The Age excuse.

[funkatron101]

So for some reason, ESPN removed their height and age averages from the team roster pages. I had to do some digging.

From NBA.com, for some reason they stopped after 2007
03-04 season. Cleveland. Avg. Age: 24.374. Record: 35-47
04-05 season. Phoenix. Avg. Age: 24.329. Record: 62-20
05-06 season. Atlanta. Avg. Age: 23.765. Record: 26-56
06-07 season. Atlanta. Avg. Age: 23.65. Record: 30-52

Digging around various sources. Not sure how accurate they are
07-08 season. Portland. Avg. Age: 24.06. Record: 41-41
08-09 season. Golden State. Avg. Age: 23.8. Record: 29-53

OKC and Memphis were two of the youngest teams last year.
OKC Record: 50-32
Memphis: 40-42

http://hoopism.com/?p=37
10-11 season. OKC. Avg. Age. 23.18. Record: 23-13
The Wolves? Avg. Age. 24.14

Take that data however you want. My personal expectations of a 30 win season is certainly reasonable given this data. However, it looks like we will probably match last seasons record. I just can't justify it with the age excuse.

[C.lupus]

http://hoopism.com/?p=37
10-11 season. OKC. Avg. Age. 23.18. Record: 23-13
The Wolves? Avg. Age. 24.14

I don't think those numbers for OKC are correct. I did some rough crunching a few weeks ago and they were definitely older than Minny this year.

This is something I've been curious about teasing out also but I can't find a good source for data. I'd like to see something like a regression analysis as well as teasing out the age of the starters/major contributors rather than just average for the team.

[funkatron101]

http://hoopism.com/?p=37
10-11 season. OKC. Avg. Age. 23.18. Record: 23-13
The Wolves? Avg. Age. 24.14

I don't think those numbers for OKC are correct. I did some rough crunching a few weeks ago and they were definitely older than Minny this year.

This is something I've been curious about teasing out also but I can't find a good source for data. I'd like to see something like a regression analysis as well as teasing out the age of the starters/major contributors rather than just average for the team.

It is surprisingly hard to find a comprehensive breakdown for this, isn't it? I took far too much time than I wanted to just to find out the data I posted. With all of the various basketball sites tracking every stat possible, I thought it would be easier.

Maybe someone else has a good source?

[Worm Guts]

Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to figure out on your own.

[Tha Juice]

Luke Ridnour - 29 (February 13, 1981)
Anthony Tolliver - 25 (June 1, 1985)
Sebastian Telfair - 25 (June 9, 1985)
Darko Milicic - 25 (June 20, 1985)
Nikola Pekovic - 25 (January 3, 1986)
Corey Brewer - 24 (March 5, 1986)
Lazar Hayward - 24 (November 26, 1986)
Martell Webster - 24 (December 4, 1986)
Wesley Johnson - 23 (July 11, 1987)
Wayne Ellington - 23 (November 29, 1987)
Kevin Love - 22 (September 7, 1988)
Michael Beasley - 21 (January 9, 1989) 22 in 3 days
Jonny Flynn - 21 (February 6, 1989)
Kosta Koufus - 21 (February 24, 1989)
_____________________________________________
332/14= 23.71

Starters = 24
Bench = 23.8

[Zeitgeister]

So for some reason, ESPN removed their height and age averages from the team roster pages. I had to do some digging.

From NBA.com, for some reason they stopped after 2007
03-04 season. Cleveland. Avg. Age: 24.374. Record: 35-47
04-05 season. Phoenix. Avg. Age: 24.329. Record: 62-20
05-06 season. Atlanta. Avg. Age: 23.765. Record: 26-56
06-07 season. Atlanta. Avg. Age: 23.65. Record: 30-52

Digging around various sources. Not sure how accurate they are
07-08 season. Portland. Avg. Age: 24.06. Record: 41-41
08-09 season. Golden State. Avg. Age: 23.8. Record: 29-53

OKC and Memphis were two of the youngest teams last year.
OKC Record: 50-32
Memphis: 40-42

http://hoopism.com/?p=37
10-11 season. OKC. Avg. Age. 23.18. Record: 23-13
The Wolves? Avg. Age. 24.14

Take that data however you want. My personal expectations of a 30 win season is certainly reasonable given this data. However, it looks like we will probably match last seasons record. I just can't justify it with the age excuse.

I do agree, generally speaking, with the premise. The good thing about a young, learning team that isn't performing very well is that there is room for growth and you can expect for internal development and more wins to come from it. The downside with the Timberwolves, is that I'm not too excited about the potential of many of the young players.

[funkatron101]

Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to figure out on your own.

It's not hard in the sense of manually calculating averages, I am, in fact, capable of doing 3rd grade math, after all. But it is tedious and time consuming considering all of the sortable data that is available on the internet. One would think this would be readily available with all the stat junkies around.

You are certainly more than welcome to prove me wrong by creating a list of average team ages for the past five years, and a breakdown of age of starters vs bench players, etc. 2 hours enough time?

[Worm Guts]

I was just thinking you'd take a few specific teams that would prove an interesting comparison to the Wolves. It would take forever to do everyone, but not too much to do 3-4 teams.

[funkatron101]

I was just thinking you'd take a few specific teams that would prove an interesting comparison to the Wolves. It would take forever to do everyone, but not too much to do 3-4 teams.

This year is probably easy enough to do, there would be some issues with figuring starters and bench players, but I don't think it is a wide enough data range. Even going back to last year, narrowing down the youngest teams, and breaking down their starters and bench players starts to be a daunting task.

[C.lupus]

Unfortunately the scientist in me says that we would need a large dataset to compare since there will be confoundig variables, which is why I was thinking a regression would be appropriate. I would bet money that there is a significant correlation between player age and winning percentage. That doesn't mean it is the only variable that accounts for winning or even necessarily the most important variable for a given team but it should be a major variable "on average". I just don't think comparing a few teams really will tell us anything.

[Worm Guts]

More is better, but looking at a few teams gives you a base. Also, there is definitely a correlation between age and winning percentage, but I don't think it would be entirely fair. A lot of teams are young just for the sake of being young, the reason they suck is because their youth sucks. If your looking to determine whether age is a legitimate excuse, maybe you want to look at how good teams performed when their players were young and when they took the leap to playoff team.

[Tha Juice]

2010-11 OKC Thunder
Aldrich- 22-(October 31, 1988)
Collison- 30-(October 26, 1980)
Cook- 23-(April 28, 1987)
Durant- 22-(September 29, 1988)
Green- 24-(August 28, 1986)
Harden- 21-(August 26, 1989)
Ibaka- 21-(September 18, 1989)
Ivey- 29-(December 20, 1981)
Krstic- 27-(July 25, 1983)
Maynor- 23-(June 11, 1987)
Mullens- 21-(February 14, 1989)
Peterson- 33-(August 26, 1977)
Sefolosha- 26-(May 2, 1984)
Westbrook- 22-(November 12, 1988)
White- 24-(August 31, 1986)
_________________________________
368/15= 24.5

Starters: 24.2
Bench: 25.6

Let me know if you see anything out of place

[C.lupus]

I threw this question up on the stats board to see if any of the RealGM stats gurus know of a website. I'll post any findings here.

oh, and thanks ThaJuice!

[shrink]

This looks to be a very promising thread. Thanks guys!

I only popped in to make sure people didn't misunderstand this isn't a simple cause - effect logic here. For example, teams may not win because they have older players. Teams may already be winning, and so they acquire older, veteran players for play-off runs. MIA raises it's average age by signing Juwon Howard, but its not Juwon Howard's age that meant more wins.

That said, I think there is certainly will be a strong correlation between age and wins, and anyone that looks at the Wolves in close games can see that our youth and inexperience factors into our losses. I'd be curious to look at the actual numbers to see just how young we are, and if these results are typical.

[TMo519]

So for some reason, ESPN removed their height and age averages from the team roster pages. I had to do some digging.

From NBA.com, for some reason they stopped after 2007
03-04 season. Cleveland. Avg. Age: 24.374. Record: 35-47
04-05 season. Phoenix. Avg. Age: 24.329. Record: 62-20
05-06 season. Atlanta. Avg. Age: 23.765. Record: 26-56
06-07 season. Atlanta. Avg. Age: 23.65. Record: 30-52

Digging around various sources. Not sure how accurate they are
07-08 season. Portland. Avg. Age: 24.06. Record: 41-41
08-09 season. Golden State. Avg. Age: 23.8. Record: 29-53

OKC and Memphis were two of the youngest teams last year.
OKC Record: 50-32
Memphis: 40-42

http://hoopism.com/?p=37
10-11 season. OKC. Avg. Age. 23.18. Record: 23-13
The Wolves? Avg. Age. 24.14

Take that data however you want. My personal expectations of a 30 win season is certainly reasonable given this data. However, it looks like we will probably match last seasons record. I just can't justify it with the age excuse.

This is good stuff. But do you really believe we're only going to win 15 games this year? I think our record right now projects to the upper 20s according to Hollinger, and I think we'll be very close to that at least. We choked one up against the Bobcats last night, but I think the team will bounce back. The schedule lightens up so hopefully we can steal some wins, which will boost confidence, which will lend itself to more consistency.

Another factor is all the new pieces we threw together just this year. We young, but we're also unfamiliar with one another. These guys just simply haven't played together at all, and plus injuries have kept this team from being at full strength to build more of that chemistry. All in all, it's been tough, but I think we have reason to believe the future is at least decently bright in Minnesota.

[Foye]

Everyone but Love, Beasley and Rubio should be expendable.

Find a two guard that can handle the ball and play defense in the draft or trade for one and trade our youth for more proven guys if we don't turn it around until the end of the season.

[funkatron101]

This is good stuff. But do you really believe we're only going to win 15 games this year? I think our record right now projects to the upper 20s according to Hollinger, and I think we'll be very close to that at least. We choked one up against the Bobcats last night, but I think the team will bounce back. The schedule lightens up so hopefully we can steal some wins, which will boost confidence, which will lend itself to more consistency.

I estimate about 10 more wins, putting us at 19. Which is a lot closer to 15 than it is 30. I hope I am wrong though.

I would be happy enough with 27.

[AQuintus]

Everyone but Love, Beasley and Rubio should be expendable.

Find a two guard that can handle the ball and play defense in the draft or trade for one and trade our youth for more proven guys if we don't turn it around until the end of the season.

I personally don't mind Johnson for this team. In my mind, the ball should be in Rubio's or Beasley's hands 90% of the time. This means that a guy who can play of the ball, spot up, and play D like Johnson should be perfect at the 2. Unfortunately, though, the Wolves don't seem to recognize that he can't dribble so they never run him off of screens, they never hit him cutting to the basket, and they never post him up.

At draft time, Kahn made a big deal of pointing out Johnson's stamina. That along with his sweet shooting stroke screams Ray Allen role to me, but for some reason that just isn't happening.

[Foye]

Everyone but Love, Beasley and Rubio should be expendable.

Find a two guard that can handle the ball and play defense in the draft or trade for one and trade our youth for more proven guys if we don't turn it around until the end of the season.

I personally don't mind Johnson for this team. In my mind, the ball should be in Rubio's or Beasley's hands 90% of the time. This means that a guy who can play of the ball, spot up, and play D like Johnson should be perfect at the 2. Unfortunately, though, the Wolves don't seem to recognize that he can't dribble so they never run him off of screens, they never hit him cutting to the basket, and they never post him up.

At draft time, Kahn made a big deal of pointing out Johnson's stamina. That along with his sweet shooting stroke screams Ray Allen role to me, but for some reason that just isn't happening.

Ray Allen is a much better ball handler than Johnson as well, though. He can create his own shot.

[AQuintus]

Ray Allen is a much better ball handler than Johnson as well, though. He can create his own shot.

Yep, Ray is a really underrated ball handler, but he still gets the majority of his offense coming off of screens, something that Johnson should but doesn't (for whatever reason) do.

Edit:

Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure it's a system thing. I remember in his brief action in the summer league, Wes was repeatedly run off screens to get him open (though his guards were terrible so it didn't help). Also, his first game back from injury, I distinctly remember Webster being run off of a few screens to get him open threes. Since those times, nothing.