Mayo signs with Bucks - 3 years/$24 million per Woj

[Lippo]

He was hyped as the next Lebron when going to USC

[ampd]

I'm OK with this in terms of the amounts involved.

Agree with all the sentiments that Hammond isn't really constructing a team here though, kinda playing fantasy ball a little IMO.

Actually I think Mayo is a very good fit for Drew's offensive system. For once we did target a guy with a good chance of fitting in well there. From a team construction point of view he makes perfect sense.

[theFireBlanket]

OJ has to be more aggressive player. Look for his own shot early, find ways to get to the line. Especially since he maybe the only one on the current roster that can create his own offense.

Juice has so many nights where he plays 35-40 minutes a game, but only attempts 8-12 FGA . that has to change.


We have yet to see the best of Juice Mayo. I'm very optimistic.

As long as his efficiency doesn't significantly drop and looking for early shots includes being sensible about when or when not to shoot then I'd approve of him doing this.

However the Bucks have dealt with enough chucking in recent history and don't need anymore high volume inefficiency to continue (who wants that anyway?) unless everyone's aboard the stealth tank.

[Chapter29]

For me my goals are more realistic. I simply want a fun to watch competitive team. If I could get back to that consistent 50 win team I am pretty happy.

The last time the Bucks won 50 games was the 2000-01 season. The prior time to that it was the 1986-1987 season, Kohl's first full year as owner I believe.

I am completely on your side in not needing a title contender to be happy. Just noting that the media has not held Kohl accountable for just how horrible his stewardship of the team has been record wise. The Bucks freely admit their goal isn't a title, they always talk about being competitive, maybe a 50-game winner.

The fact they have achieved their "goal" exactly once since 1987 (26 years ago) is the worst regular season performance track record of any team in the NBA under that metric. Wizards might be there also. But that's it.

People just don't realize how horrible this core front office has performed. We are such good fans that we allowed the 1999-2002 period to be considered a roaring success to tide us over for another decade.

I know. Been livin it. One day I will see it turn around.

[coolhandluke121]

A mans physical prime is in his early to mid-20's. Assuming he picks up the nuances of the NBA game after a few seasons, clearly he's going to be at his best around age 25. That is so obvious that it shouldn't even be up for debate. Of course, many players keep adding more and more skills to their repertoire, and that can more than offset the inevitable slow and steady athletic decline. But that's a rare case because most greats learn the game early in their careers.

I don't think it's that rare for the greats/HOF caliber players through history. A lot of them were still able to play at a great level at least until the age of 30.

Bird was great through age 31
Jordan through age 34
Barkley through age 32
Magic through age 31
Worthy through age 30
Moses Malone through age 31
McHale through age 32
Kareem mid to late 30's depending on how you view his production
Pippen through age 31
Karl Malone through mid-30's
Hakeem through age 33
Stockton through age 34
Dr. J through age 33

I could go on further, but just randomly picked guys i grew up watching that made the HOF. Great basketball players probably do peak physically around age 25, but a good percentage of them have been able to be just as good to at the very least age 30.

If you look at their actual production, they were usually a little more productive at 25 or so. Nobody's saying they weren't still superstars long after that, but their skill combined with the amount of energy they can expend at age 25 made them incredible. Maturity and experience makes up for most of what they lose in that department, but there's no doubt that they're usually not quite as dominant as they approach 30.

The main reason guys don't get recognized for their greatness as soon as they should is because a lot of them don't sustain it, so people don't want to look stupid by proclaiming them to be all-time greats. But the question is not about whether the player is an all-time great or still great at age 30; the question is whether the player is slightly more dominant at age 25 than at 29 or 32 or whatever. I think the majority of players are.

That said, a lot of them don't experience the same team success at that age, so that could be chocked up to experience and maturity. But I think one of the main reasons superstars have to wait for team success is because it takes time to build the right supporting cast. That doesn't mean the player is better at 28 or 30, it means his team is. MVP's and titles naturally follow.

[europa]

MVP awards aren't handed out solely as a result of team success. They are also awarded to players with elite statistical production. If a player wins an MVP beyond the age of 25, chances are his production was at a very high level in addition to playing on a good to great team.

[coolhandluke121]

MVP awards aren't handed out solely as a result of team success. They are also awarded to players with elite statistical production. If a player wins an MVP beyond the age of 25, chances are his production was at a very high level in addition to playing on a good to great team.

What does that have to do with anything? Nobody's saying that all these players weren't great well past 25. Aren't we comparing guys at age 28 or 30 or 32 to themselves at age 25? I jumped in without reading all the posts, but I thought that was the discussion.

A lot of guys were a little more dominant at age 24 or 25, but didn't win titles or MVP's because they weren't on great teams yet - usually because they were drafted by lottery teams and it took a while to build up the supporting cast.

[europa]

MVP awards aren't handed out solely as a result of team success. They are also awarded to players with elite statistical production. If a player wins an MVP beyond the age of 25, chances are his production was at a very high level in addition to playing on a good to great team.

What does that have to do with anything?

It has to do with the belief that a player begins to decline after age 24 which is what started this discussion. The number of MVP awards won by players beyond (and often well beyond) the ages of 24 and 25 strongly in my opinion shoots down this belief. My Dunleavy stats also would present a contrary point of view using a far more commonplace type of NBA player.

[MrPerfect1]

It has to do with the belief that a player begins to decline after age 24 which is what started this discussion. The number of MVP awards won by players beyond (and often well beyond) the ages of 24 and 25 strongly in my opinion shoots down this belief. My Dunleavy stats also would present a contrary point of view using a far more commonplace type of NBA player.

I do not know why you think players winning an MVP after 25 has anything to do with the discussion. The fact that someone has a great year at 28 or 30 and wins an MVP in no way is an indicator that he wasn't better at age 24 or 25.

We also will not even factor in the wide held media belief that an MVP should only be given to a player on a top team and that most superstars are drafted by horrible teams so it takes years for the team to rise to the top.

[europa]

It has to do with the belief that a player begins to decline after age 24 which is what started this discussion. The number of MVP awards won by players beyond (and often well beyond) the ages of 24 and 25 strongly in my opinion shoots down this belief. My Dunleavy stats also would present a contrary point of view using a far more commonplace type of NBA player.

I do not know why you think player's winning an MVP after 25 has anything to do with the discussion.

Asked and answered.

[MrPerfect1]

You answered but it still doesn't make sense.

For example:

Imagine at Age 24 you are a Salesman and you sell $1 million worth of product
Imagine at Age 30 you are a Salesman and you sell $900,000 worth of product and win salesman of the year

Just because you won the award at age 30 in no way says you were better at 30 than 24

[emunney]

Provided they put in the time, players' skills and decision making tend to improve more than their athletic ability declines for a number of years after 25. I can't think of a single really good player who peaked that young as a basketball player. As an athlete, sure.

[europa]

Just because you won the award at age 30 in no way says you were better at 30 than 24

I never said it did. What I presented were examples including MVP award winners and Mike Dunleavy which provided evidence of players producing at high levels (in Dunleavy's case near career bests) often well beyond the age of 24.

[europa]

I can't think of a single really good player who peaked that young as a basketball player. As an athlete, sure.

To me, this is the fundamental distinction that must be taken into account.

[coolhandluke121]

MVP awards aren't handed out solely as a result of team success. They are also awarded to players with elite statistical production. If a player wins an MVP beyond the age of 25, chances are his production was at a very high level in addition to playing on a good to great team.

What does that have to do with anything?

It has to do with the belief that a player begins to decline after age 24 which is what started this discussion. The number of MVP awards won by players beyond (and often well beyond) the ages of 24 and 25 strongly in my opinion shoots down this belief. My Dunleavy stats also would present a contrary point of view using a far more commonplace type of NBA player.

LOL, I accidentally clicked "And-1" even though I couldn't disagree more. Anyway, for a smart guy you have quite a propensity to avoid logic. The fact that those guys were still great well past 25 has NOTHING to do with whether they were on the decline. Just so you know, "decline" doesn't mean the player isn't still great. It just means he might be slightly less great than he was at 25. Obviously there's no shame in that, but it doesn't change the fact that many players.

Young superstars often have to do it all for their teams. They can't, but they can do a little more than they can when they're 30. However, they usually have better supporting casts as they get older, and when you combine that with innate greatness, experience, and maturity, it's obvious that you're going to experience more professional success at that age. But that doesn't change the fact that most players hit their physical peak around age 25, and in a game like basketball that is such a huge factor that it's hard to even believe we're having this argument. I guarantee you there were many, many nights when those 29-year-old or 33-year-old MVP's wished they were 25 again. That's the bottom line.

And OF COURSE there are exceptions, but we have to consider whether the exception is because the player was put in a better position to excel. And Dunleavy is the stupidest example ever by the way. Just because he had his best percentages as a role player/6th man does NOT mean he's better than he was when he was 25. He could barely guard you or me right now, and he was responsible for creating a lot of offense for himself and his teammates earlier in his career. Of course his percentages were a little lower.

[MrPerfect1]

Nobody is saying players cannot perform at a high level after 24/25. What people are saying is those are the years players peak. If Kareem is a 100/100 at Age 24 and a 95/100 at Age 30, he is still All World despite being slightly less good.

Also, nobody is saying every single player ever peaks exactly at 24. There are exceptions to everything but that does not make it true in a broad sense.

If your argument is that players do not peak at 24, what age do you think NBA players peak? 27? 29? 32? 36?

[europa]

And Dunleavy is the stupidest example ever by the way. Just because he had his best percentages as a role player/6th man does NOT mean he's better than he was when he was 25. He could barely guard you or me right now

So you call my example stupid while citing a part of Dunleavy's game which has never been a strength at any point in his career. And I'm the stupid illogical one? Got it.

If you guys want to believe NBA players peak at age 24 that's fine. Myself and others have provided examples that contradict this idea. Since you've resorted to childish insults now that tells me there's nothing more left to be debated between you and me.

[europa]

If your argument is that players do not peak at 24, what age do you think NBA players peak? 27? 29? 32? 36?

I posted earlier that I believe an NBA's peak years are typically between the ages of 24-27. I even cited Bogut, whose best season came at age 25 and were it not for a gruesome career-altering injury he could've improved even more.

[MrPerfect1]

A 4 year range is not an answer to asking what year the average player peaks at. You are arguing against 24 and 25 so I assume your position is that peak year is either 26 or 27

[europa]

A 4 year range is not an answer to asking what year the average player peaks at. You are arguing against 24 and 25 so I assume your position is that peak year is either 26 or 27

I don't believe an NBA player has one peak year. I believe from ages 24-27 is generally when an NBA player will be at his best. Again, the distinction you appear to be ignoring is between peak athleticism (which may be at age 24) and peak NBA effectiveness (which can last for several years depending on the player). In my opinion, that distinction should not be ignored.