Are we overly penalizing guys on longevity based on era?

[Cavsfansince84]

Now I want to say I get that not everyone gives a crap about longevity or just length of prime but I think a large portion of people do and what I am referring to here is many of us also look at era based dominance as a major criteria when looking at players from an atg perspective. What I am talking about is adjusting longevity to some degree based on era as well. Because I think we have already entered into an era where players' primes are extending out in a way they didn't used to with maybe a couple of exceptions.

Whereas prior to around 2010 a guy's prime usually ended at 32 or 33 and they usually retired at about 35 or 36. Part of this is obviously things like mpg, travel and shoes/injury recovery which was all much harder on a guy's body over the course of 10-12 years compared to today when all of those things have improved and made playing a full season easier I would say(outside of longer playoffs).

So I'm wondering if its fair in an era relative way to compare a guy like KD, Steph, LeBron and others who are still going strong at 34-36 despite some major injuries to guys like Oscar, Jerry and others whose primes were basically done at 32-33. Just as we do with things like efficiency or adjust other things based on pace and whatnot(not always in favor of older players either).

Not trying to take a hard stance here so much as just throwing it out for discussion. It just seems like something which might lead to the players from the 80's and earlier being downgraded as guys playing at an mvp level well into their 30's becomes the norm. Should some kind of era based curve be applied when it comes to longevity in the future?

I think at some point it might need to be recognized that guys aren't just outliers along the lines of Kareem or Malone and that its more to do with the things already mentioned above that allow players' bodies to age much better into their mid 30's which should only increase in the future. Luka for instance could have a prime that is close to 20 years long without major injuries much like LeBron has. Peds are another aspect of this as well which are already most likely prevalent imo within certain parameters.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Well load management wasn't a thing in the past. And the game was more physical too. But in regards to the last 10 years or so, I think the no defense era is the biggest thing that hurts any star who came before. Because players are allowed to put up videogame numbers now. Games are like 140-128 most nights. That mean more pts, rebs, assists.

Same thing happens in the NFL. A guy like Marino put up crazy numbers in an era which was WAY tougher for QBs. NBA today is like the juiced ball era of baseball.

[Cavsfansince84]

Well load management wasn't a thing in the past. And the game was more physical too. But in regards to the last 10 years or so, I think the no defense era is the biggest thing that hurts any star who came before. Because players are allowed to put up videogame numbers now. Games are like 140-128 most nights. That mean more pts, rebs, assists.

Same thing happens in the NFL. A guy like Marino put up crazy numbers in an era which was WAY tougher for QBs. NBA today is like the juiced ball era of baseball.

While I agree with the gist of numbers being easier I think metrics can account for that to some degree. It is another thing to consider though as it may help guys who are the best at offense.

[prolific passer]

Robert Parish is probably my favorite player of all time. He never played in less than 74 games for 20 years and was probably the best center on the 97 bulls despite being 40+ and 3rd string. Maybe could have averaged 10 and 7 in his last 3 years if given the minutes.

Averaged 78 games a season in his first 20 years.

[Cavsfansince84]

Robert Parish is probably my favorite player of all time. He never played in less than 74 games for 20 years and was probably the best center on the 97 bulls despite being 40+ and 3rd string. Maybe could have averaged 10 and 7 in his last 3 years if given the minutes.

Averaged 78 games a season in his first 20 years.

ya, I think everyone on this board knows about Parish but I'm not sure what the context or relevance is to what is in the op. Maybe you could elaborate on it. Also worth noting that Parish didn't play over 32mpg until he was 30 years old and only did 4 times in his career. So could argue that Parish got pretty good load management throughout his career(career avg of 28.4mpg).

[prolific passer]

Robert Parish is probably my favorite player of all time. He never played in less than 74 games for 20 years and was probably the best center on the 97 bulls despite being 40+ and 3rd string. Maybe could have averaged 10 and 7 in his last 3 years if given the minutes.

Averaged 78 games a season in his first 20 years.

ya, I think everyone on this board knows about Parish but I'm not sure what the context or relevance is to what is in the op. Maybe you could elaborate on it. Also worth noting that Parish didn't play over 32mpg until he was 30 years old and only did 4 times in his career. So could argue that Parish got pretty good load management throughout his career(career avg of 28.4mpg).

Well in todays load management era. Seems like injuries are at an all time high than what they were in the 80s and 90s with the Celtics, Pistons, and Knicks beating people up.

Is putting up pretty big numbers in 55-65 games a year for 15 years or so better than putting up pretty big numbers a year playing in 70+ games playing 35+ mpg a year for about 13 years or so like of the past players?

[Cavsfansince84]

Well in todays load management era. Seems like injuries are at an all time high than what they were in the 80s and 90s with the Celtics, Pistons, and Knicks beating people up.

Is putting up pretty big numbers in 55-65 games a year for 15 years or so better than putting up pretty big numbers a year playing in 70+ games playing 35+ mpg a year for about 13 years or so like of the past players?

Well I think the debate on the merits of load management is another thing altogether(and I'm honestly not trying to argue for or against it here). What I'm mainly trying to focus on is the fact that many players already played their careers in an era where 40mpg was a norm for many stars and where it was expected that by age 32 your prime would be over and your body might allow you to hang on for a few years after that. Most guys started breaking down though at about 32-33 and some sooner than that but just played through it. So my question is whether its fair to prop up guys whose careers started more recently on the basis of longevity compared to guys whose careers ended 20 or more years ago when we do factor in things like load management, medical advancements, less b2b's and possibly peds. What I'm saying is that era relative being great at 35 won't mean as much as it used to, more so in 10-20 years.

[prolific passer]

Well in todays load management era. Seems like injuries are at an all time high than what they were in the 80s and 90s with the Celtics, Pistons, and Knicks beating people up.

Is putting up pretty big numbers in 55-65 games a year for 15 years or so better than putting up pretty big numbers a year playing in 70+ games playing 35+ mpg a year for about 13 years or so like of the past players?

Well I think the debate on the merits of load management is another thing altogether(and I'm honestly not trying to argue for or against it here). What I'm mainly trying to focus on is the fact that many players already played their careers in an era where 40mpg was a norm for many stars and where it was expected that by age 32 your prime would be over and your body might allow you to hang on for a few years after that. Most guys started breaking down though at about 32-33 and some sooner than that but just played through it. So my question is whether its fair to prop up guys whose careers started more recently on the basis of longevity compared to guys whose careers ended 20 or more years ago when we do factor in things like load management, medical advancements, less b2b's and possibly peds. What I'm saying is that era relative being great at 35 won't mean as much as it used to, more so in 10-20 years.

To be honest. I truly don't know. I'll probably be indifferent about the whole thing myself. Idk about the medical advancement stuff that gets thrown around with injuries being at a premium like they have been. Maybe it's just people worrying about getting hurt so much that they just end up getting hurt regardless.

[Cavsfansince84]

To be honest. I truly don't know. I'll probably be indifferent about the whole thing myself. Idk about the medical advancement stuff that gets thrown around with injuries being at a premium like they have been. Maybe it's just people worrying about getting hurt so much that they just end up getting hurt regardless.

The thing with the injuries now though is guys are coming back from what used to be near career ending injuries even in their 30's and still playing at close to mvp level in their mid 30's. Before just playing at mvp level at 32 or 33 was rare and you also have to factor in the toll minor injuries was likely taking on them as well which is partly why bodies broke down.

[penbeast0]

You are also missing the straight out of HS or 1 year of college for top players advantage in longevity relative to the years where even a Wilt had to wait until his college class graduated. So yes, longevity should be significantly better today.

On the other hand, that may also be a factor in injuries as players have more wear and tear on their bodies. I think players (and to a lesser extent teams) are more likely to sit out with minor injuries today as the money is so astronomical and the team loyalty seems less. More a business decision.

[henshao]

On the other hand, that may also be a factor in injuries as players have more wear and tear on their bodies. I think players (and to a lesser extent teams) are more likely to sit out with minor injuries today as the money is so astronomical and the team loyalty seems less. More a business decision.

In fact this is very true the opposite direction as well where the son of some 1950s roofer is gonna be damned if he's gonna sit out with a tweaked ankle "like some pussy" (what would Dad think?) perhaps you understand where I'm going with this

[HeartBreakKid]

Most players prime still end in their early 30s though...how is Lebron James or like 24 year old Luka Doncic examples of better longevity?

[Cavsfansince84]

In fact this is very true the opposite direction as well where the son of some 1950s roofer is gonna be damned if he's gonna sit out with a tweaked ankle "like some pussy" (what would Dad think?) perhaps you understand where I'm going with this

That was definitely the mindset Bird had and I think many others including Kobe who played through a lot of minor injuries which adds up over time and part of why guys would have those huge drop offs I think where they went from all star to huge negative in like a year or two. Their bodies just hit a wall.

[HeartBreakKid]

What guys are you thinking of because Durant is insanely injury prone and Curry is clearly declining. There were always a few outlier players who could go beyond 32.

The late 90s for example had a bunch of guys who were MVP level who were a million years old.

[Cavsfansince84]

What guys are you thinking of because Durant is insanely injury prone and Curry is clearly declining. There were always a few outlier players who could go beyond 32.

The late 90s for example had a bunch of guys who were MVP level who were a million years old.

I'd say Malone was, MJ won at 35(after taking almost 2 years off) and Hakeem was still close to mvp caliber at 33(maybe 34) but part of that is they were competing almost entirely against each other. Shaq was getting injured, Robinson missed 97 then wasn't quite the same and the early 00's guys weren't there yet. So that's part of it imo. So I'd argue 33/34 is when primes almost always ended in the past(which definitely shows up in box scores on top of defense). With it being closer to 32 back in the 60's/70's on top of guys having 3 or 4 years of college. Were their exceptions? yes. I just think its pretty obvious that its shifting and this is even for the guys who had 2 or more serious injuries.

[tone wone]

The late 90s for example had a bunch of guys who were MVP level who were a million years old.

Name 3

[LukaTheGOAT]

I already try to do this and I think everyone should.

[HeartBreakKid]

The late 90s for example had a bunch of guys who were MVP level who were a million years old.

Name 3

Karl Malone, Michael Jordan, David Robinson. The former two were literally MVP's and David Robinson won the title at the same age that Durant is now, and no David Robinson was not some roleplayer in 1999, he was one of the best players in the league easily.


Mutumbo and Miller were 32 and 33 by 1999 and still high level all-star players in the early 00s. At least half of the top ten in the late 90s were in their 30s.


That ratio doesn't seem all that different from today's despite there being more players today. If we are using Durant as an example of longevity then I don't see why we can't use Robinson in the 90s. Karl Malone despite being a worse player aged better than Curry. James was great for a long time but so was Jordan.

Pretty much everyone else from James era has been long retired or a bench player aside from CP3, who certainly did not have a healthy career. So where is Deron Williams, Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, Yao Ming, Amare Stoudimire etc

The other players from Curry/Durant's era who are now leaving their early 30s that are clearly not in their prime or are so injury prone that they're irrelevant are Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Blake Griffin, DeMarcus Cousins, John Wall, Kyle Lowry, Derrick Rose, Kevin Love, Kawhi Leonard.


I think genetics and to an extent luck play a much bigger role in longevity. Certainly players from 30 years ago don't deserve some longevity affirmative action. Someone from the 50s and 60s sure, their careers were shorter, they had less incentive to play longer even if medicine wasn't worse back then. PEDs are not why Lebron James was able to play so long because if that was the case then Carmelo Anthony and Dwight Howard would still be playing...


It's still rare and difficult to be a great, top ten player past 32. A couple of flagship guys playing well into their 30s is skewing peoples perception. Elite all time greats can play well into their 30s because dropping off when you're so far ahead of the pack still puts you ahead of the pack. Guys like Larry Bird are exceptions not the norm (and he retired form a non-basketball related injury)...most top 20-25 players of all time had long careers.

[Colbinii]

The late 90s for example had a bunch of guys who were MVP level who were a million years old.

Name 3

5 of the top 6 in BPM in 1998 were 31-35 years old with 3 of them being 34+ in age.

3 of the top 6 in BPM in 1999 were 33, 35 and 36.

[HeartBreakKid]

There are a few guys at 32/33 mark who are still playing good (Butler, Lillard, George) but they're not ancient. Most of the best players in the league this season are in their mid to late 20s.