Do NBA Players peak at 24 ?

[BballTim]

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.

Did you create these based on any hard data?  You ought to right a blog post about this.

No no no. It's a conceptual illustration.

The original premise (which I'm not sure I agree with, btw), was that a player's peak is around 24-25. I picked 25.

People then argued that most star players (but not nearly all, with kobe, wade, magic, bird, duncan winning titles before 25) win championships after that peak [leading to the conclusion that the peak then must be later].

People also argued that players continue to develop mentally all through their careers; they continue adding stuff to their toolbox, tricks, knowledge, etc. [This led to the conclusion that, say, Lebron needed to "learn" some important life lessons to win a title, and that he peaked as a total player with his first title].


I created the graphs above to show that all the above points could be true, even without the [bracketed] conclusions of each point being true. That is to say a player's total peak could be at 25 years old, even though they continue to develop mentally (slowing their overall decline, but not making their total impact continue to rise), and they win most of their titles after 25 (because of the slow decline leading to a long window of "title opportunities," with just simply more title chances after peak than before, and all could easily be true at the same time if you don't start with the assumption that players win titles at their peak.

It's much much more likely that players have a title window (conceptually on the graph as one of the horizontal lines), above which it's basically impossible to tell the difference from season to season with the naked eye (and is likely not accurately represented as stats either on an individual basis), but could result in a title in any given season. But whether a title is actually won depends on TEAMMATES, opponents, and luck. So see from the conceptual graph: they could peak at 25, continue to develop mentally (but not get overall better, just decline less quickly, in fact, not even noticeably), and have much more title opportunities after 25 despite not being quite as good a total player. All true at once.

  It's true that whether a title is won depends quite a bit on teammates, but so do stats. I'd guess that, over most of your "championship window", if you could quantify how strong the supporting casts were for these players the star's stats would track more with the weakness of the teammates than the age of the stars. You mention players like Bird and Magic and Kobe being on better teams when they were younger, but you'll also notice that none of them have the characteristic bulge in their production when they were younger.

Bird and Magic predate the 'be like Mike' era of single player dominance, though. Those two guys were incredible basketball players on incredible teams.

Kobe's first full season as a starter (the 99 lockout year, yucky.), he put up 20/5/3 on 47% shooting.

While his per/36 numbers bear that out, it's still impressive coming from someone who was one- and two-years away from 15/3/2 and 7.5/2/1, respectively.

Then he gets Shaq.

Then Shaq leaves, and we see him do the "stat gouging only good player on a bad team" bit in 2005-2006. So no, he wasn't younger, but those post-Shaq pre-Pau teams were baaaaaad.

  Single-player dominance didn't start with Jordan, it dates back at least to Wilt.

[D.o.s.]

Sure, but Wilt hardly played in the 'modern' NBA, which I count as starting around the David Stern era.

[BballTim]

Sure, but Wilt hardly played in the 'modern' NBA, which I count as starting around the David Stern era.

  You didn't specify any era in your comment. It's not like Bird or Magic hadn't seen Wilt play. Even in the "modern" era you had players like King, Nique, Dantley and the like.

[fairweatherfan]

Bird and Magic predate the 'be like Mike' era of single player dominance, though. Those two guys were incredible basketball players on incredible teams.

Kobe's first full season as a starter (the 99 lockout year, yucky.), he put up 20/5/3 on 47% shooting.

While his per/36 numbers bear that out, it's still impressive coming from someone who was one- and two-years away from 15/3/2 and 7.5/2/1, respectively.

Then he gets Shaq.

Then Shaq leaves, and we see him do the "stat gouging only good player on a bad team" bit in 2005-2006. So no, he wasn't younger, but those post-Shaq pre-Pau teams were baaaaaad.

  Single-player dominance didn't start with Jordan, it dates back at least to Wilt.

As far back as the league goes, really.

[D.o.s.]

Sure, but Wilt hardly played in the 'modern' NBA, which I count as starting around the David Stern era.

  You didn't specify any era in your comment. It's not like Bird or Magic hadn't seen Wilt play. Even in the "modern" era you had players like King, Nique, Dantley and the like.

And in every era you'll find tons of talented me-first team second scorers. I'm sure the New York Celtics had one, too.

However, I did specify the "be like Mike" era as far as Kobe goes, and Jordan's impact on the public's perception of basketball players, and (more importantly to this discussion) all the players Kobe's age and younger who believed that Jordan was the apex of hoops--a group of people that vastly outnumbers fans of Wilt, King, Nique, Bird, and Magic, is unmatched.

the USA started to care about basketball with Bird and Magic, the USA bought in with Jordan and Nike.

[LarBrd33]

This thread is from 2013, but I think it's relevant right now as we have debates about draft prospects like Buddy Hield and Kris Dunn (both of which will turn 23 years old their rookie seasons). 

Fwiw, I was firmly in the "players peak at 27" camp until I started playing a basketball sim online called "Basketball GM".  Players in that game would stop making significant improvements at the age of 24 and it didn't make sense to me.  When I gave them feedback on the game, they gave me numerous articles which backed up the idea that players make their greatest improvements before the age of 24.   They sold me.  And since then, It's completely changed my perception of prospects.  Whether they are playing in the NBA or in College, they seem to make their greatest improvements before the age of 24... and that might partially explain why a guy like Buddy Hield, in his 4th College season, can excel against younger players with years less experience.  It also might explain why a lot of guys who came before Hield, such as Doug McDermott and Jimmer Fredette, saw major improvements during their 4 years of College ball, but didn't see their huge performances as College seniors carry over to the NBA. 

My opinions on these kind of things fluctuate with additional information.  If someone has new data that dispels the notion that players "peak" at 24 (or a better way of putting it - make their greatest leaps before the age of 24), I'd really love to read it.

[saltlover]

This thread is from 2013, but I think it's relevant right now as we have debates about draft prospects like Buddy Hield and Kris Dunn (both of which will turn 23 years old their rookie seasons). 

Fwiw, I was firmly in the "players peak at 27" camp until I started playing a basketball sim online called "Basketball GM".  Players in that game would stop making significant improvements at the age of 24 and it didn't make sense to me.  When I gave them feedback on the game, they gave me numerous articles which backed up the idea that players make their greatest improvements before the age of 24.   They sold me.  And since then, It's completely changed my perception of prospects.  Whether they are playing in the NBA or in College, they seem to make their greatest improvements before the age of 24... and that might partially explain why a guy like Buddy Hield, in his 4th College season, can excel against younger players with years less experience.  It also might explain why a lot of guys who came before Hield, such as Doug McDermott and Jimmer Fredette, saw major improvements during their 4 years of College ball, but didn't see their huge performances as College seniors carry over to the NBA. 

My opinions on these kind of things fluctuate with additional information.  If someone has new data that dispels the notion that players "peak" at 24 (or a better way of putting it - make their greatest leaps before the age of 24), I'd really love to read it.

There was a study that came out a few years ago which showed players peaked at 25.  However, it also showed two other things that are important:

1) Peak age had been trending later, and was 27 for players born sometime in the mid-70s (article was from 2009 I think, so those were the "youngest" players who'd made it to the mid-30s.)

2) Better players peak later.  Maybe someone who washes out of the league at 28 will have has peak year at 25, but the stars and superstars might peak at 29-30.  This makes sense if you think about it -- the truly great players continue improving their skills, so even if athleticism plateaus at 25, they more than make up for it with skill development and playing experience.

The trick, of course, is trying to guess if that 23 year-old is going to keep working on his game to have that later peak, or will instead rely largely on continued athletic development for his first few years.  The same is true with the 19 year-old, however.  You would hope that the #3 pick, whether 19 or 23, is going to keep improving his skills for several years.  But it's why the 19 year-olds get picked first, as they have more time to continue to develop, and thus, while higher risk in the short-term due to being more likely to wash-out, have the higher long-term value due to growth.

Here's one article that discusses point #1 -- I can't find the article about the better players right now, however.

http://basketballnumbers.com/2010/07/13/peak-age-in-the-nba-and-the-miracles-of-modern-medicine/

[Beat LA]

This thread is from 2013, but I think it's relevant right now as we have debates about draft prospects like Buddy Hield and Kris Dunn (both of which will turn 23 years old their rookie seasons). 

Fwiw, I was firmly in the "players peak at 27" camp until I started playing a basketball sim online called "Basketball GM".  Players in that game would stop making significant improvements at the age of 24 and it didn't make sense to me.  When I gave them feedback on the game, they gave me numerous articles which backed up the idea that players make their greatest improvements before the age of 24.   They sold me.  And since then, It's completely changed my perception of prospects.  Whether they are playing in the NBA or in College, they seem to make their greatest improvements before the age of 24... and that might partially explain why a guy like Buddy Hield, in his 4th College season, can excel against younger players with years less experience.  It also might explain why a lot of guys who came before Hield, such as Doug McDermott and Jimmer Fredette, saw major improvements during their 4 years of College ball, but didn't see their huge performances as College seniors carry over to the NBA. 

My opinions on these kind of things fluctuate with additional information.  If someone has new data that dispels the notion that players "peak" at 24 (or a better way of putting it - make their greatest leaps before the age of 24), I'd really love to read it.

Everyone's different, but Jimmer was never going to be anything more than an Eddie House type because he lacks the speed and quickness to even start.  I never understood the comparisons to Mark Price, but I guess that that was because both of them were great-shooting white point guards, even though such a comparison takes away from Price's passing, ball handling, and defensive abilities, not to mention his quickness?  Lol, whatever.

[chambers]

Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Lilliard.
Players peak around age 27-28 and usually maintain that career level for 2 to 3 years.
Everyone is different though.
Eg for Hield: he has shown a proven work ethic to work on his game. With that same work ethic, we really dont know what his ceiling is and 3 to 4 years from now when he hits his peak, how good could he be?

[LarBrd33]

Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Lilliard.
Players peak around age 27-28 and usually maintain that career level for 2 to 3 years.
Everyone is different though.
Eg for Hield: he has shown a proven work ethic to work on his game. With that same work ethic, we really dont know what his ceiling is and 3 to 4 years from now when he hits his peak, how good could he be?

There's exceptions to every rule and those are some good points. 

In the case of Steph, I always thought he had this in him.  He's been shooting 44-45% from three since he was a 21 year old rookie.  Back in 2012, I wanted us to trade then-allstar Rajon Rondo for him.  One big thing that's changed this year is his role... he averaged 4 more shot attempts per game.  Previously, we saw him make the mini leap from player who averaged 14-17 points to player who averaged 23 points, 7 assists, 1.6 steals... he did that at the age of 24.... which would kind of back up the idea that players make their most significant progress before the age of 24.  WIth his shooting percentages remaining stagnant, one could question whether Steph could have averaged 30+ with 20 shot attempts per night had he not spent his early years sharing the court with ball dominators like Monta Ellis.   He's improved in some ways.  His confidence is much higher.  He's added the long long-range shots.  But as a player, is he a significantly better shooter than he was at age 24?

Klay Thompson is roughly the same player he was last season as a 24 year old.  He made a big leap between age 21 and 23 and has seemingly evened out.   He seems to back up the idea that players make their most significant improvements by 24.   

Lillard is another weak example.  He's roughly the same player he was when he entered the league as a 22 year old averaging 19 points, 6.5 assists, 3.1 rebounds and 1 steal.   His shooting percentages have remained roughly the same. He saw a slight jump in scoring this season from 21 to 25 points that has more to do with his role than anything (Aldridge left requiring him to take more shots).  He's more or less the same player he was.  He saw his main progress in College before the age of 23. 

Find me someone who was a weak player at age 24 or 25 and saw his game jump considerably.  It doesn't seem to happen normally.  The greatest development seems to happen before 24.  Yeah, a guy might take more shots and get a few extra points, but if a guy is going to be a 40% three point shooter or be a guy who is capable of getting 20+ per night, you're usually going to know about it before he's 24 years old.  If we don't see a major leap out of Marcus Smart in the next year or two, we probably will not see it ever.  And folks waiting for Kelly Olynyk (now 25 years old) to make a leap into stardom will likely be disappointed.  I actually like Oly a lot and think his FG% reflects a player who could have a bigger impact on the right team.  Oly might get 17 points per night with enough minutes and shot attempts, but that's something that would be reflective of a role change - not a dramatic increase in skill.   

I think the point those studies/articles are making is that the greatest skill development a player has will be before the age of 24.   You more or less know what the player is capable of by that age. 

[tarheelsxxiii]

All people peak at 24 - NBA players and chemical engineers alike.

[Beat LA]

Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Lilliard.
Players peak around age 27-28 and usually maintain that career level for 2 to 3 years.
Everyone is different though.
Eg for Hield: he has shown a proven work ethic to work on his game. With that same work ethic, we really dont know what his ceiling is and 3 to 4 years from now when he hits his peak, how good could he be?

There's exceptions to every rule and those are some good points. 

In the case of Steph, I always thought he had this in him.  He's been shooting 44-45% from three since he was a 21 year old rookie.  Back in 2012, I wanted us to trade then-allstar Rajon Rondo for him.  One big thing that's changed this year is his role... he averaged 4 more shot attempts per game.  Previously, we saw him make the mini leap from player who averaged 14-17 points to player who averaged 23 points, 7 assists, 1.6 steals... he did that at the age of 24.... which would kind of back up the idea that players make their most significant progress before the age of 24.  WIth his shooting percentages remaining stagnant, one could question whether Steph could have averaged 30+ with 20 shot attempts per night had he not spent his early years sharing the court with ball dominators like Monta Ellis.   He's improved in some ways.  His confidence is much higher.  He's added the long long-range shots.  But as a player, is he a significantly better shooter than he was at age 24?

Klay Thompson is roughly the same player he was last season as a 24 year old.  He made a big leap between age 21 and 23 and has seemingly evened out.   He seems to back up the idea that players make their most significant improvements by 24.   

Lillard is another weak example.  He's roughly the same player he was when he entered the league as a 22 year old averaging 19 points, 6.5 assists, 3.1 rebounds and 1 steal.   His shooting percentages have remained roughly the same. He saw a slight jump in scoring this season from 21 to 25 points that has more to do with his role than anything (Aldridge left requiring him to take more shots).  He's more or less the same player he was.  He saw his main progress in College before the age of 23. 

Find me someone who was a weak player at age 24 or 25 and saw his game jump considerably.  It doesn't seem to happen normally.  The greatest development seems to happen before 24.  Yeah, a guy might take more shots and get a few extra points, but if a guy is going to be a 40% three point shooter or be a guy who is capable of getting 20+ per night, you're usually going to know about it before he's 24 years old.  If we don't see a major leap out of Marcus Smart in the next year or two, we probably will not see it ever.  And folks waiting for Kelly Olynyk (now 25 years old) to make a leap into stardom will likely be disappointed.  I actually like Oly a lot and think his FG% reflects a player who could have a bigger impact on the right team.  Oly might get 17 points per night with enough minutes and shot attempts, but that's something that would be reflective of a role change - not a dramatic increase in skill.   

I think the point those studies/articles are making is that the greatest skill development a player has will be before the age of 24.   You more or less know what the player is capable of by that age.

I know you've mentioned this many times, but was that before the 11-12 season, or after it?  Either way, that would have been a horrible fit on both ends of the floor, but particularly on defense.  I realize and acknowledge that Curry has quick hands, but Ray Allen was 36 and was no Klay Thompson, defensively, and Pierce was 34.  We would have been eaten alive, and Ray would have been complaining that he wasn't getting enough shots, not to mention the fact that Rondo got all of them much better shots because of his incredible vision, which helped the Big 3, especially KG, remain very effective in their later years.  Curry for Rondo is a nice video game trade, but the real life version would have been far different, and not for the better, imo.

[greece66]

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

^My thoughts exactly. When talking of 'averages' in the NBA ppl forget how many busts come and go every year: they mean very little in terms of playing time, but when you compile averages for the total of the players they are a p large %. Just recently, the C's had several such players in their roster: Phil Pressey certainly peaked at a young age. Gigi (now 28) probably peaked in 2012 and 2013 (last season in Europe, and his first inthe  NBA). I would not be surprised if with hindsight it looks like James Young, Sully, and Dwight Powell had their peaks at their early 20s. Did I mention Fab Melo 

For every KG and PP you have several of these guys. Add to the mix players with early career ending injuries (esp bigs: Sampson, Greg Oden, Bill Walton) and it's no surprise at all that the data have this shape.

I still however take an issue with the notion that busts "peak" at their early 20s; it is not true that their athletic abilities or skills peak in any way at 24; what happens is that they get kicked out of the best championship in the world and then many of them go on to have pretty good international careers, which probably suggests they still improve their game (ie there might be a pro-NBA bias among the ppl who analyzed the data).

Back to Larbrd33 post, are you talking of the reddit bball GM simulation?

[Big333223]

I'll piggyback on what greece666 is saying.

If we're sampling all NBA players then we're sampling a huge number of guys who are out of the league by the time they're 28 years old. We don't realize how many of them there are because we're not spending as much time thinking about the guys on the end of the bench in Milwaukee as we are the guys making the all star team. But they're there and they would skew these results much younger.

That doesn't mean those result less accurate but it makes it less applcable to what we talk about when evalutating stars or even regular starters in the NBA.

But I don't know what the sampling is like.

[chambers]

Is there a single top 10 player in the NBA, or even top 100 all time NBA player that had their peak at 24?

Not a single one right?
Lebron's peak at 24? Durant? Harden? Westbrook? CP3? Shaq? Kobe? MJ? KG, Allen, Pierce? Curry, Blake Griffin?

The premise is deeply flawed unfortunately.