Since When Did 20's Become Better Than 30's ?

[DEEP3CL]

I had to come with this because I'm so damn tired of seeing......." well so and so isn't 25,26,27". Players in today's NBA are in even better shape, that includes all ages. But the whole younger is better myth is straight up garbage.

It's been an established fact that some of the greatest NBA players have had major success after even age 30, and some even deeper pass that age. Hell Kareem Abdul-Jabbar won a playoff MVP at age 37 !

Jordan at 34 averaged 28.7 points and played 38.8 minutes for 82 games in 1997. Jordan never shot over 50% again after age 29 but that was due to one year off and secondly he became less reliant on his athleticism.

Larry Bird at 35 still averaged 20 points a game while playing 36 minutes on top of that. Yeah he had back problems on the tail end of his career but his problems were a byproduct of how physical the NBA was during the 80's.

So let's trash this whole younger is better than older theory now. Fact is it's been more players having far more success than guys even in the peak of their top 20's. Bottom line is most NBA players don't reach their apex until about ages 26-30 anyway. I'm talking that age where the game comes flawlessly to guys.

Fact is it's not too many NBA teams that have won championships with a roster full of 20 somethings. One of the youngest teams to win and NBA title were the 77 Blazers and the 82 76ers.

I think this chart will prove I'm right......



Now how many do we see below that age 25 line ?

So let's come off that it all about being young BS. You gotta pay dues in this league before you pop corks. Yeah OKC I'm talking about you too and any other teams and it's fans that think your youth will be the reason your team wins. History has proven otherwise.

[AcecardZ]

You bring up solid points but the truth of the matter is 4 of our 5 starters are well into their 30's. Not just 31 or 32 and one of the starters is much closer to 40 than he is 35. Does it mean we can't win? Of course not but it does mean we are more vulnerable to the types of injuries that might not plague younger players. Back spasms and ailments like that.

Hopefully staying healthy and being rested for the playoffs is number one priority rather than going balls to the wall and trying to outdo either the Heat or OKC during the regular season.

My guess is OKC will end up with the best record as Miami is now confident they can win a finals series without having home court advantage. If they do harbor that mentality they might want to reconsider as there's two teams in the West this year that should be better than the OKC team that made the NBA finals last year. (The Lakers and OKC should be even better this year than they were last due to being more experienced)

[Stebo_SSK]

Totally agree with the age thing. Alot of people seem to think LA lost to OKC b/c of athleticism and age alone. Problem is the team wasnt constructed to deal with OKC. The only caveat I see to the old age is more injury prone due to mileage.

[Sofa King]

Nice write up Deep.



But here's a thought. Players back then played college ball for two, three, or four years. They had less NBA games under their belt compared to the Kobe and Lebrons of today who came straight out of high school.

Throw in more games, more injuries, more years in the league, one doesn't have the drive to maintain that high level too long.

[ALL HAIL]

I don't really know where to begin.

Seasoned veterans, in most sports, are supremely underrated.

But here's the thing, if you are just a little interested in winning and developing your younger guys, you have to have them (veterans).

Most people think that developing teams need to be 100% young in order to follow some dumb ass ill-conceived notion that veterans add nothing to young teams ... when in fact they do.

The best example that pops in my mind is Vince Carter's first couple of years in Toronto. There was one player on that team that, in my opinion, was responsible for Carter's early success ... an old ass, tough as nails, in Vince Carter's ear all the time Charles Oakley. I don't think Carter makes the kind of splash he did without Oakley's leadership.

Now when it comes to old teams, you're exactly right DEEP. Give me an over 35 team that's been through it all over a group of upstarts anyday.

Every year pundits write off teams like San Antonio and the Celtics only to see them consistently make it to the second round and conference finals. Now I know most people are thinking: Who wants to consistently make it to the 2nd and 3rd rounds of the playoffs? I do.

I'd much rather follow a team that is beating on the door to a ring than a team that is constantly taking stabs in the dark with top 5-15 lottery picks.

What you reference DEEP is a problem with the NBA and a basic problem with sports in general. Management ususally does not care about winning. If they did, veterans would hold way more value than they currently do, and at worst, teams would be very young with at least a couple of seasoned veterans in the rotation grabbing more than 25 minutes a game, and at best, teams, like the Lakers, would be full of veterans with a couple of younger guys sprinkled in the mix.

[dockingsched]

good work DEEP but am i the only one that finds all of this completely useless?

edit: i guess i should add to this reply so it doesn't sound so douchey.

what i mean is, in today's NBA where the current NBA champions have 3 stars all under 30, and the defending WC champs' core are all well under 30, how is this info useful? they're good cause they're good, not cause they're young.

i guess i just don't see anyone actually talking about the heat/thunder being better just cause they're younger, so i don't see a point in arguing against it.

[Wavy Q]

Has more to do with your future than the present really.

[Kalidogg24]

Actually Doc, DWade is turning 31 this January coming up.

As much as this new age NBA to the casual fan might seem to deny Deep's logic,
he does have a solid point.
History has proven otherwise.

Before the Heat won the chip this following season lets not overlook their past misfortunes.
The Big 3 individually took a whole lot of ass whoopin before they joined forces.
Plus you factor in that They've been in the league a lot longer than OKC's big three.
With Lebron skipping college similar to Kobes situation were he won his 1st title well under 30 in 2000 as a 21 year old. It's that Pro level experience that can not be thaught in college.

I think what this thread is really trying to say is that it's really not about age but about experience.
It's like when Kobe got his ass whooped by Utah and the Spurs from 96-99. Or Lebron getting his ass whooped from 2003-2011 . They may have not actually been 30 years of age when they got their first title but in NBA years they were like 35. LoL

[dockingsched]

I think what this thread is really trying to say is that it's really not about age but about experience.

not really cause he calls out OKC for not paying their dues even though they've gone from losing in the 1st round with this core, losing in the WCF finals with this core, and now losing in the finals with the same core. if thats not paying your dues, i don't know what is.

[Kalidogg24]

True dat Doc, OkC has definitely paid their dues no doubt.

But the way their big three is growing and also the way Kendrick Perkins is quickly declining not sure how they'll be able to pay anymore dues from here on out LMAO.

[Emperor_Earth]

The two key points were mentioned:

Re: Dues/Age/Experience and Championships
OKC doesn't have to "pay dues". They got beat, in their case each time by better teams [imo].
Plenty of teams have gotten beaten every year. 29 in fact.
Most (28-29) of those 29 don't win the ship the next year.
Not because they haven't "paid dues".
Their age may [not] have come into the picture at all.
Perhaps some are not mature enough to prepare diligently.
Maybe the stage lights scared someone.
Maybe it was an experience thing and they needed to wait till their second go around.
But failure is not necessary to precede success.
I've never been a fan of this argument.
Magic didn't "pay his dues" his rookie year. Still won the ship. Simple white crow counter to a faulty argument.

Re: 20s vs 30s and Prime
It's not all age. It's not all mileage. It's a combo of the two.
But playing 3 years less college ball and 3 years more NBA ball is a big difference.
All of a sudden your prime at 27-30 is becoming your prime at 25-29. (Nonequal variability is intentional. So is nonlinear translation)
Of course this is in the aggregate. Outliers will occur because, but not necessarily limited to: situations, genes, luck.
But games minutes is not the only indicator of mileage. Especially for hard workers.
Without available and reliable data to back me up, I would still have some high level of confidence that Kobe, for example, put on many more hours in the gym in the aggregate, from his 18th-21st birthday than the average college starter.



You can't prove the future by looking at the past.
Correlation != Causation.
And Jordan/Cap'N were two genetic freaks of nature.
Bird, contrary to popular belief, was too. Look at his REB #s relative to the league.
Dude has a very good second/third jump among other gifts to complement his more stable skills
like shooting & BBIQ.
(Still I wouldn't argue against studying his well-documented back problems compared to say a Nash)



All this being said, who cares what anyone else thinks about our Lakers?
We know we have a very good shot this year almost entirely dependent on one thing:
Nash's back

I'm having flashbacks of Slava taking over for Karl here so... yeah.

[EArl]

No team pays their dues. Every year you have to prove yourself time and time again if you have the ability to get to the top. OKC had their chance, now the Lakers have amped up their roster and hopefully they will show those young bucks how to win a chip!

Nice post BTW Deep.

[DEEP3CL]

@Doc....the point of the thread is to point out exactly what ALL HAIL, Kalidogg and Stebo mentioned in their postings.

This much is fact the chart I listed is irrefutable. OK my stab at OKC was basically for lurker purposes, the fact still stands that yes they're young and athletic and yes they have some paid dues but not in full yet. But some have gotten my "paid dues" statement a bit confuse.

When I say that I don't mean just because they've been on some up swing the last 3 years that they paid dues. Because in my book they haven't yet. They still have some ass kicking's in store, the precedent has already been set long ago. In the 80's when the Celtics along with Philly was ruling the east, they both repeatedly whupped on the likes of the Bucks and Pistons with a young and dynamic Isiah Thomas and 3 other core players from that team that eventually formed the whole "Bad Boys" era.

The Sixers kept beating on the Bucks, a team built to hang with any in the conference. The Bucks were just in the wrong place and era, had their team been built when the Sixers and Celtics were on the decline they could've went toe to toe with the Pistons.


The Pistons on the other hand to me, were OKC....and exact carbon copy. They were young, cocky, athletic, had defenders and a deep bench but the main difference was they were better coached. Yet and still they took ass whup'ins from the supposedly old and creaky Celtics.

And by the time the Pistons had finally gotten over, they weren't as young or athletic as they started out. They finally got over because of experience....experience from taking ass whup'ins and some that flat out stung and got personal.

Now the difference in today's NBA is how quickly teams excel and elevate to elite status, a lot of that is money dynamics. So while OKC's jump may have come a lot quicker, it still doesn't mean they'll win anything anytime soon.

I mean the chart didn't and won't tell a lie, most of the champs are between the 27 and 30 years of age lines. What I'm getting at here is lets slow down on thinking that being younger is an automatic ticket to titles, it's not period, point blank.

I mean look at Dwight right now....age 26 on a veteran laden team, if we keep plugging in some mid age youth ( because that's always been the Lakers MO) we'll still be relevant and could very well thwart OKC's chances before they even taste it. The key is to take advantage of Dwight's prime years which he's entering now.

[CKRT]

Age isn't the real factor here. It's minutes played. That's the only stat that really matters.

Edit: in this conversation anyway.

[what would jack bauer do?]

Yeah I agree with the whole college vs no college aspect of it. There's too much cumulative damage to players going on in the guys who skipped college. 17 and 18 years of service is a hell of a lot time to do damage to Kobe and KG's knees. We're seeing these guys in the twilight of their careers at 34 instead of 38-39. I've always been looking to KG and Kobe careers to the answer of the question "is it mileage on the body or age of the body?" Guess the next couple years will answer the question.

But yeah we lost to OKC cause we couldn't shoot with that flawed roster. OKC doesn't stand a chance against us this year, it's not even close with the additions we made.

[Edrees]

I think the main myth is that you need a core of youth and atheticism to win a title. Kobe's pretty atheltic still, and Dwight's as athletic as it gets. Our team doesn't need ahtleticism at every position. It's crazy that people think Nash is too old when we have Dwight at the center who is youthful and athletic. why does everyone have to be young? How is nash being old a disadvantage with the way he plays??

[what would jack bauer do?]

If Kobe didn't have to run "point" for his whole career imagine how good he'd look right now. Just imagine if young athletic Kobe got to play with a pg like Nash. He'd have averaged 35 every year without even trying. I hope kobe can "activate" his legs the way grant hill did once he got to phx. That damn knee better hold up good.

IMO you can subtract one of Nash, Gasol, Kobe, Dwight from the equation and we're still a heavy contender. Age don't mean sh**. Our team is constructed in a way that we can dominate in the open floor, in a half court offense, and most importantly what the two teams in this years finals severely lacked in the LOW POST. OKC would've won it all if they had a low post player next to durant.

[The Skyhook]

Its not really about age to me but more of injuries piling up. Kobe's fingers are pretty banged up and that has hurt his ball handling skills. His knees have been through hell and that effects his ability to get lift on his jump shot. Those injuries also have taken a toll on his explosiveness. Kobe can't glide to the rim the way he used while Lebron can just bulldoze his way to the rim.

[DEEP3CL]

I think the main myth is that you need a core of youth and atheticism to win a title. Kobe's pretty atheltic still, and Dwight's as athletic as it gets. Our team doesn't need ahtleticism at every position. It's crazy that people think Nash is too old when we have Dwight at the center who is youthful and athletic. why does everyone have to be young? How is nash being old a disadvantage with the way he plays??

Exactly Edrees, you don't need youth to be spread all over the roster. While I won't deny you need an infusion of youth it's not the caveat for winning a title, you gotta have some vets.

I think we have some seasoned vets in the positions you need them in the most, and some youth were we need it.

[Sedale Threatt]

OKC didn't win because they're young, they won because they've got a core of four players who are f'ing outstanding, led by the second-best player in the world. A couple more years and they're all going to be seasoned vets themselves, and they're still going to have five or six years of their prime left. That is almost unheard of.