Sun agree to terms with Tyson Chandler

[rsavaj]

We can be a low-key GREAT defensive team now with Bledsoe/Knight/Tucker/Chandler...if we don't finish top 10 in DefEff with that group, we're doing something wrong

[JTrain]

I really like Chandler. #8 in WS/48 last year and #37 in PER. Great defensively and high BBIQ.

But if he doesn't land us LMA, I don't think the move makes sense for Phoenix.

Without LMA, we are once again in that 7-10 range fighting for a playoff spot. And once again we land a pick in the 10-15 range.

As good as Chandler is, NBA players statistically experience massive declines from age 33-35. Of course you can always cherry pick guys who were still playing at an elite level at 35+, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

I would rather have kept Wright, used this season to develop and play the young guys and gotten a top five pick next year, then continue to look for value trades for younger guys. Set ourselves up to be a contender in 3-4 years.

He will make this season more enjoyable to watch, so I'm glad for that. But when I step back I think it hinders our ability to be great down the road. But if we somehow get LMA, then our time to win is now.

That's also cherry picking, and also exceptions to the rule--I can look at several players that experienced massive declines from 30-32, or 29-31, or 31-33, but Chandler didn't at all-he's been steady throughout his career, though averaging missing 15-20 games per season.

No, that's statistical analysis: http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

[NavLDO]

I really like Chandler. #8 in WS/48 last year and #37 in PER. Great defensively and high BBIQ.

But if he doesn't land us LMA, I don't think the move makes sense for Phoenix.

Without LMA, we are once again in that 7-10 range fighting for a playoff spot. And once again we land a pick in the 10-15 range.

As good as Chandler is, NBA players statistically experience massive declines from age 33-35. Of course you can always cherry pick guys who were still playing at an elite level at 35+, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

I would rather have kept Wright, used this season to develop and play the young guys and gotten a top five pick next year, then continue to look for value trades for younger guys. Set ourselves up to be a contender in 3-4 years.

He will make this season more enjoyable to watch, so I'm glad for that. But when I step back I think it hinders our ability to be great down the road. But if we somehow get LMA, then our time to win is now.

That's also cherry picking, and also exceptions to the rule--I can look at several players that experienced massive declines from 30-32, or 29-31, or 31-33, but Chandler didn't at all-he's been steady throughout his career, though averaging missing 15-20 games per season.

No, that's statistical analysis: http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

Well, this may be nitpicking, but you are looking at HOW MANY players decline, not HOW MUCH they decline--those are two different things. Of course as players age, a higher % is going to decline at a higher age. and how much of that decline is based on lesser playing time? Where's the correlation of playing time to playing capability? And how about the playing on a new team/new system? Etc. There are a lot of different factors to take into account.

Additionally, directly quoted from that site:

"Once they hit thirty-two though their degradation is very swift."

Now look at Chandler's stats from the last four years and tell me which season was his best--I'll save you the time, his Age 32 season was his most productive, AND healthy, so please show me where he's showing signs of decline?

[JTrain]

That's also cherry picking, and also exceptions to the rule--I can look at several players that experienced massive declines from 30-32, or 29-31, or 31-33, but Chandler didn't at all-he's been steady throughout his career, though averaging missing 15-20 games per season.

No, that's statistical analysis: http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

Well, this may be nitpicking, but you are looking at HOW MANY players decline, not HOW MUCH they decline

No. I am specifically talking about how much they decline. That is what the link clearly shows. It becomes essentially exponential after age 32, which means it is very unlikely for any player not to see significant decline starting at that point. The outliers are of course frequently discussed, but they are just that-- outliers.

[NavLDO]

No, that's statistical analysis: http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

Well, this may be nitpicking, but you are looking at HOW MANY players decline, not HOW MUCH they decline

No. I am specifically talking about how much they decline. That is what the link clearly shows. It becomes essentially exponential after age 32, which means it is very unlikely for any player not to see significant decline starting at that point. The outliers are of course frequently discussed, but they are just that-- outliers.

Then Chandler is the "outlier", because he IMPROVED at age 32, not declined, so I'll stick with the stats that pertain specifically to Chandler--his--that shows he was healthier and more productive at age 32, which according to your link, he should have declined.

So what would you rather believe? Some random site with analysis of 100s of players, or metrics/stats that pertain to the actual individual, because again, as your site stated, he should have declined by 35%, not improved by what, 10%? Look at his age 32 season and compare against all other years--it was one of his best.

[JTrain]

I'll definitely stick with "some random site" (one of the most respected statistical analysis sports sites in the world). Chandler did beat the odds this season. We all hope he continues for the next four years. It is still statistically unlikely.

[NavLDO]

I'll definitely stick with "some random site" (one of the most respected statistical analysis sports sites in the world). Chandler did beat the odds this season. We all hope he continues for the next four years. It is still statistically unlikely.

Well, then you're sticking with losing side on this particular argument, because you are using metrics from "one of the most respected analysis sports sites" that, as you stated, Chandler beat the odds they put forth. Doesn't mean THEY are wrong, per se.

You stated that "NBA players statistically experience massive declines from age 33-35", when they clearly stated this drop off starts at age 32, which in Chandler's case, didn't happen, and in fact, the opposite occurred, so yes, you were cherry-picking an age range in an attempt to fit the statistics to your argument. Why didn't you pick a range starting with age 32 that your site you quoted did? Because he's already debunked that trend this last year. What if he succeeds this season as well, do you move the bar to 34-36 to fit your argument?

So yes, I cherry-picked a few successful players, because Chandler's metrics/statistics show that he is more likely fitting in with their trend and not on the typical trend, because he already proved that he, again, beat the odds at age 32, when his play SHOULD have dropped off, but didn't, AND taking into account that he now has THE best training/fitness support team in the NBA.

[JTrain]

I picked 33 because that will be his age this upcoming season, and that's the point where the change in drop-off becomes essentially exponential. In other words, avoiding a significant drop-off becomes exceedingly difficult. Beating the odds for a season is great but the odds of staying elite much longer are still very much stacked against him. In each subsequent season, he will need to beat the odds by more and more than he did this season just to stay at his current level of play. Statistically that is rare, regardless if you had one season where you beat the odds or not. This applies to any large data set that has high goodness of fit.

Unfortunately you can't take one good season and extrapolate from that. Statistically is just doesn't work that way. Let's take one of the best advanced stats I'm aware of: Wins Produced per 48 minutes. This is the stat I believe was used in the analysis linked. Last season, Chandler had a phenomenal WP48 of .338. The year before was a somewhat disappointing .222. According to your thinking, this is the most important data. We don't need all the other stats of the thousands of other players because he is an outlier, therefore those rules don't apply. So if that is direction you want to go, then his predicted outcome for 2015-16 would be even higher than .338 (actually .454 if you're only using that data, even though that number is outrageous).

But I'm going to go along with statistics and say it is far more likely his performance pulls back to the line of best fit (using all players). The average change from 32-33 is -35%, putting my prediction at .220.

Obviously no one knows what's going to happen, but if we are going to put on odds on it, there is a much higher chance the number is closer to .220 than .454. We all hope he produces another outlier of a season. But if I'm putting money on it, I'm following the stats.

[JTrain]

Not sure if this was posted here or not. I agree with the majority of it.

http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2015/7/2/8882165/signing-tyson-chandler-is-a-bad-decision-regardless-of-aldridge

[Moochthemonkey]

I picked 33 because that will be his age this upcoming season, and that's the point where the change in drop-off becomes essentially exponential. In other words, avoiding a significant drop-off becomes exceedingly difficult. Beating the odds for a season is great but the odds of staying elite much longer are still very much stacked against him. In each subsequent season, he will need to beat the odds by more and more than he did this season just to stay at his current level of play. Statistically that is rare, regardless if you had one season where you beat the odds or not. This applies to any large data set that has high goodness of fit.

Unfortunately you can't take one good season and extrapolate from that. Statistically is just doesn't work that way. Let's take one of the best advanced stats I'm aware of: Wins Produced per 48 minutes. This is the stat I believe was used in the analysis linked. Last season, Chandler had a phenomenal WP48 of .338. The year before was a somewhat disappointing .222. According to your thinking, this is the most important data. We don't need all the other stats of the thousands of other players because he is an outlier, therefore those rules don't apply. So if that is direction you want to go, then his predicted outcome for 2015-16 would be even higher than .338 (actually .454 if you're only using that data, even though that number is outrageous).

But I'm going to go along with statistics and say it is far more likely his performance pulls back to the line of best fit (using all players). The average change from 32-33 is -35%, putting my prediction at .220.

Obviously no one knows what's going to happen, but if we are going to put on odds on it, there is a much higher chance the number is closer to .220 than .454. We all hope he produces another outlier of a season. But if I'm putting money on it, I'm following the stats.

Do these statistics factor in the training staff? Jermaine O'neal had a solid season here after two lackluster seasons with the Celtics, where the total # of games played in these two seasons was less than his season here and his older brother Shaq had an All-Star season in 2009 in his late thirties.

I appreciate the approach, but statistics are not entirely applicable on a player by player basis. The odds would be more valid if you were drawing a player out of a hat, or drafting one from college, or really knew nothing about their health (which granted, Chandler hasn't had a totally clean bill of in the past)

[Mr-Al]

If we land LMA, it's a great deal.

If we don't, it's **** terrible.

A lottery team stunting Len's development to have a 33 year old lead us to a first round exit when Len already rightfully was out starting center for the future

Bollocks.

McD better hope it works out

[Mulhollanddrive]

McDonough spoke of the change Steve Nash made at 31 to our franchise. He inferred he was going after a similar type player. Assumption is of course he can play until 35 at similar level.

[Moochthemonkey]

Not sure if this was posted here or not. I agree with the majority of it.

http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2015/7/2/8882165/signing-tyson-chandler-is-a-bad-decision-regardless-of-aldridge

Now we have to talk about the worst possible outcome. In the worst possible outcome, as John Gambodoro points out, the Suns are forced to trade both Morrii, and Tucker, and several of the young guys, in order to create enough cap space to sign Aldridge.

This is not bad as it seems. For one, the Morrii and Tucker are replaceable. Bullock, Mcneal are not really worth anything. If the Morrii are gone, then it's likely Tucker and the young guys that are actual prospects (Len, Goodwin, Warren, Booker) stay. If Tucker is traded (in addition to Leuer and Mcneal) then only Booker or Goodwin needs to be packaged into a deal.

Even if Aldridge doesn't sign, Len and Markieff have a great mentor to learn from, which the article seems to completely omit. And in lieu of the exploding cap, Chandler's contract isn't exactly untradeable if it comes to that.

[NavLDO]

I picked 33 because that will be his age this upcoming season, and that's the point where the change in drop-off becomes essentially exponential. In other words, avoiding a significant drop-off becomes exceedingly difficult. Beating the odds for a season is great but the odds of staying elite much longer are still very much stacked against him. In each subsequent season, he will need to beat the odds by more and more than he did this season just to stay at his current level of play. Statistically that is rare, regardless if you had one season where you beat the odds or not. This applies to any large data set that has high goodness of fit.

Unfortunately you can't take one good season and extrapolate from that. Statistically is just doesn't work that way. Let's take one of the best advanced stats I'm aware of: Wins Produced per 48 minutes. This is the stat I believe was used in the analysis linked. Last season, Chandler had a phenomenal WP48 of .338. The year before was a somewhat disappointing .222. According to your thinking, this is the most important data. We don't need all the other stats of the thousands of other players because he is an outlier, therefore those rules don't apply. So if that is direction you want to go, then his predicted outcome for 2015-16 would be even higher than .338 (actually .454 if you're only using that data, even though that number is outrageous).

But I'm going to go along with statistics and say it is far more likely his performance pulls back to the line of best fit (using all players). The average change from 32-33 is -35%, putting my prediction at .220.

Obviously no one knows what's going to happen, but if we are going to put on odds on it, there is a much higher chance the number is closer to .220 than .454. We all hope he produces another outlier of a season. But if I'm putting money on it, I'm following the stats.

Actually, no, he is in the next category, 33-34, as he'll be 33 prior to the season starting, and that % is 57%, putting that number of .220 to about .160ish. But that is if his WS48 was actually .338, which it wasn't according to BB-Ref:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chandty01.html

It was .216, up from .143 the season prior. (And BTW, "league average is approximately 0.100") So if we are calculating a 57% drop from .216, you get just under the league average of .100 @ .092. But 4 of the past 5 years, he's scored his highest WS48 numbers of his career--in he .200+ range, which also defies the sites metrics. I expect him to maintain or drop some, but trying to say that if he fails to have another massive jump this season, that this somehow proves your point is disingenuous. If his WS48 is anywhere above .092, he's beat the odds once again, and I think it's fair to say that we as fans could, and should, expect a WS48 above .092. But to expect him to improve by another 32%, because he did last year, is not something anyone should expect; it's not a 'linear progression'. Again, if he maintains or goes slightly lower, then that's more representative of what we should expect from Chandler. My argument was never that he'll continue to improve at that pace, ONLY that rather than decline 35%, he actually improved by about 32%--he bucked the trend, and hence, we shouldn't use the metric/stat you highlighted from that particular website.

But ultimately, my argument was that the results we should feel comfortable expecting from Chandler at age 33, based on HIS recent history, aligns closer to those players such as Garnett, Duncan, Pierce, and Marion, as opposed to the expected drop off next season using statistics/metrics compiled by a large sample size. Chandler has proven to be an outlier--we agree on that. So why do you expect him to all of a sudden regress with those that are the norm? That's where we disagree. If he does regress by 57%, then McD made a poor choice, but with our training staff, and his recent statistical history, my argument is that it is more likely that he maintain or have a small drop off in production, than drop 57%.

But one more item to note is that he went from a relatively poor team (NYK when his WS48 was .143) to a playoff-caliber team, with better teammates/coaching. He I now coming to a non-playoff team, and if we do not get LMA, or Kieff doesn't play, even if he does have a substantial drop, it's not necessarily indicative of his personal regression--it's a combination of factors, which was another point I was trying to make.

[JTrain]

His expected results this upcoming season would be for the 32-33 since he was 32 last season and will be 33 this season.

I was talking Wins Produced which avoids some of the issues with WS: http://wagesofwins.com/how-to-calculate-wins-produced/

[NavLDO]

His expected results this upcoming season would be for the 32-33 since he was 32 last season and will be 33 this season.

I was talking Wins Produced which avoids some of the issues with WS: http://wagesofwins.com/how-to-calculate-wins-produced/

"31 to 32 -22%
32 to 33 -35%
33 to 34 -57%
34 to 35 -146%"

Which one does he more accurately fit into?

His expected results this upcoming season would be for the 33-34 since he was 32 last season and will be 33 this season. See how that works?

But hey, if it will make you feel better, since he'll be 33, ONLY, during the season, we can split the difference--we'll call it 46%. Don't care, result is the same. He didn't digress 22%, or 35%, or 57%--point is, he improved, whether you want to use WS48, or WP48, or heck WD-40--it really doesn't matter what stat or metric you want to use, the bottom line is the same. But ok, let's use the WP48 then:

'14-'15=.339
'13-'14=.222
'12-'13=.295
'11-'12=.303
'10-11=.277
'09-'10=.141
'08-'09=.134
'07-'08=.240
'06-'07=.297
'05-'06=.264

...so that's up-down-down-up-up-up-down-down-up--any consistency there? Nope. Shocking, doesn't fit that model either.

Bottom line--Chandler does not fit into your statistics--he's the 'outlier' you talk about, the guy that doesn't fit into the reasoning you keep trying to plug him into, so keep using a faulty predictor to predict for an 'outlier' that doesn't fit into your reasoning, and I, along with many others, will continue to compare him to other 'outliers' that don't fit your mold (Duncan, etc.), because at the end of the day, he fits that trajectory or trend A LOT closer than the trend that he's bucked, over and over again, which is this website's statistics. So, just like your cherry picked 33-35 age range, that doesn't even align to the age 32 they talk to, because actually, he was 32 for one year last year, so was he supposed to decline 22% or 35%, because even their own chart is ambiguous.

[JTrain]

His expected results this upcoming season would be for the 32-33 since he was 32 last season and will be 33 this season.

I was talking Wins Produced which avoids some of the issues with WS: http://wagesofwins.com/how-to-calculate-wins-produced/

"31 to 32 -22%
32 to 33 -35%
33 to 34 -57%
34 to 35 -146%"

Which one does he more accurately fit into?

His expected results this upcoming season would be for the 33-34 since he was 32 last season and will be 33 this season. See how that works?

The chart shows the expected drop from one season to the next, based on their age during the season. Last season he was 32. This season he will be 33. So the expected change from last season to this season would be -35% (because he is going from "32 to 33"). I'm not sure how else to articulate it. Feel free to contact any of the Wages of Wins contributors if you don't believe me: http://wagesofwins.com/about/

[charley barkles]

You guys should go grab a beer!

[NavLDO]

His expected results this upcoming season would be for the 32-33 since he was 32 last season and will be 33 this season.

I was talking Wins Produced which avoids some of the issues with WS: http://wagesofwins.com/how-to-calculate-wins-produced/

"31 to 32 -22%
32 to 33 -35%
33 to 34 -57%
34 to 35 -146%"

Which one does he more accurately fit into?

His expected results this upcoming season would be for the 33-34 since he was 32 last season and will be 33 this season. See how that works?

The chart shows the expected drop from one season to the next, based on their age during the season. Last season he was 32. This season he will be 33. So the expected change from last season to this season would be -35% (because he is going from "32 to 33"). I'm not sure how else to articulate it. Feel free to contact any of the Wages of Wins contributors if you don't believe me: http://wagesofwins.com/about/

OK, sure, so when a player turns 33 in January, do they all of a sudden jump from a 22% drop to 35% drop off? Does it really matter? No, not really. He still didn't 'fall off a cliff' at age 32, as this site says he was supposed to. You still have yet to answer why the site says:

"Players peak around 25. Up until they’re around thirty their decline is slow. Once they hit thirty-two though their degradation is very swift."

Yet last year was arguably his best season as a pro! It rivaled his age 25 season, when he was supposed to have peaked in his '07-'08 season, yet that season, his WP48 was .240--since that season, he's had 4 seasons with a higher WP48, and 3 seasons with a lower WP48. But some how, you surmise, based on WP48 stats, that Chandler is surely going to decline, based on a cherry-picked range from 33-35, because the stats show this. Forget the fact that Chandler's already debunked that as an 'outlier' based on the fact that his age 32 season, his WP48 was supposed to drop 22%, yet it increased by 32%.

And he might still drop 35% this season, and guess what--he'll have, like you mentioned, .220 WP48, which is still more than double the average NBA player of .100, so no, it won't be a "somewhat disappointing" WP48, as you seem to believe.

[Qwigglez]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP97tNPTVjk[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnnjZncU_ic[/youtube]

Just so you guys see what Tyson brings to the team. Good PnR player. A couple highlight reel plays a game. Super high FG%. I think he can teach a lot to Len which is invaluable.