill in that bad team around the edges, further making it likely a star player will win titles later than sooner. But look at the exceptions: Duncan, Rondo, Kobe placed on great teams by other circumstances, winning titles at or before their peak.


But that concept doesn't fit with our need to create story narratives. So lebron didn't win titles not because he was an amazing player on a garbage team but because he had to mature and grow and learn (and have a good team). Same for Jordan I guess (plus pippen, grant, rodman, phil jackson, etc, but shhhh...). I guess Kobe had nothing to learn? Or maybe it was cause shaq was a beast. Duncan was just super ready? Or maybe twin towers with david robinson helped. But i'm sure he would have won titles early if he'd been drafted onto boston, right!?! how about Rondo: Guess he peaked early because that's when he won his title...or he had 3 HOFers. See, team circumstances matter tremendously, but they don't fit with the fun stories.

[Donoghus]

Physically? Maybe.

From a basketbal skill standpoint, I just can't buy it.  I would think it would be a bit older.  Much like baseball and the magic "27".

[Fan from VT]

Here's some conceptual illustrations of the concept.

If this is representative of reality, you could see that a player's decline is probably barely noticeable,  but only shows up when you look at large numbers of data to figure out a "true" peak average impact in the NBA. You can also easily see that a star player's prime is quite long, with many years of play effective enough to win a title after the peak and few before. You can also see that a player's mental ability continues to climb after their physicality has peaked. THerefore, when a player does win a title after their peak (which, by odds, is clearly more likely) we attribute it to their improved mental ability because that has clearly gotten better; what we don't realize is that their improved mental ability is just balancing the onset of physical decline allowing the total player impact to remain very effective and not noticeably declined each season.

But what happens when a player wins titles early then stops, like Kobe's career peak (It was all about teammates..early with shaq, title-less peak with kwame, titles post-peak with gasol/bynum/odom) but it doesn't really fit with the tempting storybook narrative of the lebron and jordan story.

[Redz]

NBA players at 25?

http://youtu.be/dGFXGwHsD_A

[Fan from VT]

Also interesting that the peak is in age, not NBA years. So that further makes fringe players look like they "flame out" earlier. Since stars tend to come out earlier (say 19 years) they have a few more years of actual NBA seasons before they hit their peaks. But guys projected to be fringe players stay in college longer and are 21-22 in their first season. Unfortunately, this probably doesn't shift their peak later, they probably still peak at 24-25, but we as fans expect them to get better for 5-6 years like a 19 year old star. But they don't, they then fail to live up to (unreal) expectations, and are out of the league. So it looks like they don't reach their potential, but that's because we inaccurately predict their potential for them to keep improving for 5-6 years of league experience rather than to peak at some chronological age. THis is why more accurate draft projections put a lot of emphasis on age; younger means more time before peak.


THis is illustrated here:

The purple line is a fringe player coming into the league at 19 and following the traditional trajectory.

The gray line is the same player coming into the league at 21 (stayed in college for 3 seasons instead of 1). So he stayed in college to "enhance his game" and become more "NBA ready," and look, it worked, right? that first gray dot is the same as the purple dot after the purple dot has had 2 full nba seasons. So, optimistically, the team thinks that the gray dot will follow the same projection as the purple dot, just starting from a higher place, adn they project a future star.



But what usually happens is that the first gray dot does not represent the start of a big learning curve, but represents that a lot of learning has happened already, and what happens is the 2nd graph: they seem to peak after fewer seasons and really hit the same potential as if they had come into the league at 19. See, they come into the league at 21 and you mistakenly assume they will have the same steep learning curve in years 1, 2, 3, but those already happened in college at age 18, 19, 20. So the "fall short" of an erroneously optimistic projection.