Do younger rookies have longer careers? (MikeG, 2008)
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:38 am
page 1 of 4
Author Message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: Do younger rookies have longer careers? Reply with quote
Can a guy who jumps into the draft at age 19 expect to play 3 years longer than he would if he'd wait until he's 22? Historically, no.
Utilizing this page:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/ ... i?id=xvlyr
... I looked at players who, through age 24, had a career PER of 19.5 or better (There have been 87). It would be a non-random sample to just compare all players who have entered the league at 19, at 20, etc; since generally those coming in younger have more potential for greatness. By checking just those with early star power, we are comparing more similar players.
Eliminating those who only played in the ABA, and then selecting those whose careers have concluded, we have most of the alltime top-50, plus some early flameouts, plus some more less-heralded. I consider Webber, Francis, and Abdur-Rahim to have concluded.
Actually, I'm defining 'concluded' as a player's final 1000-minute season. Seasons of <1000 'don't count'. This affects 'career length' and 'min/yr' a bit. Here's the breakdown of 57 concluded careers, by age of entry:
Code:
SS# rk Yr1 age1 ageL YrLst yrs Min min/yr
10 51 1981 20 32.2 1994 13.2 32,821 2460
15 34 1973 21 32.7 1985 12.7 28,701 2344
25 46 1970 22 33.0 1981 12.0 30,006 2509
7 53 1966 23 33.7 1977 11.7 30,366 2557
SS# is sample size.
rk is average rank in the career PER of players <25 years old.
Yr1 is average rookie season. Note how rookies have gotten younger
age1 is age in rookie season, defined at b-r.com
ageL is last 1000-min-season age
YrLst is that year
Min is career, regular-season, NBA+ABA
min/yr, from rookie year (regardless of min.) thru last 1000-min year
Historically, though entering 3 years sooner, 20-year-old rookies only play 1.5 years more than their 23-year-entering counterparts. The progression is pretty smooth: Each year you cut off of college, you lose half a year at the end of your pro career.
Total minutes are even closer; perhaps because some young rookies do not even play 1000 minutes.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess I forgot to correct for shorter schedules in the olden days. Since there are uneven distributions of player-seasons before 82-game seasons, and I don't want to fart around with that, I'm just deleting players who started before 1960. Now it looks like this:
Code:
SS# rk Yr1 age1 ageL YrLst Min min/yr yrs
10 51 1981 20 32.2 1994 32821 2460 13.2
12 36 1979 21 33.1 1991 30350 2315 13.1
19 49 1975 22 33.6 1987 31623 2483 12.6
6 56 1968 23 34.2 1980 32896 2701 12.2
Now it seems there's almost no advantage to coming out early: Lose 3 college years to gain one pro season.
Moses came out at age 19, and is included in the 20's group.
Next: current careers contradict historic data.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Chicago76
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Posts: 98
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd be curious to see your sample bifurcated into two groups: the guys entering around 83/84 and before and those entering after. There are a few reasons for this:
1-The pre-merger era had a decent number of players who came out early and played very well at in the divided league system. Neither league was as strong as the post-merger setup and a lot of these guys didn't fare nearly as well 3 or 4 years into the post merger era. Maybe they were too assured of their status as stars to continue to work hard and the increased competition got the best of them (a McGinnis for example).
2-The late 70s early 80s drug issues. Put money in a younger guys pocket in this era and his choices might be more suspect (the Haywood/Thompson). This is the argument people use for age limits today, but the fact is young guys are much more sophisticated in their choices today than they were 30 years ago. The money really began to take off at this point too.
3-Sneaker design. Mid-sole support and better footwear technology really started around 84/85 with Converse and shortly thereafter w/ Nike. Guys coming out in 83 or earlier are playing heavier minutes with inferior footwear than players of a the same age who played 4 years in college. If you look at injuries, they hit their peak right around the early/mid 80s as the game continued to get faster/bigger and sneaker technology had not yet caught up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:54 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Sneaker technology. I hadn't thought of that factor. But drugs (and other distractions) have continued to plague star players: Kemp, etc (rather not name names).
More money may = more distraction. Then I guess one can afford a personal manager, trainer, chef, etc. And in another thread, I'm seeing evidence that the mid-80's onward are the most competitive in league history. So that may skew players' career minutes a bit.
Larry Bird, 1980, was the last 'star' player to enter after age 22. Well, Andre Miller (2000). Nowadays, all stars enter before 22. Check out the current stars-by-24 who were 22-yr-old rookies: Grant Hill, Vince, Yao, and Wade. Yikes! Hardly an ironman group.
Yet of 18-19-yr-old (current) rookies (7), the least-durable has been McGrady (2389 min/yr). Even including their development years, they average 232 minutes more than those who rookied at 22.
The jury is still out on how these guys' careers will wind up. Of retired players who've rookied since '84, it seems 21 is the optimal age for entry. The samples are very small.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Chicago76
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Posts: 98
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Sneaker technology. I hadn't thought of that factor.
It's kind of interesting when you look at minutes played and games missed over the last 30 years. As the game continued to get faster (not necessarily measured in pace, just movement) and guys on average got stronger, injuries generally trended up until the mid-80s. I forget what year it was, but Converse came out with a shoe with mid-sole support, then the Weapons a year or so later. Of course, Nike had the Air Jordan thing a year or so after that. Suddenly, injuries were down on average. That was the technology leap from Chucks and Keds to Cons and Nike was the big leap. Now we're just seeing little refinements, and not surprisingly, injuries have trended up.
Physics is catching up again. You can ask guys to run faster and be stronger, but medicine, training, and footwear can only help so much. If we knew then what we do now, who knows what would have become of the Waltons and Moncriefs of the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
I guess I forgot to correct for shorter schedules in the olden days. Since there are uneven distributions of player-seasons before 82-game seasons, and I don't want to fart around with that, I'm just deleting players who started before 1960.
Maybe I'm just having a brain-fart, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Oy, that's a very poorly constructed sentence. Well, I'm referring to shorter schedules (less than 82G/Yr) in the '50s and, to a lesser extent, in the '60s. This plays havoc with players' career-length, in both games and minutes.
'Uneven distributions' refers to the fact that younger rookies are more heavily represented in later decades. So, by including predominanty older rookies from the '50s -- who played fewer games and minutes per year, as well as tending to play fewer years -- the sample was skewed.
By eliminating those 10 old-timers (avg rookie age 21.8; career 10.1 yrs * 2286 min), I removed some older/briefer careers. So comparatively, younger entry looks even worse without this part of the sample.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:03 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Resurrected Thread Warning!
This article came out a few weeks ago:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... /?bcnn=yes
The aging of the NBA's prodigies
by Steve Aschburner
Quote:
The issue: Did the players who turned pro directly out of high school from 1995-2005 help themselves to four extra NBA seasons, or did they simply start drawing down early from a finite account of available minutes?
The question might actually be: Are marathon minutes even more costly to teenage players, such that their careers are even shorter?
Quote:
In Boston's second game this season, Garnett became the youngest player to participate in 1,000 NBA games, reaching that threshold at 32 years, 165 days.
Also speculations on Dwight, Kobe, Jermaine, McGrady.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NickS
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 384
PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Resurrected Thread Warning!
This article came out a few weeks ago:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... /?bcnn=yes
That's a good article.
It's a subject that I've wondered about, myself and, while the article is mostly anecdotal in it's approach, it nevertheless feels substantial and has a number of interesting examples.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:31 am Post subject: Reply with quote
When I did this study last year, there were a few younger entries who had recently concluded their careers; and several -- Kobe, KG, etc who seemed to be iron men. One of those 2 has perhaps hit a wall, though.
It will be interesting to revisit in a few years. It seems to have been suggested that a mandatory 2nd year between high school and NBA is being debated?
If so, does that mean it's now a consensus that the one-year delay is declared a success?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:26 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Revisiting the topic, and I'm still not aware of any other study of it.
I've looked at players who have been selected to one or more All-Star games, and who entered the NBA from 1992 to 2003. At what age did these players peak?
'Peak' is defined with equal weight given to a player's:
- Best PER
- Most WinShares
- - If Offensive WS peaked in a year other than total WS, the average of the two is used.
Example: Rashard Lewis' PER tops (at 20.7) in 2007. His WS tops (at 9.9) in 2008; but his OWS peaked sharply (8.3) in 2006. His 'overall' peak is thus fudged to 2007.
Tony Parker is similarly adjudged to have peaked in '08. His WS peaked in '07; PER was highest last year ('09); he is the only player in the study with either measure peaking so recently.
Sorted by their age at entry to the NBA, there's a distinct cutoff between players who first appeared by age 20, and those 21 or older. Players who entered at 18, 19, or 20 have an average peak at age 25.4; those who enter at 21 or older have peaked at 27.1 years, on avg.
This study involves 72 players. No player entering 2004 or later can be (I guess) supposed to have peaked.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/ ... i?id=tCizM
Code:
Yr1 entry allstar YOB Peak Min PkYr PkAge
18 1998 McGrady 1979 2003 27462 6 23
18 1997 Kobe 1978 2006 34531 10 27
18 1997 Jermaine 1978 2004 22459 8 25
19 2002 Parker 1982 2008 20335 7 25
19 2002 Arenas 1982 2006.5 16175 5.5 23.5
19 1999 Lewis 1979 2007 26855 9 27
19 1997 Marbury 1977 2003 31891 7 25
19 1996 Garnett 1976 2004 39635 9 27
18.6 1998.5 2005.2 27417 7.7 25.3
20 1993 Shaq 1972 2000 39926 8 27
20 1997 Walker 1976 2002 31531 6 25
20 1994 Webber 1973 2000.5 30847 7.5 26.5
20 1999 Nowitzki 1978 2006 30693 8 27
20 1997 Shareef 1976 2000.5 28882 4.5 23.5
20 2000 Brand 1979 2006 24421 7 26
20 2000 BDavis 1979 2007.5 23826 8.5 27.5
20 2002 JJohnson 1981 2006 22908 5 24
20 2000 Artest 1979 2006.7 21037 7.7 26.75
20 2002 Kirilenko 1981 2004.5 17309 3.5 22.5
20 2003 Amar'e 1982 2006.5 14848 4.5 23.5
20 1998.8 2004.2 26020 6.4 25.4
25.4
- - - - - - -
Yr1 entry allstar YOB Peak Min PkYr PkAge
21 2003 Boozer 1981 2007.5 14019 5.5 25.5
21 2002 Gasol 1980 2008 20821 7 27
21 2001 Redd 1979 2006.5 18710 6.5 26.5
21 2000 Hamilton 1978 2004.2 24724 5.2 25.25
21 2000 Marion 1978 2006 28020 7 27
21 1999 Pierce 1977 2005 30525 7 27
21 1999 Carter 1977 2001 29271 3 23
21 1999 Stojakovich 1977 2004 24402 6 26
21 1998 Duncan 1976 2003 33138 6 26
21 1998 Billups 1976 2007 26876 10 30
21 1997 Iverson 1975 2007 36719 11 31
21 1997 Allen 1975 2001 35099 5 25
21 1996 McDyess 1974 2000.2 25049 5.2 25.25
21 1996 Stackhouse 1974 2001 28500 6 26
21 1996 Rasheed 1974 2001 34167 6 26
21 1995 Kidd 1973 2000 41155 6 26
21 1995 Juwan 1973 2001.7 34188 7.7 27.75
21 1995 GRobinson 1973 2001 25346 7 27
21 1994 Mashburn 1972 2003 22762 10 30
21 1992 KAnderson 1970 1996.5 25868 5.5 25.5
21 1992 Brandon 1970 1996 21545 5 25
21 1997.3 2002.9 27662 6.6 26.6
22 2003 Yao 1980 2005.5 15727 3.5 24.5
22 2003 Butler 1980 2008 17715 6 27
22 2001 Magloire 1978 2003 13730 3 24
22 2000 Francis 1977 2001 21632 2 23
22 2000 Szczerbiak 1977 2004 20052 5 26
22 1999 Jamison 1976 2003.7 29354 5.7 26.75
22 1998 Ilgauskas 1975 2004 20481 7 28
22 1997 Nash 1974 2007 29012 11 32
22 1996 Finley 1973 2000.2 37288 5.2 26.25
22 1996 Ratliff 1973 1999 19621 4 25
22 1995 Hill 1972 1997.7 28122 3.7 24.75
22 1994 Van Exel 1971 2000.2 28969 7.2 28.25
22 1994 Houston 1971 2002.2 28311 9.2 30.25
22 1994 Penny 1971 1996 23711 3 24
22 1994 Baker 1971 1998 25737 5 26
22 1993 Mourning 1970 2000 25975 8 29
22 1993 Sprewell 1970 1997 35270 5 26
22 1992 SSmith 1969 1998.5 28856 7.5 28.5
22 1992 LJohnson 1969 1996 25685 5 26
22 1992 DDavis 1969 2001 29606 10 31
22 1996.3 2001.3 25242 5.8 26.8
23 2003 Okur 1979 2006 15658 4 26
23 2001 KMartin 1977 2003.5 17806 3.5 25.5
23 1995 EJones 1971 1999 32778 5 27
23 1993 Gugliotta 1969 1998 23556 6 28
23 1993 Laettner 1969 1997 25760 5 27
24 1994 Cassell 1969 2003.7 29811 10.7 33.75
24 1992 Gatling 1967 1995.5 13760 4.5 27.5
25 2003 Ginobili 1977 2008 13237 6 30
25 1994 ADavis 1968 1999.2 26083 6.2 30.25
25 1992 Mutombo 1966 1997.7 36791 6.7 30.75
23.8 1996.0 2000.8 23524 5.8 28.6
27.1
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NickS
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 384
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:31 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice work.
Mike G wrote:
'Peak' is defined with equal weight given to a player's:
- Best PER
- Most WinShares
- - If Offensive WS peaked in a year other than total WS, the average of the two is used.
Example: Rashard Lewis' PER tops (at 20.7) in 2007. His WS tops (at 9.9) in 2008; but his OWS peaked sharply (8.3) in 2006. His 'overall' peak is thus fudged to 2007.
Just one note, if you take AI's peak year to be 2000-01 (the year he won the MVP, and his second highest PER season) that would drop his peak age by 6 years, and the average peak age of his cohort by .3 year. It wouldn't make much difference but would make the relationship between the cohorts look slightly more linear (20/21/22 yo rookies would peak at 25.4/26.3/26.8 respectively).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:22 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
If I were to step outside the parameters, I'd rank Iveron's 2003 as his peak, in eWins. Then, the 21-yr-old entries avg 26.4 as their peak age.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NickS
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 384
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:31 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
If I were to step outside the parameters, I'd rank Iveron's 2003 as his peak, in eWins. Then, the 21-yr-old entries avg 26.4 as their peak age.
Yes, I understand why it's important to have criteria that can be applied systematically even if the criteria is somewhat arbitrary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 865
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
A guy over at RealGM (goes by TrueLAFan -- he's inexplicably a Clippers fanatic) once provided some analysis showing historically, total minutes is a better predictor than age of when a player will begin to decline. Alas, RealGM didn't archive some old conversations when it went to a new message board provider and the thread disappeared into the ether.
page 2 of 4
Author Message
tawtaw
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 26
Location: Oregon
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
That's really interesting MikeG. If the data is handy, can you tell if the players that entered the league early had more seasons near their peak than the players that entered at a later age?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:36 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Along with this suggestion by kjb:
Quote:
.. total minutes is a better predictor than age of when a player will begin to decline.
... There are obviously various ways a player may be said to be 'in his prime', 'near his peak', etc. Taking a single 'best' year, everything afterward could be called 'decline'.
Meanwhile, I did include a total minutes (RS) column, just for reference. To date, players entering at 21 have averaged 1600 more minutes than those who entered at 20; and slightly more than the 18-19 group. There are more 'completed' careers among the 21's, and the 18-19-20 tend to be younger at present. But one could find a minutes per year, before/after peak, or whatever.
All this followup study did was:
- define 'elite player' differently (allstar vs high-PER)
- include active players, as well as recently-retired
- describe a career trajectory differently (by peak age vs by length)
And the results are strikingly similar. A career started younger peaks younger, as well as terminates younger.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DJE09
Joined: 05 May 2009
Posts: 148
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:05 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike,
Your study here is real nice. I'm not sure I would like to say anyone who was a rookie in 2002 or later has definitely peaked. Since this is a reasonable percentage of your 20 and unders, this would significantly increase their average age, eg. I could easily see healthy A'mare, TP, and Arenas posting "peak" seasons this year (along with quite a few other players). If those 3 players peak this season, your average age for <=20 players shifts to over 26 ... not such a big difference.
In a related observation, KD's list of top 10 player seasons (link here) contains 8 by players who rookied as 20 and unders - only TD and Wade represent the older cohort. Perhaps a shorter duration in College / quicker transition to NBA causes players to reach greater heights, rather than for a more sustained period? I wonder if the NBA has considered this aspect of putting off players for longer - whilst the 18/19 year olds are typically not "NBA ready" forcing them to 'get ready' in the NBA may produce 'better' players than them 'getting ready' somewhere else.
One thing neither your study, nor the SI article addressed, was if coming out earlier shortened or made a player's career worse (I know it would be very hard to establish this) than it would've otherwise been. Even if a player can only play a finite number of NBA minutes, if they are capable of starting them at 20, and end up retiring at 35 instead of 22 and 37, but have the same production etc, I know which option I would choose ... two more years as a multi-millionaire ex-nba player or two years or having to prove myself for no "payment" for "amature" competition ... One of the obvious problems of this is that each player is unique, there is no "typical" player development schema - we have no KG who went to college for a season or two to compare KG too (although one suspects such a player might bark less).
A study of that would have to have some nice way of managing 'injuries' and some how addressed the failures as well as the successes ... of course I have no idea how to do that Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:27 am Post subject: Reply with quote
DJE09 wrote:
I could easily see healthy A'mare, TP, and Arenas posting "peak" seasons this year (along with quite a few other players).
If Arenas this year not only returns to his previous form but surpasses it, that's an unprecedented feat in NBA history (after missing 2 years). If all 3 do such a thing, it's a miracle.
If all these should do so, and none of the 21+ group should do so (Gasol?), the peak ages will shift relative to one another. Much more likely is that they'll remain about 1.7 years apart.
Quote:
Perhaps a shorter duration in College / quicker transition to NBA causes players to reach greater heights...?
More likely, it's just that better players tend to come out earlier.
Quote:
... Even if a player can only play a finite number of NBA minutes, if they are capable of starting them at 20, and end up retiring at 35 instead of 22 and 37..
I'd rather retire with good knees. And if salaries go up, you get more money with a later career.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DJE09
Joined: 05 May 2009
Posts: 148
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:49 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
me wrote:
... Even if a player can only play a finite number of NBA minutes, if they are capable of starting them at 20, and end up retiring at 35 instead of 22 and 37..
I'd rather retire with good knees. And if salaries go up, you get more money with a later career.
I'm not sure Reggie did this, and I was assuming that career length was basically the same - ie same number of seasons for the 20yr and 22 yr old, so the $ would basically be the same, yes? I mean salary correlates with years in the league, not age right?
For the Salary Argument to come into effect, you'd have to have some situation where the player who came out younger was earning for less years. Your chart seemed to show that the players peaked 'earlier' but it was (almost) commensurate with their younger age, so they were not playing less seasons by coming out earlier. In fact I thought the SI evidence was that they get more seasons, albeit it only a fraction of a year (between .25 and 0.5?) for each year they shave off college. So there was a financial advantage to coming out early.
There was a glut of players in the 84/85 draft which seems to have altered perceptions of a 'typical' NBA career length. Most players don't play even 12 seasons.
TP wasn't injured significantly last season, A'mare was on track to have his best season last season until the eye injury, which I can't really believe is related to micro-fracture surgery, and I think I can agree that it is unlikely agent zero will submit anything near a complete season, but if he does, I guess we are just going to disgree about his projected level. I don't think it is unlikely that all 3 have personal best seasons in 09/10.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:48 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
DJE09 wrote:
..I don't think it is unlikely that all 3 have personal best seasons in 09/10.
Get back to me on this.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:37 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
As a follow-up to a study of elite NBA players and their age at entry vs their career length, I've done a somewhat larger survey of semi-greats.
The earlier one looked at players whose career PER was 19.5 or greater through age 24. Whether he's joined the league after 4 years of college or skipped straight from high school, I assume a player will have established himself by age 24 (exceptions being very-late bloomers, though none come to mind).
So now I've looked at guys -- careers completed -- with career PER less than 19.5 (thru age 24) but greater than 17.0 . A PER of 15.0 is defined as average. To avoid the super-expanded early-ABA era, only players from 1974 onward are included. Before that, some marginal guys got big minutes, with sometimes inflated stats.
Along with summary of the earlier survey, here's the new one.
SS# is sample size: the number of players in an age group.
(The under-21 entries in the 17-19.5 group are just 3 players: Cliff Robinson I, Antoine Walker, and Stephon Marbury. You might just ignore this line, because they aren't typical of anything.)
Average career, by age as a Rookie:
Code:
Thru age 24, career PER 19.5 or more
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
20 32.2 32821 2460 13.2 10
21 33.1 30350 2315 13.1 12
22 33.6 31623 2483 12.6 19
23 34.2 32896 2701 12.2 6
Thru age 24, career PER 17 to 19.5
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
19-20 28.7 27569 2636 10.3 3
21 30.9 23847 2138 10.9 12
22 31.7 23102 2126 10.7 35
23 33.6 26246 2230 11.6 16
Other than the anomalous 19-20 yr line (3 oddballs with mostly-bad teams), the advantage of being an older rookie is even more pronounced among middling stars.
More than half of this group (35/66) rookied at age 22. Relative to that standard:
- The age of last (1000 min.) season is almost one year less for players entering a year earlier (21).
- 23-year old rookies play to almost 2 years older.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... i?id=7WCAT
Minimum 3000 NBA/ABA minutes thru age 24.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:51 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Another 80 players whose career PER at age 24 was between 15.5 and 17:
Code:
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
19-20 27.5 14093 1566 9.0 2
21 29.3 20263 2153 9.3 10
22 31.1 21542 2097 10.1 55
23 32.1 22064 2182 10.1 13
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Some average players, and below
Code:
age 24 PER 14.5 - 15.5
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
20-21 28.4 15551 1711 8.6 12
22 30.8 21036 2096 9.8 50
23 30.5 16457 1948 8.5 16
age 24 PER 13.5 - 14.5
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
19-20 23.7 9648 1799 5.3 3
21 27.5 14768 1991 7.5 11
22 29.2 15475 1869 8.2 53
23 29.9 15467 2059 7.7 19
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:37 am Post subject: Reply with quote
DJE09 wrote:
... I'm not sure I would like to say anyone who was a rookie in 2002 or later has definitely peaked. ... I could easily see healthy A'mare, TP, and Arenas posting "peak" seasons this year ...
Maybe next year.
This refers to AllStars entering the league 1992-2003, and my guesses as to their ages at which they 'peaked'.
Pared down to players currently active: Anyone think any of these players will surpass a previous best?
Age - Player (yr)
23 - Kirilenko'05, McGrady'03, Carter'01
24 - Arenas'07, Amar'e'07, Joe Johnson'06, Magloire'03
25 - Yao'06, Hill'98, Parker'08, Jermaine'04, Allen'01, Ratliff'99, Hamilton'04, McDyess'00
26 - Boozer'08, KMart'04, Brand'06, Okur'06, Peja'04, Duncan'03, Stack'01, Sheed'01, Kidd'00, Finley'00
27 - Redd'07, Artest'07, Jamison'04, Gasol'08, Butler'08, Lewis'07, Kobe'06, Dirk'06, Marion'06, Pierce'05, Garnett'04, Shaq'00
28 - BDavis'08, Juwan'02, Ilgauskas'04
30 - Ginobili'08, Billups'07
32 - Nash'07
Average peak age for these 43 -- 26.1
For those who rookied at <21 it's 25.2
For those entering over 21 it's 26.6
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsherkin
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 247
PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:50 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Kev, why don't you just ask John about that post? PM him, he responds to those after a few days. I was asking him questions about projecting RPG for players in different eras with rebound rate and he was pretty quick about it.
EDIT: Hmm, didn't notice there was a second page to this thread...
Anyway, I've started a thread up on the stats forum on RealGM to try and draw John into it and get him to re-post his analysis so that we can have a look at it over here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tsherkin
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 247
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's John's summary:
Quote:
Player age has little to do with decline. It's the wear and tear on the body that predicts player dropoff. Call it the Indiana Jones Rule—“It’s not the years, honey, it’s the mileage.”
For most players and (especially) smaller players, the line seems to be at about 36000 regular season minutes. Jordan retired for the second time after about 36000 regular season minutes. He was still great, but I think his physical skills and overall play had started to erode in his final season and would have continued to if he’d kept playing. Gary Payton started to drop off after about 35000 regular season minutes. Same with Jerry West.
Big men seem to have about one or maybe two extra seasons...enough to get to about 38000 to 40000. But a lot of big men decline around the 36000 minute mark as well. The bottom line is that 36000 minutes is a lot of basketball, and the human body doesn't keep regenerating all its parts.
All players start to lose physical skills, probably earlier than 36000 minutes, but the smarter players can compensate for it. For a while. Once you pass 41000 for a big man, or 7000 or so for a smaller guy, it’s really hard or impossible to keep the level of your play up that high. There are a couple of outliers--Karl Malone, for example. had his skills drop off after 2000, and he had played about 44000 regular season minutes and never had a major injury at that time. Kareem was still pretty great in 1985 and 1986, good enough to finish in the top 5 of MVP voting. He had played about 48000 regular season minutes. I don't even know how to judge Wilt...he was still a top 5 player when he retired, and he'd played almost 48000 minutes. But those are the only real outliers in the last 40 or 50 years.
There's some further discussion on the topic as he discusses the thresholds, the outliers, etc, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mtamada
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 373
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:58 am Post subject: Reply with quote
It appears that both TrueLAFan at RealGM and MikeG here are using regular season minutes only, and ignoring playoff minutes? That might indeed be a correct procedure (but if so, then I could imagine that seasons played might be a helpful explanatory variable, as well as minutes played), but I'd like to see how the analysis compares if playoff minutes are included. Because if the pure minutes played argument is correct, then it would seem that playoff minutes ought to count too. (And maybe minutes played in the Olympics too, as the syndrome of more-injuries-after-playing-in-the-Olympics is often mentioned, although I don't know if anyone has done a systematic study.)
Basically current age, seasons played, minutes played (either regular season only, or including playoffs, whichever is better), and maybe even games played are all potential explanatory variables. TrueLAFan seems to have dismissed all the other explanatory variables and claims that only regular season minutes matter, but his evidence or justification for this seems pretty minimal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote
There are a couple of questions here:
1 - How young should we be drafting players?
2 - How hard should we be running them?
I haven't studied it systematically, but it's always seemed that novice coaches tend to overuse their star players. To give them more minutes, that is.
There's probably a more general relationship between the strength of will of the player and the coach. Larry Brown was no novice when he acquiesced to Iverson's insistence to play almost every minute.
MTamada may be right that playoff minutes should count, though it may be offset by a higher motivational level. Playing long minutes for perpetually bad teams might create more emotional wear and tear.
The studies I've undertaken have looked specifically at the relation between the age of entry and the length of the career. At every level of talent, it seems a career is hardly extended (or actually shortened) by entering younger than 21-22.
Summarized :
Code:
Thru age 24, career PER 19.5 or more
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
20 32.2 32821 2460 13.2 10
21 33.1 30350 2315 13.1 12
22 33.6 31623 2483 12.6 19
23 34.2 32896 2701 12.2 6
Thru age 24, career PER 17.0 to 19.5
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
19-20 28.7 27569 2636 10.3 3
21 30.9 23847 2138 10.9 12
22 31.7 23102 2126 10.7 35
23 33.6 26246 2230 11.6 16
Thru age 24, career PER 15.5 to 17.0
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
19-20 27.5 14093 1566 9.0 2
21 29.3 20263 2153 9.3 10
22 31.1 21542 2097 10.1 55
23 32.1 22064 2182 10.1 13
thru age 24 PER 14.5 - 15.5
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
20-21 28.4 15551 1711 8.6 12
22 30.8 21036 2096 9.8 50
23 30.5 16457 1948 8.5 16
thru age 24 PER 13.5 - 14.5
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
19-20 23.7 9648 1799 5.3 3
21 27.5 14768 1991 7.5 11
22 29.2 15475 1869 8.2 53
23 29.9 15467 2059 7.7 19
The small-sample ages are included for completeness' sake.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsherkin
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 247
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:05 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
mtamada wrote:
It appears that both TrueLAFan at RealGM and MikeG here are using regular season minutes only, and ignoring playoff minutes?
Actually, in at least one of his posts he discusses playoff minutes in that thread.
spr6=underrated quoted truela from another thread saying:
Quote:
The max range seem to be around 36,000-40,000 combined regular season and playoff minutes.
He's not necessarily articulating it as clearly in the posts that he himself made in the thread, but he definitely referred to combined minutes as the drop-off point in the quoted portion. The original post was a long time ago and he was summarizing from memory.
EDIT: I guess his examples in the latest thread are a little off.
Malone had played just under 41,700 regular-season minutes after the lockout season, and an additional 6,170 playoff minutes, so nearly 48,000 combined minutes before the 99-00 season even begun... And then he promptly posted a 25.5, 9..5, 3.7 season on 58.2% TS. He'd still be pretty good in the two following years, averaging over 22 ppg, 8+ FTA/g and 4.3+ apg, but his defensive rebounding declined.
You'd think it was a sign of athletic decline, but traditionally steals are looked at as an athletic indicator and Malone recorded consecutive seasons of 2.5+ STL% from 01-02 through 02-03, the two highest STL% seasons of his career, and playing 80+ games both years and 2900+ minutes played.
He was an absolute freak...
Author Message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: Do younger rookies have longer careers? Reply with quote
Can a guy who jumps into the draft at age 19 expect to play 3 years longer than he would if he'd wait until he's 22? Historically, no.
Utilizing this page:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/ ... i?id=xvlyr
... I looked at players who, through age 24, had a career PER of 19.5 or better (There have been 87). It would be a non-random sample to just compare all players who have entered the league at 19, at 20, etc; since generally those coming in younger have more potential for greatness. By checking just those with early star power, we are comparing more similar players.
Eliminating those who only played in the ABA, and then selecting those whose careers have concluded, we have most of the alltime top-50, plus some early flameouts, plus some more less-heralded. I consider Webber, Francis, and Abdur-Rahim to have concluded.
Actually, I'm defining 'concluded' as a player's final 1000-minute season. Seasons of <1000 'don't count'. This affects 'career length' and 'min/yr' a bit. Here's the breakdown of 57 concluded careers, by age of entry:
Code:
SS# rk Yr1 age1 ageL YrLst yrs Min min/yr
10 51 1981 20 32.2 1994 13.2 32,821 2460
15 34 1973 21 32.7 1985 12.7 28,701 2344
25 46 1970 22 33.0 1981 12.0 30,006 2509
7 53 1966 23 33.7 1977 11.7 30,366 2557
SS# is sample size.
rk is average rank in the career PER of players <25 years old.
Yr1 is average rookie season. Note how rookies have gotten younger
age1 is age in rookie season, defined at b-r.com
ageL is last 1000-min-season age
YrLst is that year
Min is career, regular-season, NBA+ABA
min/yr, from rookie year (regardless of min.) thru last 1000-min year
Historically, though entering 3 years sooner, 20-year-old rookies only play 1.5 years more than their 23-year-entering counterparts. The progression is pretty smooth: Each year you cut off of college, you lose half a year at the end of your pro career.
Total minutes are even closer; perhaps because some young rookies do not even play 1000 minutes.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess I forgot to correct for shorter schedules in the olden days. Since there are uneven distributions of player-seasons before 82-game seasons, and I don't want to fart around with that, I'm just deleting players who started before 1960. Now it looks like this:
Code:
SS# rk Yr1 age1 ageL YrLst Min min/yr yrs
10 51 1981 20 32.2 1994 32821 2460 13.2
12 36 1979 21 33.1 1991 30350 2315 13.1
19 49 1975 22 33.6 1987 31623 2483 12.6
6 56 1968 23 34.2 1980 32896 2701 12.2
Now it seems there's almost no advantage to coming out early: Lose 3 college years to gain one pro season.
Moses came out at age 19, and is included in the 20's group.
Next: current careers contradict historic data.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Chicago76
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Posts: 98
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd be curious to see your sample bifurcated into two groups: the guys entering around 83/84 and before and those entering after. There are a few reasons for this:
1-The pre-merger era had a decent number of players who came out early and played very well at in the divided league system. Neither league was as strong as the post-merger setup and a lot of these guys didn't fare nearly as well 3 or 4 years into the post merger era. Maybe they were too assured of their status as stars to continue to work hard and the increased competition got the best of them (a McGinnis for example).
2-The late 70s early 80s drug issues. Put money in a younger guys pocket in this era and his choices might be more suspect (the Haywood/Thompson). This is the argument people use for age limits today, but the fact is young guys are much more sophisticated in their choices today than they were 30 years ago. The money really began to take off at this point too.
3-Sneaker design. Mid-sole support and better footwear technology really started around 84/85 with Converse and shortly thereafter w/ Nike. Guys coming out in 83 or earlier are playing heavier minutes with inferior footwear than players of a the same age who played 4 years in college. If you look at injuries, they hit their peak right around the early/mid 80s as the game continued to get faster/bigger and sneaker technology had not yet caught up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:54 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Sneaker technology. I hadn't thought of that factor. But drugs (and other distractions) have continued to plague star players: Kemp, etc (rather not name names).
More money may = more distraction. Then I guess one can afford a personal manager, trainer, chef, etc. And in another thread, I'm seeing evidence that the mid-80's onward are the most competitive in league history. So that may skew players' career minutes a bit.
Larry Bird, 1980, was the last 'star' player to enter after age 22. Well, Andre Miller (2000). Nowadays, all stars enter before 22. Check out the current stars-by-24 who were 22-yr-old rookies: Grant Hill, Vince, Yao, and Wade. Yikes! Hardly an ironman group.
Yet of 18-19-yr-old (current) rookies (7), the least-durable has been McGrady (2389 min/yr). Even including their development years, they average 232 minutes more than those who rookied at 22.
The jury is still out on how these guys' careers will wind up. Of retired players who've rookied since '84, it seems 21 is the optimal age for entry. The samples are very small.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Chicago76
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Posts: 98
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Sneaker technology. I hadn't thought of that factor.
It's kind of interesting when you look at minutes played and games missed over the last 30 years. As the game continued to get faster (not necessarily measured in pace, just movement) and guys on average got stronger, injuries generally trended up until the mid-80s. I forget what year it was, but Converse came out with a shoe with mid-sole support, then the Weapons a year or so later. Of course, Nike had the Air Jordan thing a year or so after that. Suddenly, injuries were down on average. That was the technology leap from Chucks and Keds to Cons and Nike was the big leap. Now we're just seeing little refinements, and not surprisingly, injuries have trended up.
Physics is catching up again. You can ask guys to run faster and be stronger, but medicine, training, and footwear can only help so much. If we knew then what we do now, who knows what would have become of the Waltons and Moncriefs of the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gabefarkas
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 1313
Location: Durham, NC
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
I guess I forgot to correct for shorter schedules in the olden days. Since there are uneven distributions of player-seasons before 82-game seasons, and I don't want to fart around with that, I'm just deleting players who started before 1960.
Maybe I'm just having a brain-fart, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Oy, that's a very poorly constructed sentence. Well, I'm referring to shorter schedules (less than 82G/Yr) in the '50s and, to a lesser extent, in the '60s. This plays havoc with players' career-length, in both games and minutes.
'Uneven distributions' refers to the fact that younger rookies are more heavily represented in later decades. So, by including predominanty older rookies from the '50s -- who played fewer games and minutes per year, as well as tending to play fewer years -- the sample was skewed.
By eliminating those 10 old-timers (avg rookie age 21.8; career 10.1 yrs * 2286 min), I removed some older/briefer careers. So comparatively, younger entry looks even worse without this part of the sample.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:03 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Resurrected Thread Warning!
This article came out a few weeks ago:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... /?bcnn=yes
The aging of the NBA's prodigies
by Steve Aschburner
Quote:
The issue: Did the players who turned pro directly out of high school from 1995-2005 help themselves to four extra NBA seasons, or did they simply start drawing down early from a finite account of available minutes?
The question might actually be: Are marathon minutes even more costly to teenage players, such that their careers are even shorter?
Quote:
In Boston's second game this season, Garnett became the youngest player to participate in 1,000 NBA games, reaching that threshold at 32 years, 165 days.
Also speculations on Dwight, Kobe, Jermaine, McGrady.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NickS
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 384
PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
Resurrected Thread Warning!
This article came out a few weeks ago:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... /?bcnn=yes
That's a good article.
It's a subject that I've wondered about, myself and, while the article is mostly anecdotal in it's approach, it nevertheless feels substantial and has a number of interesting examples.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:31 am Post subject: Reply with quote
When I did this study last year, there were a few younger entries who had recently concluded their careers; and several -- Kobe, KG, etc who seemed to be iron men. One of those 2 has perhaps hit a wall, though.
It will be interesting to revisit in a few years. It seems to have been suggested that a mandatory 2nd year between high school and NBA is being debated?
If so, does that mean it's now a consensus that the one-year delay is declared a success?
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:26 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Revisiting the topic, and I'm still not aware of any other study of it.
I've looked at players who have been selected to one or more All-Star games, and who entered the NBA from 1992 to 2003. At what age did these players peak?
'Peak' is defined with equal weight given to a player's:
- Best PER
- Most WinShares
- - If Offensive WS peaked in a year other than total WS, the average of the two is used.
Example: Rashard Lewis' PER tops (at 20.7) in 2007. His WS tops (at 9.9) in 2008; but his OWS peaked sharply (8.3) in 2006. His 'overall' peak is thus fudged to 2007.
Tony Parker is similarly adjudged to have peaked in '08. His WS peaked in '07; PER was highest last year ('09); he is the only player in the study with either measure peaking so recently.
Sorted by their age at entry to the NBA, there's a distinct cutoff between players who first appeared by age 20, and those 21 or older. Players who entered at 18, 19, or 20 have an average peak at age 25.4; those who enter at 21 or older have peaked at 27.1 years, on avg.
This study involves 72 players. No player entering 2004 or later can be (I guess) supposed to have peaked.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/ ... i?id=tCizM
Code:
Yr1 entry allstar YOB Peak Min PkYr PkAge
18 1998 McGrady 1979 2003 27462 6 23
18 1997 Kobe 1978 2006 34531 10 27
18 1997 Jermaine 1978 2004 22459 8 25
19 2002 Parker 1982 2008 20335 7 25
19 2002 Arenas 1982 2006.5 16175 5.5 23.5
19 1999 Lewis 1979 2007 26855 9 27
19 1997 Marbury 1977 2003 31891 7 25
19 1996 Garnett 1976 2004 39635 9 27
18.6 1998.5 2005.2 27417 7.7 25.3
20 1993 Shaq 1972 2000 39926 8 27
20 1997 Walker 1976 2002 31531 6 25
20 1994 Webber 1973 2000.5 30847 7.5 26.5
20 1999 Nowitzki 1978 2006 30693 8 27
20 1997 Shareef 1976 2000.5 28882 4.5 23.5
20 2000 Brand 1979 2006 24421 7 26
20 2000 BDavis 1979 2007.5 23826 8.5 27.5
20 2002 JJohnson 1981 2006 22908 5 24
20 2000 Artest 1979 2006.7 21037 7.7 26.75
20 2002 Kirilenko 1981 2004.5 17309 3.5 22.5
20 2003 Amar'e 1982 2006.5 14848 4.5 23.5
20 1998.8 2004.2 26020 6.4 25.4
25.4
- - - - - - -
Yr1 entry allstar YOB Peak Min PkYr PkAge
21 2003 Boozer 1981 2007.5 14019 5.5 25.5
21 2002 Gasol 1980 2008 20821 7 27
21 2001 Redd 1979 2006.5 18710 6.5 26.5
21 2000 Hamilton 1978 2004.2 24724 5.2 25.25
21 2000 Marion 1978 2006 28020 7 27
21 1999 Pierce 1977 2005 30525 7 27
21 1999 Carter 1977 2001 29271 3 23
21 1999 Stojakovich 1977 2004 24402 6 26
21 1998 Duncan 1976 2003 33138 6 26
21 1998 Billups 1976 2007 26876 10 30
21 1997 Iverson 1975 2007 36719 11 31
21 1997 Allen 1975 2001 35099 5 25
21 1996 McDyess 1974 2000.2 25049 5.2 25.25
21 1996 Stackhouse 1974 2001 28500 6 26
21 1996 Rasheed 1974 2001 34167 6 26
21 1995 Kidd 1973 2000 41155 6 26
21 1995 Juwan 1973 2001.7 34188 7.7 27.75
21 1995 GRobinson 1973 2001 25346 7 27
21 1994 Mashburn 1972 2003 22762 10 30
21 1992 KAnderson 1970 1996.5 25868 5.5 25.5
21 1992 Brandon 1970 1996 21545 5 25
21 1997.3 2002.9 27662 6.6 26.6
22 2003 Yao 1980 2005.5 15727 3.5 24.5
22 2003 Butler 1980 2008 17715 6 27
22 2001 Magloire 1978 2003 13730 3 24
22 2000 Francis 1977 2001 21632 2 23
22 2000 Szczerbiak 1977 2004 20052 5 26
22 1999 Jamison 1976 2003.7 29354 5.7 26.75
22 1998 Ilgauskas 1975 2004 20481 7 28
22 1997 Nash 1974 2007 29012 11 32
22 1996 Finley 1973 2000.2 37288 5.2 26.25
22 1996 Ratliff 1973 1999 19621 4 25
22 1995 Hill 1972 1997.7 28122 3.7 24.75
22 1994 Van Exel 1971 2000.2 28969 7.2 28.25
22 1994 Houston 1971 2002.2 28311 9.2 30.25
22 1994 Penny 1971 1996 23711 3 24
22 1994 Baker 1971 1998 25737 5 26
22 1993 Mourning 1970 2000 25975 8 29
22 1993 Sprewell 1970 1997 35270 5 26
22 1992 SSmith 1969 1998.5 28856 7.5 28.5
22 1992 LJohnson 1969 1996 25685 5 26
22 1992 DDavis 1969 2001 29606 10 31
22 1996.3 2001.3 25242 5.8 26.8
23 2003 Okur 1979 2006 15658 4 26
23 2001 KMartin 1977 2003.5 17806 3.5 25.5
23 1995 EJones 1971 1999 32778 5 27
23 1993 Gugliotta 1969 1998 23556 6 28
23 1993 Laettner 1969 1997 25760 5 27
24 1994 Cassell 1969 2003.7 29811 10.7 33.75
24 1992 Gatling 1967 1995.5 13760 4.5 27.5
25 2003 Ginobili 1977 2008 13237 6 30
25 1994 ADavis 1968 1999.2 26083 6.2 30.25
25 1992 Mutombo 1966 1997.7 36791 6.7 30.75
23.8 1996.0 2000.8 23524 5.8 28.6
27.1
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NickS
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 384
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:31 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice work.
Mike G wrote:
'Peak' is defined with equal weight given to a player's:
- Best PER
- Most WinShares
- - If Offensive WS peaked in a year other than total WS, the average of the two is used.
Example: Rashard Lewis' PER tops (at 20.7) in 2007. His WS tops (at 9.9) in 2008; but his OWS peaked sharply (8.3) in 2006. His 'overall' peak is thus fudged to 2007.
Just one note, if you take AI's peak year to be 2000-01 (the year he won the MVP, and his second highest PER season) that would drop his peak age by 6 years, and the average peak age of his cohort by .3 year. It wouldn't make much difference but would make the relationship between the cohorts look slightly more linear (20/21/22 yo rookies would peak at 25.4/26.3/26.8 respectively).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3601
Location: Hendersonville, NC
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:22 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
If I were to step outside the parameters, I'd rank Iveron's 2003 as his peak, in eWins. Then, the 21-yr-old entries avg 26.4 as their peak age.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NickS
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 384
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:31 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
If I were to step outside the parameters, I'd rank Iveron's 2003 as his peak, in eWins. Then, the 21-yr-old entries avg 26.4 as their peak age.
Yes, I understand why it's important to have criteria that can be applied systematically even if the criteria is somewhat arbitrary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kjb
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 865
Location: Washington, DC
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
A guy over at RealGM (goes by TrueLAFan -- he's inexplicably a Clippers fanatic) once provided some analysis showing historically, total minutes is a better predictor than age of when a player will begin to decline. Alas, RealGM didn't archive some old conversations when it went to a new message board provider and the thread disappeared into the ether.
page 2 of 4
Author Message
tawtaw
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 26
Location: Oregon
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
That's really interesting MikeG. If the data is handy, can you tell if the players that entered the league early had more seasons near their peak than the players that entered at a later age?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:36 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Along with this suggestion by kjb:
Quote:
.. total minutes is a better predictor than age of when a player will begin to decline.
... There are obviously various ways a player may be said to be 'in his prime', 'near his peak', etc. Taking a single 'best' year, everything afterward could be called 'decline'.
Meanwhile, I did include a total minutes (RS) column, just for reference. To date, players entering at 21 have averaged 1600 more minutes than those who entered at 20; and slightly more than the 18-19 group. There are more 'completed' careers among the 21's, and the 18-19-20 tend to be younger at present. But one could find a minutes per year, before/after peak, or whatever.
All this followup study did was:
- define 'elite player' differently (allstar vs high-PER)
- include active players, as well as recently-retired
- describe a career trajectory differently (by peak age vs by length)
And the results are strikingly similar. A career started younger peaks younger, as well as terminates younger.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DJE09
Joined: 05 May 2009
Posts: 148
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:05 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike,
Your study here is real nice. I'm not sure I would like to say anyone who was a rookie in 2002 or later has definitely peaked. Since this is a reasonable percentage of your 20 and unders, this would significantly increase their average age, eg. I could easily see healthy A'mare, TP, and Arenas posting "peak" seasons this year (along with quite a few other players). If those 3 players peak this season, your average age for <=20 players shifts to over 26 ... not such a big difference.
In a related observation, KD's list of top 10 player seasons (link here) contains 8 by players who rookied as 20 and unders - only TD and Wade represent the older cohort. Perhaps a shorter duration in College / quicker transition to NBA causes players to reach greater heights, rather than for a more sustained period? I wonder if the NBA has considered this aspect of putting off players for longer - whilst the 18/19 year olds are typically not "NBA ready" forcing them to 'get ready' in the NBA may produce 'better' players than them 'getting ready' somewhere else.
One thing neither your study, nor the SI article addressed, was if coming out earlier shortened or made a player's career worse (I know it would be very hard to establish this) than it would've otherwise been. Even if a player can only play a finite number of NBA minutes, if they are capable of starting them at 20, and end up retiring at 35 instead of 22 and 37, but have the same production etc, I know which option I would choose ... two more years as a multi-millionaire ex-nba player or two years or having to prove myself for no "payment" for "amature" competition ... One of the obvious problems of this is that each player is unique, there is no "typical" player development schema - we have no KG who went to college for a season or two to compare KG too (although one suspects such a player might bark less).
A study of that would have to have some nice way of managing 'injuries' and some how addressed the failures as well as the successes ... of course I have no idea how to do that Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:27 am Post subject: Reply with quote
DJE09 wrote:
I could easily see healthy A'mare, TP, and Arenas posting "peak" seasons this year (along with quite a few other players).
If Arenas this year not only returns to his previous form but surpasses it, that's an unprecedented feat in NBA history (after missing 2 years). If all 3 do such a thing, it's a miracle.
If all these should do so, and none of the 21+ group should do so (Gasol?), the peak ages will shift relative to one another. Much more likely is that they'll remain about 1.7 years apart.
Quote:
Perhaps a shorter duration in College / quicker transition to NBA causes players to reach greater heights...?
More likely, it's just that better players tend to come out earlier.
Quote:
... Even if a player can only play a finite number of NBA minutes, if they are capable of starting them at 20, and end up retiring at 35 instead of 22 and 37..
I'd rather retire with good knees. And if salaries go up, you get more money with a later career.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DJE09
Joined: 05 May 2009
Posts: 148
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:49 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike G wrote:
me wrote:
... Even if a player can only play a finite number of NBA minutes, if they are capable of starting them at 20, and end up retiring at 35 instead of 22 and 37..
I'd rather retire with good knees. And if salaries go up, you get more money with a later career.
I'm not sure Reggie did this, and I was assuming that career length was basically the same - ie same number of seasons for the 20yr and 22 yr old, so the $ would basically be the same, yes? I mean salary correlates with years in the league, not age right?
For the Salary Argument to come into effect, you'd have to have some situation where the player who came out younger was earning for less years. Your chart seemed to show that the players peaked 'earlier' but it was (almost) commensurate with their younger age, so they were not playing less seasons by coming out earlier. In fact I thought the SI evidence was that they get more seasons, albeit it only a fraction of a year (between .25 and 0.5?) for each year they shave off college. So there was a financial advantage to coming out early.
There was a glut of players in the 84/85 draft which seems to have altered perceptions of a 'typical' NBA career length. Most players don't play even 12 seasons.
TP wasn't injured significantly last season, A'mare was on track to have his best season last season until the eye injury, which I can't really believe is related to micro-fracture surgery, and I think I can agree that it is unlikely agent zero will submit anything near a complete season, but if he does, I guess we are just going to disgree about his projected level. I don't think it is unlikely that all 3 have personal best seasons in 09/10.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:48 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
DJE09 wrote:
..I don't think it is unlikely that all 3 have personal best seasons in 09/10.
Get back to me on this.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:37 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
As a follow-up to a study of elite NBA players and their age at entry vs their career length, I've done a somewhat larger survey of semi-greats.
The earlier one looked at players whose career PER was 19.5 or greater through age 24. Whether he's joined the league after 4 years of college or skipped straight from high school, I assume a player will have established himself by age 24 (exceptions being very-late bloomers, though none come to mind).
So now I've looked at guys -- careers completed -- with career PER less than 19.5 (thru age 24) but greater than 17.0 . A PER of 15.0 is defined as average. To avoid the super-expanded early-ABA era, only players from 1974 onward are included. Before that, some marginal guys got big minutes, with sometimes inflated stats.
Along with summary of the earlier survey, here's the new one.
SS# is sample size: the number of players in an age group.
(The under-21 entries in the 17-19.5 group are just 3 players: Cliff Robinson I, Antoine Walker, and Stephon Marbury. You might just ignore this line, because they aren't typical of anything.)
Average career, by age as a Rookie:
Code:
Thru age 24, career PER 19.5 or more
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
20 32.2 32821 2460 13.2 10
21 33.1 30350 2315 13.1 12
22 33.6 31623 2483 12.6 19
23 34.2 32896 2701 12.2 6
Thru age 24, career PER 17 to 19.5
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
19-20 28.7 27569 2636 10.3 3
21 30.9 23847 2138 10.9 12
22 31.7 23102 2126 10.7 35
23 33.6 26246 2230 11.6 16
Other than the anomalous 19-20 yr line (3 oddballs with mostly-bad teams), the advantage of being an older rookie is even more pronounced among middling stars.
More than half of this group (35/66) rookied at age 22. Relative to that standard:
- The age of last (1000 min.) season is almost one year less for players entering a year earlier (21).
- 23-year old rookies play to almost 2 years older.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... i?id=7WCAT
Minimum 3000 NBA/ABA minutes thru age 24.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:51 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Another 80 players whose career PER at age 24 was between 15.5 and 17:
Code:
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
19-20 27.5 14093 1566 9.0 2
21 29.3 20263 2153 9.3 10
22 31.1 21542 2097 10.1 55
23 32.1 22064 2182 10.1 13
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Some average players, and below
Code:
age 24 PER 14.5 - 15.5
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
20-21 28.4 15551 1711 8.6 12
22 30.8 21036 2096 9.8 50
23 30.5 16457 1948 8.5 16
age 24 PER 13.5 - 14.5
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
19-20 23.7 9648 1799 5.3 3
21 27.5 14768 1991 7.5 11
22 29.2 15475 1869 8.2 53
23 29.9 15467 2059 7.7 19
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:37 am Post subject: Reply with quote
DJE09 wrote:
... I'm not sure I would like to say anyone who was a rookie in 2002 or later has definitely peaked. ... I could easily see healthy A'mare, TP, and Arenas posting "peak" seasons this year ...
Maybe next year.
This refers to AllStars entering the league 1992-2003, and my guesses as to their ages at which they 'peaked'.
Pared down to players currently active: Anyone think any of these players will surpass a previous best?
Age - Player (yr)
23 - Kirilenko'05, McGrady'03, Carter'01
24 - Arenas'07, Amar'e'07, Joe Johnson'06, Magloire'03
25 - Yao'06, Hill'98, Parker'08, Jermaine'04, Allen'01, Ratliff'99, Hamilton'04, McDyess'00
26 - Boozer'08, KMart'04, Brand'06, Okur'06, Peja'04, Duncan'03, Stack'01, Sheed'01, Kidd'00, Finley'00
27 - Redd'07, Artest'07, Jamison'04, Gasol'08, Butler'08, Lewis'07, Kobe'06, Dirk'06, Marion'06, Pierce'05, Garnett'04, Shaq'00
28 - BDavis'08, Juwan'02, Ilgauskas'04
30 - Ginobili'08, Billups'07
32 - Nash'07
Average peak age for these 43 -- 26.1
For those who rookied at <21 it's 25.2
For those entering over 21 it's 26.6
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsherkin
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 247
PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:50 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Kev, why don't you just ask John about that post? PM him, he responds to those after a few days. I was asking him questions about projecting RPG for players in different eras with rebound rate and he was pretty quick about it.
EDIT: Hmm, didn't notice there was a second page to this thread...
Anyway, I've started a thread up on the stats forum on RealGM to try and draw John into it and get him to re-post his analysis so that we can have a look at it over here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tsherkin
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 247
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's John's summary:
Quote:
Player age has little to do with decline. It's the wear and tear on the body that predicts player dropoff. Call it the Indiana Jones Rule—“It’s not the years, honey, it’s the mileage.”
For most players and (especially) smaller players, the line seems to be at about 36000 regular season minutes. Jordan retired for the second time after about 36000 regular season minutes. He was still great, but I think his physical skills and overall play had started to erode in his final season and would have continued to if he’d kept playing. Gary Payton started to drop off after about 35000 regular season minutes. Same with Jerry West.
Big men seem to have about one or maybe two extra seasons...enough to get to about 38000 to 40000. But a lot of big men decline around the 36000 minute mark as well. The bottom line is that 36000 minutes is a lot of basketball, and the human body doesn't keep regenerating all its parts.
All players start to lose physical skills, probably earlier than 36000 minutes, but the smarter players can compensate for it. For a while. Once you pass 41000 for a big man, or 7000 or so for a smaller guy, it’s really hard or impossible to keep the level of your play up that high. There are a couple of outliers--Karl Malone, for example. had his skills drop off after 2000, and he had played about 44000 regular season minutes and never had a major injury at that time. Kareem was still pretty great in 1985 and 1986, good enough to finish in the top 5 of MVP voting. He had played about 48000 regular season minutes. I don't even know how to judge Wilt...he was still a top 5 player when he retired, and he'd played almost 48000 minutes. But those are the only real outliers in the last 40 or 50 years.
There's some further discussion on the topic as he discusses the thresholds, the outliers, etc, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mtamada
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 373
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:58 am Post subject: Reply with quote
It appears that both TrueLAFan at RealGM and MikeG here are using regular season minutes only, and ignoring playoff minutes? That might indeed be a correct procedure (but if so, then I could imagine that seasons played might be a helpful explanatory variable, as well as minutes played), but I'd like to see how the analysis compares if playoff minutes are included. Because if the pure minutes played argument is correct, then it would seem that playoff minutes ought to count too. (And maybe minutes played in the Olympics too, as the syndrome of more-injuries-after-playing-in-the-Olympics is often mentioned, although I don't know if anyone has done a systematic study.)
Basically current age, seasons played, minutes played (either regular season only, or including playoffs, whichever is better), and maybe even games played are all potential explanatory variables. TrueLAFan seems to have dismissed all the other explanatory variables and claims that only regular season minutes matter, but his evidence or justification for this seems pretty minimal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike G
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 3427
Location: Delphi, Indiana
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote
There are a couple of questions here:
1 - How young should we be drafting players?
2 - How hard should we be running them?
I haven't studied it systematically, but it's always seemed that novice coaches tend to overuse their star players. To give them more minutes, that is.
There's probably a more general relationship between the strength of will of the player and the coach. Larry Brown was no novice when he acquiesced to Iverson's insistence to play almost every minute.
MTamada may be right that playoff minutes should count, though it may be offset by a higher motivational level. Playing long minutes for perpetually bad teams might create more emotional wear and tear.
The studies I've undertaken have looked specifically at the relation between the age of entry and the length of the career. At every level of talent, it seems a career is hardly extended (or actually shortened) by entering younger than 21-22.
Summarized :
Code:
Thru age 24, career PER 19.5 or more
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
20 32.2 32821 2460 13.2 10
21 33.1 30350 2315 13.1 12
22 33.6 31623 2483 12.6 19
23 34.2 32896 2701 12.2 6
Thru age 24, career PER 17.0 to 19.5
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
19-20 28.7 27569 2636 10.3 3
21 30.9 23847 2138 10.9 12
22 31.7 23102 2126 10.7 35
23 33.6 26246 2230 11.6 16
Thru age 24, career PER 15.5 to 17.0
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
19-20 27.5 14093 1566 9.0 2
21 29.3 20263 2153 9.3 10
22 31.1 21542 2097 10.1 55
23 32.1 22064 2182 10.1 13
thru age 24 PER 14.5 - 15.5
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
20-21 28.4 15551 1711 8.6 12
22 30.8 21036 2096 9.8 50
23 30.5 16457 1948 8.5 16
thru age 24 PER 13.5 - 14.5
ageR ageL Min min/yr yrs ss#
19-20 23.7 9648 1799 5.3 3
21 27.5 14768 1991 7.5 11
22 29.2 15475 1869 8.2 53
23 29.9 15467 2059 7.7 19
The small-sample ages are included for completeness' sake.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tsherkin
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 247
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:05 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
mtamada wrote:
It appears that both TrueLAFan at RealGM and MikeG here are using regular season minutes only, and ignoring playoff minutes?
Actually, in at least one of his posts he discusses playoff minutes in that thread.
spr6=underrated quoted truela from another thread saying:
Quote:
The max range seem to be around 36,000-40,000 combined regular season and playoff minutes.
He's not necessarily articulating it as clearly in the posts that he himself made in the thread, but he definitely referred to combined minutes as the drop-off point in the quoted portion. The original post was a long time ago and he was summarizing from memory.
EDIT: I guess his examples in the latest thread are a little off.
Malone had played just under 41,700 regular-season minutes after the lockout season, and an additional 6,170 playoff minutes, so nearly 48,000 combined minutes before the 99-00 season even begun... And then he promptly posted a 25.5, 9..5, 3.7 season on 58.2% TS. He'd still be pretty good in the two following years, averaging over 22 ppg, 8+ FTA/g and 4.3+ apg, but his defensive rebounding declined.
You'd think it was a sign of athletic decline, but traditionally steals are looked at as an athletic indicator and Malone recorded consecutive seasons of 2.5+ STL% from 01-02 through 02-03, the two highest STL% seasons of his career, and playing 80+ games both years and 2900+ minutes played.
He was an absolute freak...